To be fair, the dwarfs were somewhat lacking in the beasts department even for whfb. I always expected them to have some sort of golem or underground beasties to kill things with, as well as having weird and wonderful contraptions. I quite welcome these salamander beasties.
These look horribly cheap. No idea who chose to forgo the illusion of hair and just modelled rubber 10cm wide straps on their heads just to keep it simpler to cast. And what is going on with those typical simple to cast cutt offs at the dragon heads and low detail flames of their weapons.
Why are these horrors 4x as expensive as their competitors :\
Bottle wrote: I think even with the increased prices it still works out a lot cheaper than WHFB. Our regular Dark Elf player used to run a horde of Witch Elves even in 1250pt games - which was £140 in a single regiment, plus all the other stuff in his army.
AoS armies are much smaller than WHFB armies from experience which still makes the game on the whole cheaper than 8th. Plus no need to buy books if you don't want to.
O
I want to know if these shields can be modeled in a front facing pose, they look dumb with them waving about in the air lol.
Ugh, wow... Now let's imagine for a minute what the comments would be if Mantic released those models... The detail on the right arms and legs is just wrong. Looks like everything that can go wrong with trying to render organic shapes in HIPS. Maybe it's the paint jobs, but regardless, the poses are rediculous. Little jewel-like wonders, these most certainly are not!
I think the flame lizards look neat and I think the slayers look good as long as they're holding two-handed weapons. The guys with an axe and shield have really awful poses.
The slayers don't look too bad, but the hearth guard are a bit meh.I hope those giant lumps of rock aren't a part of the model (though it feels a lot like they are!)
It’s easier (and cheaper) to sculpt and paint the detail on a larger model.
They will look more impressive on the tabletop, which is a good point when you are building a small army.
It helps justify the high price.
It makes the old WHFB figures semi-incompatible.
Material cost increase is trivial in plastic.
Why monopose?
It’s easier and cheaper to sculpt and mould a figure with fewer parts.
They are easier to assemble, which is a good point when you are building a large army.
The downside: If you are building a small skirmish game force, you want more variety in the individual figures.
GW's strategy is to drive down costs and drive up prices, and they have done very well. Over the past five years they have got their Cost of Goods down from average 25% to average 20%. This has given a massive boost to profitability. This strategy has to be enhanced for AoS because GW expect to sell fewer books and kits per customer compared to WHFB.
Whether this affects the customer's quality experience is a matter for everyone to consider and make their own purchase decisions.
I love them, when I saw these leaked pictures I karate kicked off whatever bs conversion project that was on my workshop desk, needed room for the 30 or so new slayers i'm getting! Can't wait to get my hands on the sprues, looks like lots of good dragon and fire iconography bits to spice up some of my older dwarfs.
I hate them. As long as they took to come out with plastic Slayers, and this is the end result? I don't believe they could have been screwed up any worse.
I am on the Nope train to Nopeville.
Scale creep - the models look to be the same size as the 8th edition WHFB models (see my comparison in size of Grimm Burloksson vs 7th edition models), the 8th edition dwarfs look fine - these will also look fine along your existing collection.
Monopose - look at the wide frame shots, there are shields in much better poses (to the front/side of the dwarfs, not up in the air).
Yeah, those black haired dwarfs have terrible poses and goofy paint jobs. We've got tons of other leaked images with good poses and awesome paint jobs too though.
Scale creep - the models look to be the same size as the 8th edition WHFB models (see my comparison in size of Grimm Burloksson vs 7th edition models), the 8th edition dwarfs look fine - these will also look fine along your existing collection.
Monopose - look at the wide frame shots, there are shields in much better poses (to the front/side of the dwarfs, not up in the air).
Yeah, those black haired dwarfs have terrible poses and goofy paint jobs. We've got tons of other leaked images with good poses and awesome paint jobs too though.
I think your confused on what they mean by scale creep, not on an individual model basis, but the average size of the models they are releasing.
EX: Archaeon from 8th to AoS Negash from 4th to End of the OldWorld.
Or a more bland example. Empire Lord on a Griffon 5th , to the one that game out in 8th
They have been making bigger and bigger models just like the poster a few back said, and for all his reason. They make more money and G fanatics will buy it no matter what. So they make more money.
I for one have jumped train for these very scale reasons. If i was trying to get into this game like i did in high school, I just couldn't it's priced out of my range. (Hell almost out of my range today) Back in high school I build my unit of 20 Woodelf Spearmen piece by piece by buying 2 model blisters when I could afford them. I put what models I had on a cardboard movement tray that was the size of 20, and play a freaking amazing game with a great ruleset. Now they put out a ruleset that I could have done a better job (And did a few years before with my legowars game) and started releasing models like 3 chaos knights for $100. Are you kidding me, how is someone suppose to get into this hobby now a days.
...truly atrocious looking models... the sculpting...is so bad looking... the poses are a throwback to the bad parts of very retro plastic models... the paint job is just bizarre.
...but I think I'll pick up a box or two...
You are truly the customer that GW deserves, not the customer GW needs
The dorfs are nice, if a bit big. The Salamander was predictable, in that GW loves making big, expensive plastic kits these days. IMO, the two kits they put out the last time the Dwarfs got an update--Ironbreakers/Irondrakes and Hammerers/Longbeards--are actually better.
Leave out the personals and selective quoting please
The first part of my post was relating specifically to the shield guys which have been well documented as looking pretty sub-par. The second part of what I wrote was relating to the rest of the army so yes, despite taking issue with some things, I think I will pick up a few boxes of the other slayer models.
saxx wrote:I love them, when I saw these leaked pictures I karate kicked off whatever bs conversion project that was on my workshop desk, needed room for the 30 or so new slayers i'm getting! Can't wait to get my hands on the sprues, looks like lots of good dragon and fire iconography bits to spice up some of my older dwarfs.
Yeah I think they will be great from a conversion point of view. I'd be more thinking of mixing and matching with some of the current dwarf weaponry to tone them down a bit but good potential for conversions now
The monopose I can live with it is the obvious choice to cheap out on sprue and design cost that bother me. Its a step back in time and quality. They used to do all kinds of smart tricks to try to hide and minimalise it, but not on these models.
Lets back this up with examples behind a spoiler for those who don't see it.
Spoiler:
These used to be the old Ork boar riders
Look at the heads of those beasts. They it clearly shows the difficulty of keeping levels of details up on the sides while having to deal with depth.
Now look at the newer version.
They fixed it by cutting the head in more pieces and trying to design as much as possible around the disadvantages of using these kind op plastic casting methods.
Other traditional fixes where to cast these hard to design/cast parts in metal.
The hair of the slayers is just one of these harder to cast things in plastic
Metal doesn't suffer as much from it
But plastic does they tried to fix it somewhat in their plastic dwarf slayer model
it just costs a more sprue to do it right
I
Now they just gave up and went the ugly simple way. This bothers me since they do price them as premium products.
While the hair on the character sprue does look a bit better than on the infantry, the problem with the hair and flames isn't the plastic's fault, it's the design's fault. Ever since GW switched to 3D rendering in place of traditional sculpting their models have been off-puttingly blocky. One need only look to the plastic Dwarf Warriors to see that hair can be much more detailed than what we're getting now.
It is supposed to be hair. I thought it would be much cooler and more fluffy as a fire burning in the top of the helmet. The FyreSlayers carrying the sacred flames of Grimnir into the heart of battle. They could have a head butt attack that gives a Mortal Wound.
judgedoug wrote: WHITE DWARF WEEKLY 103 (ENGLISH) 4
FYRESLAYERS AURIC RUNEMASTER plastic clamshell 30
FYRESLAYERS VULKITE BERZERKERS plastic box 60
FYRESLAYERS HEARTHGUARD plastic box 40
THE BEAST ARISES: PREDATOR/PREY (HB) 2ND BOOK IN SERIES HARD BACK 40K NOVEL 17.5
RGW: THE BRIDGE OF SEVEN SORROWS AUDIOBK 4TH IN SERIES AoS Audio Book 17.5
Dollar prices? How many models are in the Fyre Slayer boxes?
While the slayers might be considered sexualized due to their nakedness, they aren't objectified. And perhaps more importantly; the clothing of these dwarves are the outlier when it comes to male miniatures, not the norm.
While the slayers might be considered sexualized due to their nakedness, they aren't objectified. And perhaps more importantly; the clothing of these dwarves are the outlier when it comes to male miniatures, not the norm.
He is an idiot and talking about a mental state not a physical state. Sex, sexual ising and such is mental not physical.
If you see a child or a man dressed in a mini skirt it does not give you a second thought. But if it is someone you find sexy it is sexual.
It reminds me of a case I seen on tv about a child rapist he said the 6 year old girl was intising him and being over sexual. If you see two women in bikini's pushing each other as sexual thats a you thing not a culture thing.
I grew up around all girls and do not find girls in bikinis fighting or skirts as sexual. If you do and see it as making them over sexual that just speaks of your mind seeing women as only things to be lusted after. In short don't make a you mental state a everyone problem.
Oh dear God they look terrible I'd much rather the early 90s metals thank you very much. Thankfully there are alternatives these days that don't demand the quite frankly ridiculous price mark up of GW.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Those Salamanders would be interesting to use as indigenous creatures that live on the Space marine Chapter Salamanders planet.
Chapter master on (Bike) Salamander?
Do we know what base they are on/overall size?
Probably too big for a bike. Might work as a counts-as Imperial Knight, or an ironclad dread (or another type)
I’ve been on the fence for a while about picking up some dwarves just for use in RPG games. These guys are a little to specialized. I hope GW doesn’t drop the old boxes for these.
hungryp wrote: While the hair on the character sprue does look a bit better than on the infantry, the problem with the hair and flames isn't the plastic's fault, it's the design's fault. Ever since GW switched to 3D rendering in place of traditional sculpting their models have been off-puttingly blocky. One need only look to the plastic Dwarf Warriors to see that hair can be much more detailed than what we're getting now.
Na not at all Gw can still make non blocky models with their software they just need to allocate enough sprue space for it.
I love their Dark eldar Range it truly shows their mastery over casting with plastic sprues
OgreChubbs wrote: Why is no one complaining about the over sexual male models?
One female model wears a boob guard 900 topics 5 army releases with naked buff men, not a single comment lol. People wonder why no one cares.
Ugh. Nothing derails a thread worse than fourth-wave feminism. It's practically ruined the video game community. Why poke the bear? Let's just agree that we have the agency in our own lives to decide for ourselves what is and isn't acceptable, and evangelism (on either side) of this sort is off topic.
Somthing else how big would those monster heads be.
Would they fit on a skarbrand model, in oder to create one big ( and sadly expensive) blood letter ?
Wow, seeing the more detailed images on a proper screen rather than my phone absolutely destroyed these for me. Now I fear when we get a better look at the salamander. Perhaps if we all keep our eyes at least 5ft away from the models at all times they will look good!
Seem very Magic the gathering to me, in the sense they have a tendency to just stick things into fantasy tropes and try and make it stick just so its different because of the sheer amount of fantasy races they have redone over the years. Not a fan of the helms/hair in particular, just looks odd.
No danger of me relenting and jumping back into AoS for these, but will continue to wait and see what else comes our way, mainly waiting for Aelf stuff at this point.
highlord tamburlaine wrote: How come the firestick dwarfs are only 500 yen? Why does everyone else have to pay WAY more money? What makes Japan so special in this case?
Seriously, all you Japanese Dakka people. Go buy up all those shooty spear dwarfs since they're so cheap! Corner the market!
I'm gonna say it's a typo.
"Hey. You put a one and two zeros in front of that or we pass. Deal."
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: Seem very Magic the gathering to me, in the sense they have a tendency to just stick things into fantasy tropes and try and make it stick just so its different because of the sheer amount of fantasy races they have redone over the years. Not a fan of the helms/hair in particular, just looks odd.
No danger of me relenting and jumping back into AoS for these, but will continue to wait and see what else comes our way, mainly waiting for Aelf stuff at this point.
I am patiently waiting for the Elf releases to see if there's any massive dragon I can use for Indraugnir.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: Seem very Magic the gathering to me, in the sense they have a tendency to just stick things into fantasy tropes and try and make it stick just so its different because of the sheer amount of fantasy races they have redone over the years. Not a fan of the helms/hair in particular, just looks odd.
Was thinking about those new helmets and whether they could just be left off the model? I noticed in the sprues for the standard bearer from the first photo that leaked a few weeks ago that the helmet and head are separate parts. If this is the case for the rest of the models then there is more scope to just leave the helmets off the model! Thinking how I could combine these to go well with some of the plastic mohawks from the Avatar of War kit!
That helm hair combo has been around since the original Ungrim sculpt, which must be getting on to 20 years old at this point.
That doesn't make the infantry better...there's just a legitimate warhammer heritage their, whatever that's worth.
This is the first time I can remember hobby level paint jobs being the biggest, clearest leaked pictures we've had.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I kinda wonder if we'd be going "OMG! That's so dumb!" if their hair was fire.
I wouldn't be. That seems less silly than...armoured toupees?
Ungrim was a neat model, applying one feature of one character model across a whole army...
H.B.M.C. wrote: I kinda wonder if we'd be going "OMG! That's so dumb!" if their hair was fire.
I wouldn't be. That seems less silly than...armoured toupees?
Ungrim was a neat model, applying one feature of one character model across a whole army...
I was actually expecting Slayers being literally on fire, with fiery hair and flames trailing from their weapons, etc etc.
Don't see how the helmets are such a deal breaker. Just pretend it's a horse hair plume. Or just remember that slayers have always had over the top mohawks.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I kinda wonder if we'd be going "OMG! That's so dumb!" if their hair was fire.
I, for one, was sort of hoping that GW would go in a legitimately new direction with these guys. While I fully admit I am not a fan of what GW did to WFB in AoS, the one upside to the debacle was the possibility that we would see them make some bold new moves with their existing IP. What we have here instead are basically slayers with more ornament and dragon analogs, re-branded under a new IP defensible name. I think it's a boring waste of opportunity.
I'll admit though that I am not well traveled in the broader realms of fantasy gaming and fiction, so "fire beards" would likely have been more original to me than to others.
Well those are some perfectly ghastly Slayers. The old metal models are still among my favorite minis of all time, and the plastic character they did a few years back was a wonderfully animated and dynamic sculpt that felt appropriate for the fighting style of the Slayer. These, not so much. Also, bloody grim and joyless, just like everything else in the Age of Sigmar. There's no more room for a clockwork axe-flinger, it seems.
This picture is quite revealing of how cool these are, they are smaller than the chaos fellas, the legs are well detailed, the poses are diverse so yes its a huge hit in my book!
My approach to it would be get one of each kit and bulk up more with avatars of war slayers for cool factor.
Doesnt make sense, the men have nipple covers, you can remove them and be fine. But hell if your fighting for your life wear what ever you want or be nude who cares lol. Also why did they put more definition on the men nude then the women? I see some sexist action there saying men dressed like women should have more projecting muscles.
Really?... lets ignore the fact the women look like their in an action aggressive don't mess with me pose the men look submissive. I'm a huge comics fan.. and honestly the way comics have been messed with is just tragic. It's not the same context don't pretend it is. and nice promoting the 3rd wave feminist theme... so when do i get put into a man camp?
if you don't like the hobby don't come into it then change it just so it wont offend you just in case you might see it occasionally.
The Hawkeye Initiative began as a legitimate exercise to illustrate how silly some of the female poses in comics were - specifically the half turned poses that emphasized the booty and the chest - but now it appears to have become some borderline transvestite fetish porn masquerading as feminism. I wouldn't use that site as a standard of anything but the bad taste of whomever linked to it.
Don't really see a problem with THI... It does help to illustrate the unchecked sexism going on in comics. I especially love the classic "breaking my spine just so you can ogle my chest and rear at the same time" pose.
The Hawkeye Initiative began as a legitimate exercise to illustrate how silly some of the female poses in comics were - specifically the half turned poses that emphasized the booty and the chest - but now it appears to have become some borderline transvestite fetish porn masquerading as feminism. I wouldn't use that site as a standard of anything but the bad taste of whomever linked to it.
Okay i'll give you some female poses in comics were / are silly but its stylized art. I mean look at Picasso or anime its not meant to be real. Comics during the late 90s early 2000s were doing very well we had stuff like battle chasers, crimson and Fathom that did very well. Comics now well if its not real its not good..( or it has to check every diversity box out there ) its not supposed to be real its supposed to be an escape... both DC and Marvel have had to reboot many times recently to sure up sales... and while i love 90s x men and Harley Quinn you know its really not what it was.
but that's not the point
those dwarves are ridiculously naked... and if it was a single female dwarf people would be going bajonkers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: Don't really see a problem with THI... It does help to illustrate the unchecked sexism going on in comics. I especially love the classic "breaking my spine just so you can ogle my chest and rear at the same time" pose.
It honestly depends on how its handled.. if you allow covers to be censored like the batgirl one then its stupid.
im not auguring the spiderwoman cover wasn't silly. it was but it should stil be available to those who want that myself included
Firstly, they suffer from detail overload like most GW models these days. I'm not really opposed to hair helmets but I'm not a huge fan of the oversized roman style helmets which even without the plumage are larger than the model's torso.
Secondly, the poses, the ones with with 2 handed weapons don't look aggressive enough and the ones flailing their arms, the torso/legs are too relaxed compared to the arms so it just looks like a baby flailing its arms around wildly rather than a warrior.
Thirdly, the musculature looks off. Some of them look to have random weird additional chunks of plastic on their legs. The area around the lats looks weird on a lot of them, especially for models that look to be monopose this shouldn't be a problem area. I think GW did better with the Savage Orcs as far as musculature goes.
Mymearan wrote: Don't really see a problem with THI... It does help to illustrate the unchecked sexism going on in comics. I especially love the classic "breaking my spine just so you can ogle my chest and rear at the same time" pose.
There's no "unchecked sexism" going on in comics, unless you are one of those people who believe any display of sexiness is a form of oppression, in which case... well, let's just agree to disagree.
I like the mostly naked Dwarves. Isn't the whole slayer mythology that they are disgraced Dwarves who can only redeem themselves through a glorious death? Doesn't get much more glorious than a dude in a loin cloth swinging around axe-flails, riding on the back of a fire dinosaur. Plus, they'll be super quick to paint. Base coat of naked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
migooo wrote: Okay i'll give you some female poses in comics were / are silly but its stylized art.
I'm not saying I agree with the Hawkeye Initiative, just that in its original incarnation, it has some semblance of respectability to it. It was misguided and wrong, but it wasn't gleefully wallowing in transvestite fetish porn.
those dwarves are ridiculously naked... and if it was a single female dwarf people would be going bajonkers.
A group of angry and offended people? In an Age of Sigmar forum? Well, I never...
Mymearan wrote: Don't really see a problem with THI... It does help to illustrate the unchecked sexism going on in comics. I especially love the classic "breaking my spine just so you can ogle my chest and rear at the same time" pose.
There's no "unchecked sexism" going on in comics, unless you are one of those people who believe any display of sexiness is a form of oppression, in which case... well, let's just agree to disagree.
I like the mostly naked Dwarves. Isn't the whole slayer mythology that they are disgraced Dwarves who can only redeem themselves through a glorious death? Doesn't get much more glorious than a dude in a loin cloth swinging around axe-flails, riding on the back of a fire dinosaur. Plus, they'll be super quick to paint. Base coat of naked.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
migooo wrote: Okay i'll give you some female poses in comics were / are silly but its stylized art.
I'm not saying I agree with the Hawkeye Initiative, just that in its original incarnation, it has some semblance of respectability to it. It was misguided and wrong, but it wasn't gleefully wallowing in transvestite fetish porn.
those dwarves are ridiculously naked... and if it was a single female dwarf people would be going bajonkers.
A group of angry and offended people? In an Age of Sigmar forum? Well, I never...
well my dear sir have an exalt out of respect and admiration
I was really excited for some actually flaming Slayers. I might pick up a salamander but I need to see the infantry kits in more detail before I decide whether to pick them up. Hopefully some of the talented Dakka painters post their work with them pretty quick!
Sqorgar wrote: -nonsense snip-
I like the mostly naked Dwarves. Isn't the whole slayer mythology that they are disgraced Dwarves who can only redeem themselves through a glorious death? -nonsense snip-
No. Now they're "Ur-Gold" obsessed mercenaries who'll fight for anyone, even Chaos apparently.
Just forge your own narrative. Nothing is stopping them from being confused historical re-enactors, tricked out of their clothes by the traveling Gnome bard, Jeremiah Fiddlesticks. Furious, and slathered in vaseline to protect them from the heat, they roam the stars slaughtering those who suggest that maybe they should cut down on all the pies.
Wondering if this release will be as extensive as the Sigmarite/Bloodborn?
Sqorgar wrote: -nonsense snip-
I like the mostly naked Dwarves. Isn't the whole slayer mythology that they are disgraced Dwarves who can only redeem themselves through a glorious death? -nonsense snip-
No. Now they're "Ur-Gold" obsessed mercenaries who'll fight for anyone, even Chaos apparently.
Yay! Age of Sigmar!
From the snippets so far, Ur-Gold is supposedly the remnants of the shattered forma of Grimnir and Vulcatrix, and the 'slayers use it to paint tattoos on themselves to gain power.
So the accumulation of Ur-Gold is more of a cultural/religious observance than homicidal capitalism.
Na not at all Gw can still make non blocky models with their software they just need to allocate enough sprue space for it.
I love their Dark eldar Range it truly shows their mastery over casting with plastic sprues
Not saying they can't get anything right, those are some nice models, but the fabric areas suffer a fairly typical lack of detail not seen in most traditionally sculpted models. The Archon's cloak is a particularly horrific example of this.
After a loooong wait they finally make new slayers. They're nice enough - but I'm not a fan of the helmet plumes either :/ - I think the people who bought the AoW beserkers years ago (like me!) came out ahead on this one. (And I shudder to think at how much these will cost compared to AoW's set).
And slayers riding giant lizards? I weep for Warhammer now. I am reading 'The Doom of Dragonback keep" atm - and it is the last Warhammer fantasy book I have to read.* It makes me sad. I really liked the world that the blew up.
**(There are plenty of others - but everything old is super out of print and hard to find at a reasonable price)
Sqorgar wrote: -nonsense snip-
I like the mostly naked Dwarves. Isn't the whole slayer mythology that they are disgraced Dwarves who can only redeem themselves through a glorious death? -nonsense snip-
No. Now they're "Ur-Gold" obsessed mercenaries who'll fight for anyone, even Chaos apparently.
Yay! Age of Sigmar!
From the snippets so far, Ur-Gold is supposedly the remnants of the shattered forma of Grimnir and Vulcatrix, and the 'slayers use it to paint tattoos on themselves to gain power.
So the accumulation of Ur-Gold is more of a cultural/religious observance than homicidal capitalism.
Which doesn't change the fact that the Slayers have gone from really interesting and complex characters, both on an individual and group level, to just more gold-obsessed dwarfs("because it's bits of a god" is, functionally, no different to "because it's gold and they're dwarfs", the result is the same - EDIT; In fact, it's worse, because they've taken a flaw and tried to make it a virtue, or at least a flaw you can excuse and so don't really have to think about), and in some ways are now the exact opposite of what they were. Also who or what the feth is a "Vulcatrix" when it's at home? I think I might just leave off this thread in future, AoS evidently isn't aimed at me, the models are no use to me, and I'm not going to persuade folk who like or don't care about the abysmal fluff to change their minds and stop liking what I don't like. You chaps can enjoy yourselves and I can lower my blood pressure a bit; win-win.
EDIT: Schmapdi, head for Amazon. If you're patient, you can usually find secondhand Warhammer Fantasy novels with Very Good or Near Mint conditions for anywhere from a couple of quid down to actual pennies.
Those are really terrible sculpts. Here are the reasons I don't like them:
1) Loin clothes are too long. This gives them same visual outline as a tree trunk.
2) GW sacrificed decent poses for a multi-kit. So you get shields on arms that are raised to wield a second axe for the other build.
3)Hyper-bling. I dislike this about all of the AOS releases. GW feels the need to turn every single item of clothing and weaponry into some ornate item from a women's fashion catalog. The Chaos Warrior guys from the starter have head-dresses that would make a Brazilian Carnival diva jealous. The dwarves have anklets. Their "blunderbusses" are straight from some cheap MMO art book.
4)Weird knees. Bare legs are hard to do in plastic because of how the masses lay on the leg, but I think the legs and knees are a real letdown.
5)Ultra-mohawks. Look at how long the hair has to be on these guys! It would come down to their toes. It is just another visual element that doesn't look right, and further evidence of GW's design philosophy of "If a little is good, more must be better!"
Vulcatrix, mother of salamanders, the big bad of Aqshy while Sigmar was clearing out the realms. Grimnir owed Sigmar a debt, so was tasked with killing her.
The ensuing battle flattened a mountain range and resulted in mutual destruction of both God and beast, and the shards of their physical forms scattered across the realms as Ur-Gold.
I get that the fluff for AoS may not be to everyone's tastes, but bloody hell does it annoy me when people slate it when they patently haven't read even the basic stuff.
RoperPG wrote: Vulcatrix, mother of salamanders, the big bad of Aqshy while Sigmar was clearing out the realms. Grimnir owed Sigmar a debt, so was tasked with killing her.
The ensuing battle flattened a mountain range and resulted in mutual destruction of both God and beast, and the shards of their physical forms scattered across the realms as Ur-Gold.
I get that the fluff for AoS may not be to everyone's tastes, but bloody hell does it annoy me when people slate it when they patently haven't read even the basic stuff.
I think it more a comment on the rubbish name, which to me sounds like a terrible mashup of Pokemon and Asterix IP.
RoperPG wrote: Vulcatrix, mother of salamanders, the big bad of Aqshy while Sigmar was clearing out the realms. Grimnir owed Sigmar a debt, so was tasked with killing her.
The ensuing battle flattened a mountain range and resulted in mutual destruction of both God and beast, and the shards of their physical forms scattered across the realms as Ur-Gold.
I get that the fluff for AoS may not be to everyone's tastes, but bloody hell does it annoy me when people slate it when they patently haven't read even the basic stuff.
I think it more a comment on the rubbish name, which to me sounds like a terrible mashup of Pokemon and Asterix IP.
All I can picture is this guy.
Patently a ridiculous extrapolation. That thing doesn't have Trojan helmet on for a start. Although it is ginger and naked...
RoperPG wrote: Vulcatrix, mother of salamanders, the big bad of Aqshy while Sigmar was clearing out the realms. Grimnir owed Sigmar a debt, so was tasked with killing her.
The ensuing battle flattened a mountain range and resulted in mutual destruction of both God and beast, and the shards of their physical forms scattered across the realms as Ur-Gold.
I get that the fluff for AoS may not be to everyone's tastes, but bloody hell does it annoy me when people slate it when they patently haven't read even the basic stuff.
I think it more a comment on the rubbish name, which to me sounds like a terrible mashup of Pokemon and Asterix IP.
It feels like there are a lot of people here hating on this stuff *just* for the joy in mutual commiseration because it's AoS and/or because it's GW.
Personally I think AoS is rad, and a super fun game.
These Duardin are hardcore badass. The plumes are ridiculous and awesome in a way the oldhammer Slayer's clumpy, ugly mohawks could only ever dream of being. The big salamander beasts are fierce as hell looking.
And Vulcatrix is a fine name, even if it does sound a little like Pokemon. News flash: Pokemon is/was awesome and beloved by quite a large number of people... it's really not the worst thing in the world to be compared to, overall.
Pugnacious_Cee wrote: It feels like there are a lot of people here hating on this stuff *just* for the joy in mutual commiseration because it's AoS and/or because it's GW.
Personally I think AoS is rad, and a super fun game.
These Duardin are hardcore badass. The plumes are ridiculous and awesome in a way the oldhammer Slayer's clumpy, ugly mohawks could only ever dream of being. The big salamander beasts are fierce as hell looking.
And Vulcatrix is a fine name, even if it does sound a little like Pokemon. News flash: Pokemon is/was awesome and beloved by quite a large number of people... it's really not the worst thing in the world to be compared to, overall.
Pugnacious_Cee wrote: It feels like there are a lot of people here hating on this stuff *just* for the joy in mutual commiseration because it's AoS and/or because it's GW.
Personally I think AoS is rad, and a super fun game.
These Duardin are hardcore badass. The plumes are ridiculous and awesome in a way the oldhammer Slayer's clumpy, ugly mohawks could only ever dream of being. The big salamander beasts are fierce as hell looking.
And Vulcatrix is a fine name, even if it does sound a little like Pokemon. News flash: Pokemon is/was awesome and beloved by quite a large number of people... it's really not the worst thing in the world to be compared to, overall.
Pugnacious_Cee wrote: It feels like there are a lot of people here hating on this stuff *just* for the joy in mutual commiseration because it's AoS and/or because it's GW.
Personally I think AoS is rad, and a super fun game.
These Duardin are hardcore badass. The plumes are ridiculous and awesome in a way the oldhammer Slayer's clumpy, ugly mohawks could only ever dream of being. The big salamander beasts are fierce as hell looking.
And Vulcatrix is a fine name, even if it does sound a little like Pokemon. News flash: Pokemon is/was awesome and beloved by quite a large number of people... it's really not the worst thing in the world to be compared to, overall.
Well Pokemon does seem to target the same audience AoS is gunning for
As for the "Amagad haters are hating" - I think it's called erm... what's it called... having your own opinion?
I've never really been a fan of dwarves, but I'm tempted by the salamander. It's a shame about the prices though, I feel that they would have had a much better reception if they were more in line with current range instead of doubling the price.
Well Pokemon does seem to target the same audience AoS is gunning for
AoS is more based on mythology - specifically Roman and Greek mythology. In fact, the name Vulcatrix is a reference to Vulcan, the Roman god of fire (and where volcanoes get their names), and the -trix suffix, which is a Latin suffix used to feminize masculine nouns, like dominatrix or aviatrix. So Vulcatrix could literally be read as the female god of fire, which... HOLY gak! It all makes sense now!
(Yes, I took Latin in high school, and this is literally the only time it has come up since.)
Vulpix is a portmanteau of Vulcan (fire) and Vulpes (fox), with the 'x' sound at the end from Fox. It's actually kind of witty.
EDIT: The Pokemon wiki says that Vulpix is a combination of Vulpes (again, Latin for fox) and Six (the number of tails it has). So it's just a happy coincidence that Vulcan and Vulpes are similar words and that the Vulpix is literally a fire fox.
As for the "Amagad haters are hating" - I think it's called erm... what's it called... having your own opinion?
You're opinion on AoS has been well documented. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Well Pokemon does seem to target the same audience AoS is gunning for
AoS is more based on mythology - specifically Roman and Greek mythology. In fact, the name Vulcatrix is a reference to Vulcan, the Roman god of fire (and where volcanoes get their names), and the -trix suffix, which is a Latin suffix used to feminize masculine nouns, like dominatrix or aviatrix. So Vulcatrix could literally be read as the female god of fire, which... HOLY gak! It all makes sense now!
(Yes, I took Latin in high school, and this is literally the only time it has come up since.)
Vulpix is a portmanteau of Vulcan (fire) and Vulpes (fox), with the 'x' sound at the end from Fox. It's actually kind of witty.
EDIT: The Pokemon wiki says that Vulpix is a combination of Vulpes (again, Latin for fox) and Six (the number of tails it has). So it's just a happy coincidence that Vulcan and Vulpes are similar words and that the Vulpix is literally a fire fox.
Look at him go and completely miss the point, as usual. Wheeee!
AoS is more based on mythology - specifically Roman and Greek mythology. In fact, the name Vulcatrix is a reference to Vulcan, the Roman god of fire (and where volcanoes get their names), and the -trix suffix, which is a Latin suffix used to feminize masculine nouns, like dominatrix or aviatrix. So Vulcatrix could literally be read as the female god of fire, which... HOLY gak! It all makes sense now!
(Yes, I took Latin in high school, and this is literally the only time it has come up since.)
Vulpix is a portmanteau of Vulcan (fire) and Vulpes (fox), with the 'x' sound at the end from Fox. It's actually kind of witty.
EDIT: The Pokemon wiki says that Vulpix is a combination of Vulpes (again, Latin for fox) and Six (the number of tails it has). So it's just a happy coincidence that Vulcan and Vulpes are similar words and that the Vulpix is literally a fire fox.
I think you're rather missing the thrust of Mr. Stormcrow's point there...
It's not that AoS is based *on* Pokemon. Clearly AoS, like all of GW's properties (and to be fair this is true of just about any gaming property -nihil novus sub solum after all!), is deeply derivative of other Fantasy sources. Rather, it's that AoS seems to be written with the same type of target audience in mind.
Don't get me wrong, my 9 year-old son LOVES Pokemon and can rattle off every evolution, how much power a given attack takes, etc, etc... And for him, as a 9 year-old boy, it's a fun game he likes to play/collect with his friends. But at least the TCG version is written for a very specific audience. Within in the TCG market. Pokemon is not really competing with MTG or, say, Netrunner. It's deliberately simpler. It's deliberately, to use the term in a non-pejorative way, more juvenile.
AoS is, similarly, deliberately simplier and, I'd argue deliberately more juvenile in its focus, than WHFB was.
My 9 year-old loves Pokemon. That doesn't make it a good game for someone looking for something with more meat/complexity/depth/you name it. To many of AoS's critics, it suffers the same problem. In my mind, it's sugar-coated breakfast cereal for gamers. Sure you can get something of a sugar rush from eating it, but in the end it's just empty calories with no real redeeming nutriative values.
That's not hating AoS per se. It's just acknowledging that AoS is a game that's very much targeted at a specific age/development stage of gamer and if you're not of that target stage it offers very little beyond being something GW created.
Actually, it's aimed at older gamers who have a family and don't have time to learn complicated rulesets... I'm not white knighting, just acknowledging.
AoS is more based on mythology - specifically Roman and Greek mythology. In fact, the name Vulcatrix is a reference to Vulcan, the Roman god of fire (and where volcanoes get their names), and the -trix suffix, which is a Latin suffix used to feminize masculine nouns, like dominatrix or aviatrix. So Vulcatrix could literally be read as the female god of fire, which... HOLY gak! It all makes sense now!
(Yes, I took Latin in high school, and this is literally the only time it has come up since.)
Vulpix is a portmanteau of Vulcan (fire) and Vulpes (fox), with the 'x' sound at the end from Fox. It's actually kind of witty.
EDIT: The Pokemon wiki says that Vulpix is a combination of Vulpes (again, Latin for fox) and Six (the number of tails it has). So it's just a happy coincidence that Vulcan and Vulpes are similar words and that the Vulpix is literally a fire fox.
I think you're rather missing the thrust of Mr. Stormcrow's point there...
It's not that AoS is based *on* Pokemon. Clearly AoS, like all of GW's properties (and to be fair this is true of just about any gaming property -nihil novus sub solum after all!), is deeply derivative of other Fantasy sources. Rather, it's that AoS seems to be written with the same type of target audience in mind.
Don't get me wrong, my 9 year-old son LOVES Pokemon and can rattle off every evolution, how much power a given attack takes, etc, etc... And for him, as a 9 year-old boy, it's a fun game he likes to play/collect with his friends. But at least the TCG version is written for a very specific audience. Within in the TCG market. Pokemon is not really competing with MTG or, say, Netrunner. It's deliberately simpler. It's deliberately, to use the term in a non-pejorative way, more juvenile.
AoS is, similarly, deliberately simplier and, I'd argue deliberately more juvenile in its focus, than WHFB was.
My 9 year-old loves Pokemon. That doesn't make it a good game for someone looking for something with more meat/complexity/depth/you name it. To many of AoS's critics, it suffers the same problem. In my mind, it's sugar-coated breakfast cereal for gamers. Sure you can get something of a sugar rush from eating it, but in the end it's just empty calories with no real redeeming nutriative values.
That's not hating AoS per se. It's just acknowledging that AoS is a game that's very much targeted at a specific age/development stage of gamer and if you're not of that target stage it offers very little beyond being something GW created.
Valete,
JohnS
Seems like someone knows how to add 1+1 around here after all
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: Actually, it's aimed at older gamers who have a family and don't have time to learn complicated rulesets... I'm not white knighting, just acknowledging.
A defense can be made for that, yes.
Out of curiosity do we have any official statement from GW as to what their target audience for AoS is?
Manchu wrote: NOTE: This thread is for discussing new AoS releases. It is not for discussing AoS or GW generally. Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic.
If you want to discuss the merits/faults of the game, please do so in the appropriate sub-forum. This thread is for discussion of news and rumors. Further off-topic comments will be deleted with warnings/suspensions applied. Thanks.
i am not sold on the salamanders. They look weird to me, their back fire? Spikes? They look like a plastic card or something home made. Be better if they had a naked back used as a digger like a mole or something. Wieird limbs do not help under ground.
Manchu wrote: NOTE: This thread is for discussing new AoS releases. It is not for discussing AoS or GW generally. Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic.
If you want to discuss the merits/faults of the game, please do so in the appropriate sub-forum. This thread is for discussion of news and rumors. Further off-topic comments will be deleted with warnings/suspensions applied. Thanks.
I think my biggest beef with these guys is that they look like an entire unit of champions with those helmets. The comparison made to Ungrim Ironfist earlier seems spot-on. Personally, I find that if every model in the army is as over the top as each other, it really takes away from the impact of any one of them and makes them all look dull and boring again.
So these "dwarven berserkers of FYRE" have helmets with mohawk hairdos, but.. not actually HAIR on the model.. so, olde tyme Dwarven Slayers have a different vibe than these.
They LOOK neat at 3 feet, but looking upclose, I do have some disappointment.
I might be up to picking up a single sprue from somewheres to play around with, but.. not sure I will go "all in" on these
AegisGrimm wrote: Wow. Ouch. The old Warhammer starter set monopose Orcs (not the super-old ones-the dual wielders and archer versions that have the modern orc look) from the 90's look better, and are 20 years old.
To be fair, they are sixteen years old - Warhammer 6th ed/box set was released in 2000.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: I think that's an apt description...they look like Gw contracted Mantic to make their official slayers.
My fav part of this is that Mantic plastic dwarves were sculpted by Bob Naismith who is a GW sculptor
Really looking forward to seeing the Slayers when people get their hands on them. It's hard to judge the sculpting quality and poseability from these shots, and the one people constantly quote with the black-haired ones has one of the worst paint jobs I've ever seen from GW and what looks like equally bad assembly.
Have any rules slipped out for these guys yet that i have missed? *edit just seen rules link above thank you! Looking forward to seeing high res shots of these as at the mo its all a little muddled at this point, a little sad about some of the sculpt's but over all they are interesting and i like there background.
The salamanders are looking cool, not sold on every surface having the faceted scaling, but ill reserve judgment till i see it on there website. I like how so far with AOS you can create interesting and compact armies. Looking at getting maybe 3 kits to make a slayer force. I think paint job is hurting some of these guys more that its helping at the mo, not that some of the limbs aren't a little strange but its a modeling hobby after all so a bit of cutting and sculpting adds to the fun for me. Kinda glad they arn't all on fire too, but hope we get a character that is to make him stand out as they are all a bit of a blur when looking at the group shot.
As a quick grip I'm unsure why so many people that hate this topic need to post all the time, there's so many ridiculous criticisms any realistic input good or bad is drowned out. Vulcatrix a bad name because it shares some letters with a pokemon name, really? is that the state of the GW bashing at this point?!
I wouldn't be surprised if the constant vitriol on dakka hasn't driven a lot of people away from the forum especially the demographic that read but dont post. I'm the only person left from my gaming group that still posts here and only one of two that still visits, sad state of affairs for possibility the best site of its kind.
Maybe it is the relative newness of the game, but I feel like these scrolls are a good example of a pretty decent balance between weapon types. It feels like there usually isn't an "obviously better" choice.
Auric Runemaster has some pretty cool looking abilities there. They both seem pretty subtle for battlefield control.
A large unit of Vulkite Berzerkers look tanky as heck.
It's neat the whole range has throwing axes. Feels very Gauntlet to me for some reason. Tough that the Hearthguard don't have a ward save, pretty easy to plink those guys off before they get in range. The hero's terrain damage attack is pretty nice. Not sure about the effectiveness of the ur-gold one considering the opponent chooses which unit has it.
Will be interesting to see the rules for the beasties, as this army needs speed and a distraction, or else I'd say it's pretty susceptible to early shooting/arcane bolts.
RoperPG wrote: Vulcatrix, mother of salamanders, the big bad of Aqshy while Sigmar was clearing out the realms. Grimnir owed Sigmar a debt, so was tasked with killing her.
The ensuing battle flattened a mountain range and resulted in mutual destruction of both God and beast, and the shards of their physical forms scattered across the realms as Ur-Gold.
I get that the fluff for AoS may not be to everyone's tastes, but bloody hell does it annoy me when people slate it when they patently haven't read even the basic stuff.
You assume I haven't read it, rather than just finding it such forgettable vacant rubbish that I couldn't recall one of the two hundred new made-up Age of Trademarks names.
As for the new pics...I can't get over the guy with no 'tache. It makes his face look teeny-weeny.
the close-up of the Auric Runemaster looks amazing...
nice to see a clear shot of him...
it just reinforces my decision to buy both of the character models...
the infantry are still a pass for me, though...
i am loving most of the clampack characters they have produced over the last five years...
if plastic is our only alternative to Finecast, i am all for it!!!
thanks to Jehan's idea a couple of pages back, i am now thinking that one of the Salamanders being held back by Vulkan's empty hand, while preparing to smack it on the nose with his hammer, would be an awesome diorama...
Sally man vs. Sally beast!!!
i bet it will be a hell of a job to carve off the saddle strap and decorations, resculpt the detail, and make the beast look like it never had a rider...
oh well, any chance to practice my sculpting is a good thing...
Red_Zeke wrote: Maybe it is the relative newness of the game, but I feel like these scrolls are a good example of a pretty decent balance between weapon types. It feels like there usually isn't an "obviously better" choice.
Auric Runemaster has some pretty cool looking abilities there. They both seem pretty subtle for battlefield control.
A large unit of Vulkite Berzerkers look tanky as heck.
I agree that the unit rules are well done. This is an example of what every army should be like; rules and equipment that make each unit distinct while also cohesive with the whole. Most importantly the rules are fun, make a notable difference, and don't involve silly IRL antics.
On the models, I feel like I should clarify my meh/blech opinion on these. When I first saw them I thought they looked cool, after seeing the close ups my opinion dropped. However I would still see them as solid models if it weren't for the price. Reaper bones miniatures are honestly not very good quality; soft detail, inconsistent sculpting between models, and universally monopose. But they are great and well liked because of the price point.
At $30 for 10 elite slayers and $50 for 20 basic slayers I would think these were pretty solid. Sadly we have over double that.
jah-joshua wrote: the close-up of the Auric Runemaster looks amazing...
nice to see a clear shot of him...
it just reinforces my decision to buy both of the character models...
I am happy to tell you there have been 3 characters shown in the pics so far. A lord (with the obsidian axe) the Auric Runemaster, and the BSB first leaked. :-)
jah-joshua wrote: the close-up of the Auric Runemaster looks amazing...
nice to see a clear shot of him...
it just reinforces my decision to buy both of the character models...
the infantry are still a pass for me, though...
i am loving most of the clampack characters they have produced over the last five years...
if plastic is our only alternative to Finecast, i am all for it!!!
thanks to Jehan's idea a couple of pages back, i am now thinking that one of the Salamanders being held back by Vulkan's empty hand, while preparing to smack it on the nose with his hammer, would be an awesome diorama...
Sally man vs. Sally beast!!!
i bet it will be a hell of a job to carve off the saddle strap and decorations, resculpt the detail, and make the beast look like it never had a rider...
oh well, any chance to practice my sculpting is a good thing...
cheers
jah
Or with the whole Pokemon discussion here you could have Vulkan hold a pokeball, gotta ｃatch them all Vulkan is a vegan after all I hope the rider and the saddle are separate pieces, i was more thinking of the salamanders used as being ridden, or Vulkan looking at Lemans wolves showing his salamanders and saying.
"I pity the fool!"
@Bottle: for some reason, i was getting the vibe that the Lord is from the hearthguard box, and i am not very keen on his stumbling pose...
the BSB guy, and the Runelord are definitely getting bought...
@Jehan: i liked your idea, but i only have two pair of TWolf rider legs left, and i want to use them for the wolves...
your idea did send me off on a different flight of fancy, that had me thinking of a fun little diorama of Vulkan wrestling with one of these Salamanders...
though Vulkan might look pretty impressive flanked by two of these guys...
going by previous kits, i expect that the strap for the saddle will be moulded to the beast, and the saddle will be separate...
the decorations on the shoulders will be integral, too...
lots of carving and resculpting to do, but it would be a cool piece to work on...
First of all, I'm surprised you didn't comment on cygnnus ridiculous statements that my post was in reference to, where he compares AoS players to his 9-year old son and "acknowledges" (not his opinion, it's a fact that he acknowledges) that AoS "offers very little beyond being something GW created" if you're not of that "specific age/development stage of gamer" (the same as a Pokemon player). Again, this is not his opinion, apparently, you just have to "acknowledge" it. Which was probably the most thinly veiled direct insult towards AoS players I've seen in a very long time. Oh wait, I'm not at all surprised you didn't comment on that, HBMC, not at all.
And further... My statement is so much nonsense that we've seen that exact sentiment over and over and over on dakka, Facebook etc, people coming back to Warhammer because AoS is simple to learn and play. But no, let's *snicker* like school children because any chance to get a derogatory comment in on anyone who dares enjoy AoS must be taken at any cost.
Manchu wrote: NOTE: This thread is for discussing new AoS releases. It is not for discussing AoS or GW generally. Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic.
If you want to discuss the merits/faults of the game, please do so in the appropriate sub-forum. This thread is for discussion of news and rumors. Further off-topic comments will be deleted with warnings/suspensions applied. Thanks.
They look like an army of naked babies with awful ginger hair and beards lol. Why would their bodies be so hairless? I mean, I can't even pretend to grow a beard that thick (can anyone?) and I am a bear by comparison, just seems way off to me.
Although maybe it would be even more creepy to have angry red hairy back covered half-orangutans running around the table
The new lads are a surprisingly inconsistent range. The monsters look pretty great, and the Auric Runetiter looks smashing. I really like him, and his rules are engagingly interesting (though he is likely to be dropped pretty early on by your opponent, so protecting him will be tough). But the general infantry are far tougher to get a handle on - some shocking paintjobs and poses, with the rest being sort of okay? Though the Auric Runetiter really calls to me, I think that I might give this lot a miss, and continue holding out for something else for my first real AoS force. I'm fairly close to finishing the Khorne starter set models, but I can't bring myself to expand them beyond that, so my search continues...
Runefather fellow looks nice. For a character, the ornateness of the helmet seems far less garish somehow, possibly helped along by the fact that they appears to be wearing pants and armor beyond a loincloth.
Manchu wrote: NOTE: This thread is for discussing new AoS releases. It is not for discussing AoS or GW generally. Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic.
If you want to discuss the merits/faults of the game, please do so in the appropriate sub-forum. This thread is for discussion of news and rumors. Further off-topic comments will be deleted with warnings/suspensions applied. Thanks.
Perhaps the moderation round these parts should consider adding some bite to go with all that bark.
I think I've decided upon the Hearthguard Bezerkers as my first set. Now, to equip them with Poleaxes or Broadaxes...
The poleaxes have more bite with the potential Mortal Wound, but really it comes down to which looks better - I don't think we've seen the Broadaxes yet.
Bottle wrote: I think I've decided upon the Hearthguard Bezerkers as my first set. Now, to equip them with Poleaxes or Broadaxes...
The poleaxes have more bite with the potential Mortal Wound, but really it comes down to which looks better - I don't think we've seen the Broadaxes yet.
Are they not the guys with two axes behind the Priest?
I don't play Dwarves or have ever played against them in my time playing Fantasy (not a popular army around here) but do the salamander dinosaur things go with this army? I feel they are trying to sell more dwarves because everyone likes the big Dino's of Lizardmen? Seems weird to me?
Pugnacious_Cee wrote:It feels like there are a lot of people here hating on this stuff *just* for the joy in mutual commiseration because it's AoS and/or because it's GW.
Personally, I feel these are stiff, generic (not in a good way), relatively boring dwarfs, that people squee about mostly because... it's AoS and/or because it's GW. I really do think that if these were brought out by WGF, or Mantic, there might be even more 'hating' on them, but perhaps not by the same people.
I'm trying to like those salamander/lizard/dragon things, but y'know what, I'll level the same criticism at them. They go for the same loadsa-horns, millionsa-spikes, giant-chunky-awkward-scale-plates, squared-off bigged-chinned not-Zilla face that too many dragon concepts seem to be converging on, these days. They look like the plastic carnosaur (which I liked) with a couple of extra, AoS, up-to-eleven layers.
Oh, and explaining how 'Vulcatrix' is a feminine portmanteau of 'Vulcan' doesn't really make it sound much more clever. Kinda the reverse. Especially if we already get it. It's a step above something like 'bloodsecrator', but not much.
And another vague link to 40K with the name 'Vulcan' associated with 'salamanders'... not exactly helping either.
chiefbigredman wrote: I don't play Dwarves or have ever played against them in my time playing Fantasy (not a popular army around here) but do the salamander dinosaur things go with this army? I feel they are trying to sell more dwarves because everyone likes the big Dino's of Lizardmen? Seems weird to me?
As of right now, we don't know the exact fluff of this new army. Fyreslayers are just that for all intents and purposes:
A new army.
chiefbigredman wrote: I don't play Dwarves or have ever played against them in my time playing Fantasy (not a popular army around here) but do the salamander dinosaur things go with this army? I feel they are trying to sell more dwarves because everyone likes the big Dino's of Lizardmen? Seems weird to me?
As of right now, we don't know the exact fluff of this new army. Fyreslayers are just that for all intents and purposes:
A new army.
Ah okay! Seems I'm a little out of the loop.
I haven't really been paying much attention to age of sigmar very much since I'm still playing 8th Ed and I don't think I want to play age of sigmar....all I'm waiting for is new beasties for my beloved ratmen but I am not too hopeful since they got their end times release (please GW make new plague monks and plastic jezzails!!!)
chiefbigredman wrote: all I'm waiting for is new beasties for my beloved ratmen but I am not too hopeful since they got their end times release (please GW make new plague monks and plastic jezzails!!!)
And plastic globadiers that don't cost seven quid a pop... ah, who am I kidding?
Truthfully, it looks like we're going to get "mini-armies" before we see the "original flavor" revised for stuff.
I fully expect to see a "Steamhead" book at some point in time, then possibly a "Duardin" book later on combining the Steamheads, Fyreslayers, and Dispossessed.
Oh, and explaining how 'Vulcatrix' is a feminine portmanteau of 'Vulcan' doesn't really make it sound much more clever. Kinda the reverse. Especially if we already get it. It's a step above something like 'bloodsecrator', but not much.
The point was to show that AoS takes its inspirations directly from Roman and Greek mythology. That whole "turned up to eleven" thing is a result of building a game around the age of mythology - where a goddess sprung forth from headaches, abandoned twins were raised by wolves, all the evil in the world was kept in a box, and gods had two faces so they could look both towards the past and the future. Sigmar (his own name probably a variation of the Norse hero, Sigurd) even wields a hammer with lightning bolts like Jupiter/Zeus. Everything about AoS is meant to draw comparison to and inspire the feeling of this sort of mythology - complete with "turned up to eleven" imagery, with legends of how the dwarf god fought the fire god for weeks, destroying mountain ranges in their fury. And that's awesome. I love that there is fantasy out there that takes its inspirations from somewhere other than Tolkien. But you kinda have to be familiar with something other than Tolkien to appreciate it, I guess.
And yes, a name like Vulcatrix draws from Latin and Roman mythology for exactly this purpose. I'm not saying it's clever. I'm saying it's consistent. And the folks who like to say that AoS has juvenile names that sound like Pokemon are proving ignorant to spirit of which AoS has been created. If you know a bit about that sort of stuff, then naming the female Salamander god of fire "Vulcatrix" makes sense (though not strictly grammatically correct; it's also not a portmanteau, Vulpix is). If you can name more Pikachu evolutions than Roman myths, Age of Sigmar must seem quite foreign indeed.
Truthfully, it looks like we're going to get "mini-armies" before we see the "original flavor" revised for stuff.
I fully expect to see a "Steamhead" book at some point in time, then possibly a "Duardin" book later on combining the Steamheads, Fyreslayers, and Dispossessed.
I wouldn't think so. They released an Everchosen BattleTome with just 4 battle scrolls inside. I suspect the Fyreslayers will probably be on par in size with the Stormcast, with a BattleTome released in 4-6 weeks. I think Alliances have replaced armies, and the smaller, more specific factions are the new order of things.
chiefbigredman wrote: all I'm waiting for is new beasties for my beloved ratmen but I am not too hopeful since they got their end times release (please GW make new plague monks and plastic jezzails!!!)
And plastic globadiers that don't cost seven quid a pop... ah, who am I kidding?
And the folks who like to say that AoS has juvenile names..
..point to things like Sigmarite, Bloodsecrators, Bloodstokers, and Skull Grinders.
The first is silly.
The second is waaaay too over the top to not be a comically inept villain from a saturday morning cartoon.
The third makes me think it's a Dracula pun.
The fourth seems obscene, I didn't know Slaanesh taught Khorne another use for the eye sockets in the skulls. Lube it up with a little gore and go to town I guess.
I -like- Age of Sigmar. I'm running a convention that features it in July. But the names are kinda dumb, even if the basis of it's fantasy isn't a dumb as most people think. (I agree it's nice to see historicalish/mythology fantasy over Tolkien for a change.)
Truthfully, it looks like we're going to get "mini-armies" before we see the "original flavor" revised for stuff.
I fully expect to see a "Steamhead" book at some point in time, then possibly a "Duardin" book later on combining the Steamheads, Fyreslayers, and Dispossessed.
I wouldn't think so. They released an Everchosen BattleTome with just 4 battle scrolls inside. I suspect the Fyreslayers will probably be on par in size with the Stormcast, with a BattleTome released in 4-6 weeks. I think Alliances have replaced armies, and the smaller, more specific factions are the new order of things.
Well, for now they might be.
But that was why I said that I fully expect to see a "Steamhead" book, then possibly a "Duardin" book later on.
Everchosen, by the by, only has 3 Warscrolls(units) within. Gaunt Summoner, Archaon, and the Varanguard. There are an additional 6 Warscroll Battalions(bigger formations) contained within as well.
Overlords of Chaos is Archaon, a Gaunt Summoner, and Varanguard.
There's a Warscroll Battalion for each of the four Chaos Powers, with benefits for taking units numbering a multiple of the Powers' sacred number.
Then there's "Archaon's Grand Host" which is the Overlords of Chaos plus a number of the other Warscroll Battalions.
Bottle wrote: I think I've decided upon the Hearthguard Bezerkers as my first set. Now, to equip them with Poleaxes or Broadaxes...
The poleaxes have more bite with the potential Mortal Wound, but really it comes down to which looks better - I don't think we've seen the Broadaxes yet.
Are they not the guys with two axes behind the Priest?
The guys with two axes are the Vulkite Bezerkers right? (The kit of 10). Then we have the dual kit that makes Auric Hearthguard and Hearthguard Bezerkers, but from the later (the Hearthguard Bezerkers) we have only seen the poleaxe option built (the long two handed axe with the flail brazier attached) and haven't seen the alternative "broadaxe" option which is listed on the Warscroll (which I imagine to be a single heavy two-sided axe)
Bottle wrote: I think I've decided upon the Hearthguard Bezerkers as my first set. Now, to equip them with Poleaxes or Broadaxes...
The poleaxes have more bite with the potential Mortal Wound, but really it comes down to which looks better - I don't think we've seen the Broadaxes yet.
I think I'm going to buy a box of these guys just to model. I quite like their look!
I think the Hearthguard look terrible =/ but the Slayers are a lot better... I wonder if anyone might try trimming down the helmet plumes, might make them look more intimidating?
The main drawback to all the kits is just how monopose they are, though... even with a small unit and not having them ranked up, it's still really visible when they're all holding those flamers the same way!
Im in the "too naked" camp myself. The models do have some nice parts (hair, axes, general detail) but as someone else said they sort of look like naked, pudgy babies.
The 'Eavy Metal shield armed Bezerkers looks so much better, especially with it modelled to the front. I wonder if it's possible to do 10 like that or maybe 5 of each style to get mostly sensible shield positions?
I think I'll end up buying a lot of the spare weapon bits to bling up my AoW berserkers. If the heads are separate, I'll take some of them, too, even if some of the Mohawks look like tipped-over stacks of Pringles.
That video is great. In the opening you see the battle standard guy that leaked in December. I love those models and I'm glad they're bulky and given some height with the helmets.
I have to admit, the stills we've been having of these little ginger fellas previously left me with the impression they were pretty rubbish looking miniatures but that teaser vid has completely changed my mind on that front, when you can see them in 3D like that they do look quite spectacular.
Ibis wrote: I have to admit, the stills we've been having of these little ginger fellas previously left me with the impression they were pretty rubbish looking miniatures but that teaser vid has completely changed my mind on that front, when you can see them in 3D like that they do look quite spectacular.
I'm pretty surprised in all honesty!
I've been trying to think of the word to describe them. The video finally convinced me. They look sterile. Clinically good, well painted, but lifeless.
These have no character compared to the squats the latest warhammer visions had in it.
I've been trying to think of the word to describe them. The video finally convinced me. They look sterile. Clinically good, well painted, but lifeless.
These have no character compared to the squats the latest warhammer visions had in it.
Lifeless? They have all sorts of actiony poses, swinging their axes, with the flails flying around behind them. Lifeless? No way. Lacking charm? Maybe. But not lifeless. Want to see some lifeless models? Go check out WHFB with all the models all scrunched up to fit on their tiny, square bases. The Warriors of Chaos all have the posture of Frankenstein's monster.
I've been trying to think of the word to describe them. The video finally convinced me. They look sterile. Clinically good, well painted, but lifeless.
These have no character compared to the squats the latest warhammer visions had in it.
Lifeless? They have all sorts of actiony poses, swinging their axes, with the flails flying around behind them. Lifeless? No way. Lacking charm? Maybe. But not lifeless. Want to see some lifeless models? Go check out WHFB with all the models all scrunched up to fit on their tiny, square bases. The Warriors of Chaos all have the posture of Frankenstein's monster.
I mentioned it earlier but to me it looks like the new stunties are babies flailing their arms because the arms are flailing around but the torsos are upright and plain. Dynamic arms + non-dynamic bodies = weird.
I was waiting, patiently, for the new dwarfs, to see what they did with them, this could..perhaps, have got me to play aos more regularly....
Sadly these models are terrible, not at all what I have come to expect from gw, I'm a massive dwarf fanboy, it takes a lot for me NOT to buy the latest dwarf goodness, between these models and the debacle of the aos rules, I'm done with Warhammer.... Gonna sadly sell my dwarfs and keep around 2k points for REALhammer games.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I mentioned it earlier but to me it looks like the new stunties are babies flailing their arms because the arms are flailing around but the torsos are upright and plain. Dynamic arms + non-dynamic bodies = weird.
I can see that. Some of them do look quite odd, but I'm quite fond of some of them - particularly the dude with the two outstretched arms holding axes. The NZ GW site has 360 views of some of the models and those look great. But the ones (particularly the Vulkite Berzerkers) with their arms up look strange. The Hearthguard and Runemaster are pretty sweet though.
these guys could have been cool, but they are horribly monoposed. Disapointing effort form GW. Not as bad as the statuesque black guard, but not nearly worth the price they are asking for. The character is really cool though, he has a nice chaos dwarf vibe.
They're up on the Australian store now too, $70 for 5 Hearthguard, $100 for 10 Vulkite's and $50 for the Runemaster (which is, just to be clear, a monopose, single small sprue model).
I want metal back, somehow it managed to be cheaper
ya well i bought skarbrand which is 30$ more for the exact same size and detail spru. They price them based on how many will sell. So they expect few sales.
OgreChubbs wrote: ya well i bought skarbrand which is 30$ more for the exact same size and detail spru. They price them based on how many will sell. So they expect few sales.
Skarbrand? Skarbrand is huge, you must be thinking of something else?
On a positive note, looking at the sprues for the kits the heads are fully designed separately from the helmet parts so they are fairly straightforward to use for conversions; a bit of creative use of green stuff or even some of the mohawks from the AoW kit and these can be easily built without the helmets which is a huge plus for me
Wow If I lived in New Zealand there would be no incentive to buy the new Slayers over some of the Ironbreakers/irondrakes or Hammerers/Longbeards. Double the price in comparison for kits that came out January 2014 is ridiculous!?
I don't think the price discrepancy is going to be as crazy in the UK with the Hearthguard coming in £5 cheaper than the Dwarf kits (£25 vs £30) and the Bezerkers coming in a £5 more expensive right (£35)?
Are these guys a completely new army/faction for AoS unrelated to Dwarfs (Duardin)?
Sort of like Harlequins in 40k? (Sure harlies are eldar as a faction/race but they are a stand alone army).
Ratius wrote: Are these guys a completely new army/faction for AoS unrelated to Dwarfs (Duardin)?
Sort of like Harlequins in 40k? (Sure harlies are eldar as a faction/race but they are a stand alone army).
Yes and no.
AoS, since the re-launch, never had a strict 1 book=1 faction split the way 40K used to have (and since abandoned).
AoS has the broad, largely "background" split into Order, Chaos, Destruction, Death serving as umbrella for lots of battletomes, White Dwarf warscrolls, online exclusives and whatever else they want to come up with.
Bloodbound and Archaon are separate Battletomes, but clearly both "Chaos", and frequently shown "as one army".
And even in 40K, things aren't clear-cut anymore. People consider Skitarii and CM as "one army/faction", but "Harlequins" increasingly as separate thing for example.
My biggest beef with multipart plastics is that usually the junction between the shoulder and the arms is most of the times just a straight cut which is particularly visible on naked torsos/arms, they have changed things on the savage orcs kits were the shoulders and torsos join in a much smoother way but that does compromise somewhat the diversity of the poses available. They have replicated the same on these Duardin and these kits are quite interesting from a modelling/design point of view.
Some may want 1000 possible pose variants with the sprues but lets not forget that its probably going to look bad joint wise... I rather have something in the same style as the savage orc kit and since these are plastic I can easily cut and shave the bits I want to make the extra 900 poses if I'm not totally satisfied with the 100 ones supplied.
A very strong release from GW in therms of multipart plastic for AoS and guess what these actually look FUN to paint.
Now... can you say that these are better than the old metal Slayers? No. For me the old ones have the oldschool charm and fully use the advantages of the single piece metal casting ( which I LOVE). Are these ones inferior? No! they are just different and offer a good option for any dwarf fan. I would be inclined to collect both. One for charisma sake and the other for kitbashing.
Decided to go ahead and get the new Lizardman box set. Too good of a savings .. $85 when the carnosaur alone is $100, and I always waned to get some cold one riders too. I have the old metal carnosaur though, so I'm gonna build this one as a troglodon. My army is more skinky anyway.
lol - GW seems well aware that no one would buy the Lizardmen cold one riders on their own - they always stick them in the box sets, devaluing them greatly.
Hulksmash wrote: To be fair I'm buying them now and would have without the box. But that's because Kings of war is awesome not because of gw.
Ever hear this joke? "A vegan, a crossfitter, and a Kings of War player walk into a bar. I know because they told everybody about it within two minutes."
Yeah, I'm using em all for KOW too. I'm gonna keep the roundy bases though cuz they look better for skirmish games and I can just use movement trays for kow
Hulksmash wrote: To be fair I'm buying them now and would have without the box. But that's because Kings of war is awesome not because of gw.
Ever hear this joke? "A vegan, a crossfitter, and a Kings of War player walk into a bar. I know because they told everybody about it within two minutes."
Pfft, I'd buy one and use it for both KoW AND Song of Blades and Heroes, so there.
Hulksmash wrote: To be fair I'm buying them now and would have without the box. But that's because Kings of war is awesome not because of gw.
Ever hear this joke? "A vegan, a crossfitter, and a Kings of War player walk into a bar. I know because they told everybody about it within two minutes."
Best say that I'm getting the starter Lizardmen deal.
I have a new KoW army to start. (To fight the Abyssal one I'm getting from Mantic)
Not so sure why the white knights get so upset about this. We're buying GW stuff.
As for the new slayers. As I said... Lifeless. Not the pose - they're quite dynamic - but the emotion they're conveying. They're as lifeless as the Sigmarines. Look at their little faces. Emotionless. Their muscles also seem just too squared off and sharp. Very computer like rather than natural - might be because of the paint style though.
How long is it since GW produced a normal human-like face in full?
I bought the White Dwarf today and I am enjoying this issue. I think I'm 90% set on the Hearthguard and building them with Flamestrike Poleaxes. I too think the Vulkite Bezerkers can look a little clunky in certain poses. I would want to make mine with shields, as the shields are really nice but I wouldn't want to have the shield-in-the-air pose so would likely have to build the box as 2 five man units.
Hulksmash wrote: To be fair I'm buying them now and would have without the box. But that's because Kings of war is awesome not because of gw.
Ever hear this joke? "A vegan, a crossfitter, and a Kings of War player walk into a bar. I know because they told everybody about it within two minutes."
It's almost as if KOW substitutes in for WHFB (a ranked fantasy battle game), whereas AOS does not.
It's almost as if KOW substitutes in for WHFB (a ranked fantasy battle game), whereas AOS does not.
If you saw a man who was dating a woman who looked similar to his dead wife, saying "she's a great substitute" every thirty seconds, in every conversations, would you think that guy legitimately liked this woman, or do you think he might be overcompensating a little? Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
Hulksmash wrote: To be fair I'm buying them now and would have without the box. But that's because Kings of war is awesome not because of gw.
Ever hear this joke? "A vegan, a crossfitter, and a Kings of War player walk into a bar. I know because they told everybody about it within two minutes."
Not so sure why the white knights get so upset about this. We're buying GW stuff.
Well, when they are repping for AOS they aren't white knights, they're whyte knights.
No, it's probably just the part where KoW is a much better use for WHFB miniatures than AoS. So what if people want to name other games new releases would be good for.
Like I said, any of these bundles would be great for all the minis you would ever need for amracially-based Song of Blades and Heroes warband, other than the unimpressive undead one, which should have a unit of skeletons instead of the spirit hosts.
Well, when they are repping for AOS they aren't white knights, they're whyte knights.
Hmm...Not enough y's in the name. I prefer Whyte Knyghts. GW should really branch out into the use of superfluous umlauts, or the joined AE like in Aeon Flux that I don't know how to type, just for variety.
Hulksmash wrote: To be fair I'm buying them now and would have without the box. But that's because Kings of war is awesome not because of gw.
Ever hear this joke? "A vegan, a crossfitter, and a Kings of War player walk into a bar. I know because they told everybody about it within two minutes."
It's almost as if KOW substitutes in for WHFB (a ranked fantasy battle game), whereas AOS does not.
It's almost as if KOW substitutes in for WHFB (a ranked fantasy battle game), whereas AOS does not.
If you saw a man who was dating a woman who looked similar to his dead wife, saying "she's a great substitute" every thirty seconds, in every conversations, would you think that guy legitimately liked this woman, or do you think he might be overcompensating a little? Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
KOW does indeed substitute in for WHFB seeing as both are ranked fantasy battle games. Gameplay wise it is nearer to WHFB than AoS as it maintains the ranked battle dynamic so not really that radical to state that. It also naturally follows that it also allows WHFB players to maintain ranked armies if they so wish. It also follows that WHFB & KOW players can still look towards any new releases by GW that might have models of interest for use in their WHFB/KOW armies. As I've stated already I am actively looking at any of the new Dwarf Slayer models that can be used to fit into my pre-existing WHFB Slayer army (that I can also now use in KOW).
I think it's fair to say that many active WHFB (and now KOW) players are still interested in what GW releases in AoS that can be carried over.
Yup, I am totally grabbing the lizard riders for my dwarves. Which are an AoS and Kow army. I base on rounds and use conversion trays.
I can play both. I do play both. AoS is awesome for small skirmishes amongst friends. Kow is our new tournament game. I was just pointing out that the knights are actually good in Kow
Hulksmash wrote:To be fair I'm buying them now and would have without the box. But that's because Kings of war is awesome not because of gw.
Have you seen 'em, though?
I mean, strewth. The new AoS releases may be seen to be a bit lacklustre but I think they could pale in comparison to the rerelease of the lizardmen cold ones under the seraphon banner. They could fill that 'what plastic kits should GW do' by themselves.
I can understand the convenience of the thing and the inconvenience of sorting out alternate mounts, but I think I'd personally even consider stocking up on the £10 resin cold ones, if bits sellers couldn't help.
Gimgamgoo wrote:Not so sure why the white knights get so upset about this. We're buying GW stuff.
I'm still waiting on me box of stormcast liberators.
Schmapdi wrote: lol - GW seems well aware that no one would buy the Lizardmen cold one riders on their own - they always stick them in the box sets, devaluing them greatly.
Tell me about it. I saw the new Lizardmen army and thought "Awesome! Oh.... Cold Ones.... again.... eww". I would have bought it otherwise
People will probably giggle, or cackle even, when I saw this but I think AoS is a good start and I'm hoping GW will stick with it and improve it and turn it into a game more along the lines of your average sized warmachine game.
Talys wrote: Don't think I saw it here, but the "Next Issue" reads - "Spawn of Vulcatrix, Bearer of the Latchkey, New Year, New Army".
Not really sure what that will be. Isn't Vulcatrix a dragon type or some such? I don't really follow the Fantasy stuff.
The Vulcatrix is the legendary beast Grimnir fought, so this hint is probably pointing at the big lava-salamander things. They could be called "Ur-Salamanders" or maybe a "Magmadroth" which are both terms mentioned in the new White Dwarf.
The bearer of the Latchkey is the Runefather, his axe unlocks the magma-vault where the Fyreslayers horde their Ur-Gold.
So, I guess one build of the "Magmadroth" is the Runefather, the other is as a Runeson.
That leaves the the BSB and the guy with the twin axe. Based on the Fyreslayer Lodge family tree in the White Dwarf, Im going to guess the BSB is a "battlesmith" and the guy with the twin bladed great axe is a "Grimwrath Bezerker" :-)
This is an AoS rumour thread. Now do I have to show a pic of my non GW books figs etc before the white knight comments start?
Just wondered why saying;
"Cool, I'm buying some for my KoW army"
particularly differs from saying
"Cool, I'm buying some for my AoS army".
2 letters difference. We're all liking the same models. The thread is about the release of new models.
When I bought my first Citadel miniatures, they were manufactured for any fantasy game you were playing. Why does it bother people so much nowadays?
In case they weren't already posted you can find pictures of the new Salamanders taken from Warhammer World. They are visible on https://twitter.com/HeelanHammer (scroll down up until the posts from 23h ago)
I would post a better link but that would require my Firefox and Twitter to stop punching each other in the face long enough for something, anything, to work.
The Salamanders look really nice IMO, but the Dwarf on top of the black one... his "scarecrow" pose make me feel like I'm looking at a miniature from the early 90...
Gotta put a reptile on that reptile so I lizard on the lizards.
Curious how much that Salamander will cost. Tempted to put one of the extra Wrath of Kings dragon riders on that thing if I don't have any extra seraphon riders.
Might put the dwarf rider on an appropriately sized bear instead. Maybe one of the Scibor ones?
Curious how much that Salamander will cost. Tempted to put one of the extra Wrath of Kings dragon riders on that thing if I don't have any extra seraphon riders.
Might put the dwarf rider on an appropriately sized bear instead. Maybe one of the Scibor ones?
Had similar thoughts looking at it. Wonder how much bigger it is in comparison to the Carnosaur? I'd be thinking of getting one to proxy for a Dread Saurian and create a unit filler with the rider. Model looks much more impressive in those photos; think the original WD photos posted don't do the fyreslayer wave any credit.
It looks like that Salamander would make a great mount for a Clan Lord on a Fire Drake.
I guess it will all depend if it has much dwarf rune acne. Hard to tell but looking ok so far from the images shown.
The dwarf models would be better without the rune acne. I don't mind them having runes, (just like I don't mind chaos models having skulls), I just hate it when GW embed them into the skin. :-(
I'm a big fan of them lizards too, but I can't help but wonder if the inevitably astronomical price will cause me to decide to not get it. What are people's best guesses for what GW might price it at? I'd like it as a mount for my CSM/Daemon Lord...
Curious how much that Salamander will cost. Tempted to put one of the extra Wrath of Kings dragon riders on that thing if I don't have any extra seraphon riders.
Might put the dwarf rider on an appropriately sized bear instead. Maybe one of the Scibor ones?
Shieldwolf are about to start a whole kickstarter with riding bears and mamoths and such which woudl fit with Viking looking Dwarfs
I wonder if the salamander will be in a Starting army box?
catharsix wrote: I'm a big fan of them lizards too, but I can't help but wonder if the inevitably astronomical price will cause me to decide to not get it. What are people's best guesses for what GW might price it at? I'd like it as a mount for my CSM/Daemon Lord...
-C6
Probably £40-50, would be my guess. I hope it's not over that.
catharsix wrote: I'm a big fan of them lizards too, but I can't help but wonder if the inevitably astronomical price will cause me to decide to not get it. What are people's best guesses for what GW might price it at? I'd like it as a mount for my CSM/Daemon Lord...
-C6
Probably £40-50, would be my guess. I hope it's not over that.
Since the Carnosaur goes for £50 I'd say that is the very very least we can expect.
I would be surprised if it goes for any less that £60, same as the varanguard and I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if it's up at £70 or more.
If you're worried about the price I would just wait a bit. If they're going to keep those start collecting bundles going I'm sure they'll be doing a dwarf one soon enough. Looks like they all have something like 1 big thing and 2 different units so the dragon rider fella would probably be in there. Just based on the lizardman deal the whole set was $15 cheaper than the carnosaur alone.
I'm hoping for a "Start Collecting! Dwarfs" box as well. That's going to be the biggest thing keeping me from picking these up as they release, as our local shop offers a pretty decent discount off of GW stuff.
Necros wrote: If you're worried about the price I would just wait a bit. If they're going to keep those start collecting bundles going I'm sure they'll be doing a dwarf one soon enough.
Necros wrote: If you're worried about the price I would just wait a bit. If they're going to keep those start collecting bundles going I'm sure they'll be doing a dwarf one soon enough. Looks like they all have something like 1 big thing and 2 different units so the dragon rider fella would probably be in there. Just based on the lizardman deal the whole set was $15 cheaper than the carnosaur alone.
But then I'd be stuck with Dwarves that I don't want... and Dwarves are the Fantasy army that I have always liked the very least.
Though the notion of bundles that actually save money is a nice one, and I hope GW keeps up that trend.
Gimgamgoo wrote:The thread is about the release of new models.
When I bought my first Citadel miniatures, they were manufactured for any fantasy game you were playing. Why does it bother people so much nowadays?
Exalt.
Possible reason: the game segregation phenomenon, which GW has been pretty successful in normalizing.
NAVARRO wrote:Very cool! Love the big lizards too. I mean what's not to like?
Giant hemispherical shoulders on something that shouldn't really have them, probably designed to match a superficial and - to be frank - juvenile-oriented MotU-style interpretation of what 'muscles' and 'strength' should be, rather than how real-life quadrupeds (as strong as you like) are constructed, resulting in an impression of (1980's) Arnold Schwarzenegger cosplaying in a lizard costume, scuttling around on his hands and knees?
I think that one Forgefather fella looks like he's holding a key, and his axe has a key cut-out? Kind of an interesting call-back to College of Fire (pre ET) with the key/Aqshy symbolism.
saxx wrote: All these mono-pose complaints, you must be new to dwarfs. We do not traditionally have a whole lot of pose options, even in the new kits.
It's not just the fact they are monopose.... it's that the 1 pose they are in is bad.... and they are expensive. I liked LotR monopose models.... but the poses were good... and they were cheap.
saxx wrote: All these mono-pose complaints, you must be new to dwarfs. We do not traditionally have a whole lot of pose options, even in the new kits.
Nope, third edition with metals, the pose looks like the sculptor intended for them to be reaching for something off the high shelf and someone glued weapons on.
Man, that saddle is enormous. No idea why they feel the need to ruin the lines of the already massive Salamander by chucking a giant metal throne on it.
saxx wrote: All these mono-pose complaints, you must be new to dwarfs. We do not traditionally have a whole lot of pose options, even in the new kits.
Nope, third edition with metals, the pose looks like the sculptor intended for them to be reaching for something off the high shelf and someone glued weapons on.
Free spray paint?! Now that's a hell of a deal with the spray prices these days. Regardless, Spray paint or wound tokens are far better than collectable pins or wrist bands.
My only issue is my last few pre-orders (well over $100 - the LE books) never came with any free goodies :(
455_PWR wrote: Free spray paint?! Now that's a hell of a deal with the spray prices these days. Regardless, Spray paint or wound tokens are far better than collectable pins or wrist bands.
I believe he's saying he got the counters/markers when he ordered spray paint, not necessarily an Age of Sigmar product.
...that's why it's getting chucked for something else!
I like the lizard, the dwarf, even the saddle design itself... but it does look too... I dunno, small? Not well supported? Not sure how to describe that.
Almost looks like the saddle should be removed and the arcs on the front and back would fit giant stone wheels to make a fantasy dwarf motorcycle , and leave you with a good looking salamander too.
Hmm need to decide if I am going to get the battletome or not. I only plan to get a box or two of the Fyreslayers themselves but I am itching for some good fluff and the Fyreslayers have had the best so far...
Definitely getting White Dwarf at a minimum!
6 Warscrolls? Are they going to be 6 variants of the Magmadroth, some formations, warscrolls for the as of yet unreleased units or some completely unrelated warscrolls???
Bottle wrote: Oh yeah, I guessed the Magmadroth name right ;-p
Hmm need to decide if I am going to get the battletome or not. I only plan to get a box or two of the Fyreslayers themselves but I am itching for some good fluff and the Fyreslayers have had the best so far...
Definitely getting White Dwarf at a minimum!
6 Warscrolls? Are they going to be 6 variants of the Magmadroth, some formations, warscrolls for the as of yet unreleased units or some completely unrelated warscrolls???
Runefather, Runesmiter and Runeson, aswell as all three on their Magmadroths ^^
Bottle wrote: Oh yeah, I guessed the Magmadroth name right ;-p
Hmm need to decide if I am going to get the battletome or not. I only plan to get a box or two of the Fyreslayers themselves but I am itching for some good fluff and the Fyreslayers have had the best so far...
Definitely getting White Dwarf at a minimum!
6 Warscrolls? Are they going to be 6 variants of the Magmadroth, some formations, warscrolls for the as of yet unreleased units or some completely unrelated warscrolls???
Runefather, Runesmiter and Runeson, aswell as all three on their Magmadroths ^^
Thanks! Does that mean the guy with the twin axe is a Runefather/son/smiter on foot, or is there an on foot model built from the kit? (Can the rider simply be put on a 32mm base?)
Ghaz wrote: So the Magmadroth kit actually gives you two models.
The Beast and the Rider (because the rider just stand on top of the throne this are two models)
No. Read the description of the Magmadroth on the pic with the prices. You get a Runefather, Runesmiter or Runeson riding the Magmadroth and the parts to make one of the other two on foot.
I am usually a huge GW fan boy, but that lizard looks goofy. Which is really odd because I think all the Lizardman dino's look brilliant. This one just looks sloppy..
I like the magmathingy, but as usual, I don't like it 85 euros much. (I could buy and entire board game for that much money GW! With like 40 miniatures!)
All the war scrolls and whatnot are up on Twitter and the Facebook AoS pages. Highly recommend people follow Age of Sigmar on Facebook - getting to be a very active and quickly growing group.
The deepstrike ability of one of the characters is much needed.
However, I do have to say I was saddened to see a "funny" rule for one of them. It isn't too bad, but I hoped they would not return with the new races. Ah well.
Edit: My one lingering question though, is who are the blacksmiths and the grim wrath berserkers? They're listed in the lodge chart but not seemingly released yet. Wonder if it will be a third week of Fyreslayers, but strikes me a bit weird to come after the battle tome and not be seen in any of the pictures yet.
At least some people find a use for those terrible dwarf sculpts for something. That musculature, the arms, and legs, etc. are atrocious. I guess it's just accepted at this point that GWs non LOTR dwarves will have horrid proportions/ no sense of anatomy? And at that price point! Unbelievable.
The lizard is a big, goofy looking lizard, that looks okayish. But aren't there a fair number of good looking big lizard/dino/dragon models out there for a much more reasonable price?
jmurph wrote: But aren't there a fair number of good looking big lizard/dino/dragon models out there for a much more reasonable price?
If I'm reading this correctly, there are three possible heroes in the box, any of which can ride atop the magmadroth and you can choose one of the others to make as a hero on foot (so any two of three, one mounted, one on foot). I won't say it is a great deal, but it is a better one than if you were just getting the magmadroth alone.
Seeing that design up close on the WD front page raises a practical question about how the mounted slayer is supposed to use that big long axe? Wouldn't the golden ornament at the front get in the way of him swinging it about? I think the axe is a bit too long and gives the appearance of somebody using an oar while on a canoe.
However, I do have to say I was saddened to see a "funny" rule for one of them. It isn't too bad, but I hoped they would not return with the new races. Ah well.
.
Do tell, or link to them. Some of us don't have a privacyinvasionbook account.
I'm intrigued about the inclusion of "funny" rules for the newer armies. That right there is a very curious development.
No. Read the description of the Magmadroth on the pic with the prices. You get a Runefather, Runesmiter or Runeson riding the Magmadroth and the parts to make one of the other two on foot.
However, I do have to say I was saddened to see a "funny" rule for one of them. It isn't too bad, but I hoped they would not return with the new races. Ah well.
.
Do tell, or link to them. Some of us don't have a privacyinvasionbook account.
I'm intrigued about the inclusion of "funny" rules for the newer armies. That right there is a very curious development.
Auric Runeson's "Explosive Rage" - pick a visible unit to the Runeson to be the target of his wrath. Re-roll hit rolls of 1 against that unit. If a battleshock test is made against that unit before your next hero phase, you can add 1 to the result if you deliver a "suitably characterful insult or furious put down" aimed at the unit.
EDIT: Games should be fun. I've always liked the silly rules and I'm glad to see them return.
However, I do have to say I was saddened to see a "funny" rule for one of them. It isn't too bad, but I hoped they would not return with the new races. Ah well.
.
Do tell, or link to them. Some of us don't have a privacyinvasionbook account.
I'm intrigued about the inclusion of "funny" rules for the newer armies. That right there is a very curious development.
Auric Runeson's "Explosive Rage" - pick a visible unit to the Runeson to be the target of his wrath. Re-roll hit rolls of 1 against that unit. If a battleshock test is made against that unit before your next hero phase, you can add 1 to the result if you deliver a "suitably characterful insult or furious put down" aimed at the unit.
EDIT: Games should be fun. I've always liked the silly rules and I'm glad to see them return.
Games should be fun, but stuff like that isn't everyone's idea of fun.
However, I do have to say I was saddened to see a "funny" rule for one of them. It isn't too bad, but I hoped they would not return with the new races. Ah well.
.
Do tell, or link to them. Some of us don't have a privacyinvasionbook account.
I'm intrigued about the inclusion of "funny" rules for the newer armies. That right there is a very curious development.
Auric Runeson's "Explosive Rage" - pick a visible unit to the Runeson to be the target of his wrath. Re-roll hit rolls of 1 against that unit. If a battleshock test is made against that unit before your next hero phase, you can add 1 to the result if you deliver a "suitably characterful insult or furious put down" aimed at the unit.
EDIT: Games should be fun. I've always liked the silly rules and I'm glad to see them return.
Games should be fun, but stuff like that isn't everyone's idea of fun.
Yup, sounds like Wulfrik's rule, which was a blank cheque for potential disaster.
Edit: My one lingering question though, is who are the blacksmiths and the grim wrath berserkers? They're listed in the lodge chart but not seemingly released yet. Wonder if it will be a third week of Fyreslayers, but strikes me a bit weird to come after the battle tome and not be seen in any of the pictures yet.
Battlesmith will be the BSB guy that was very first leaked and the Grimwrath Bezerker will be the guy with the twin headed axe is my guess :-)
Games should be fun, but stuff like that isn't everyone's idea of fun.
I was watching a video on game design - forget what it was called - and it basically argued that there are two kinds of rules: thematic rules and mechanical rules. Thematic rules are great because they give character to the units and playing them, but many players hate them because they are unpredictable or end up making units less effective than they would like. For them, a thematic rule which is mechanically imperfect is a criminal act.
Age of Sigmar, more than anything else, is a thematic game. Every special ability of a unit comes with a short description of why it gets the ability. The Runefather can fix an enemy unit within 3" with a level stare, the sort that can bring doubt to the mind of even the mightiest warrior. The mechanic is that you subtract D3 from the opposing unit's bravery until their next hero phase, which is thematically appropriate for a menacing stare, right? And that's cool. Gives the model some character. He doesn't subtract D3 from bravery. He fething stares at them until they lose D3 bravery.
The insult rule is thematic fun. You've got an angry little dwarf hurling insults at the enemy units, making them slightly easier to hit and slightly more likely to flee during Battle Shock tests. That's awesome. That's fun. And for the player who takes the opportunity to get into it, it makes that model more fun to play - not because he is more mechanically competent, but because he has a unique mechanic that makes playing him more joyous. I am not kidding: I am seriously considering getting this kit for this special ability alone.
Age of Sigmar is all about theme, not mechanics, and that's precisely why I love those rules. The models aren't just a stat line. They have character, and they give the games character. Playing with an insulting dwarf makes for a different game experience than one during which you cannot kneel for any reason, or one where you have to wear a fake beard for the duration. It's not just a competition between two min-maxed lists. It's not about who is smarter or more experienced or who downloaded the best tactics from a forum. It's about making experiences. It's about creating games that you laugh and have fun during - games you remember.
I know some people treat miniature games as math problems, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I think they should loosen up a bit on occasion and enjoy a game for the things you can't quantify with discrete math.
Games should be fun, but stuff like that isn't everyone's idea of fun.
I was watching a video on game design - forget what it was called - and it basically argued that there are two kinds of rules: thematic rules and mechanical rules. Thematic rules are great because they give character to the units and playing them, but many players hate them because they are unpredictable or end up making units less effective than they would like. For them, a thematic rule which is mechanically imperfect is a criminal act.
Age of Sigmar, more than anything else, is a thematic game. Every special ability of a unit comes with a short description of why it gets the ability. The Runefather can fix an enemy unit within 3" with a level stare, the sort that can bring doubt to the mind of even the mightiest warrior. The mechanic is that you subtract D3 from the opposing unit's bravery until their next hero phase, which is thematically appropriate for a menacing stare, right? And that's cool. Gives the model some character. He doesn't subtract D3 from bravery. He fething stares at them until they lose D3 bravery.
The insult rule is thematic fun. You've got an angry little dwarf hurling insults at the enemy units, making them slightly easier to hit and slightly more likely to flee during Battle Shock tests. That's awesome. That's fun. And for the player who takes the opportunity to get into it, it makes that model more fun to play - not because he is more mechanically competent, but because he has a unique mechanic that makes playing him more joyous. I am not kidding: I am seriously considering getting this kit for this special ability alone.
Age of Sigmar is all about theme, not mechanics, and that's precisely why I love those rules. The models aren't just a stat line. They have character, and they give the games character. Playing with an insulting dwarf makes for a different game experience than one during which you cannot kneel for any reason, or one where you have to wear a fake beard for the duration. It's not just a competition between two min-maxed lists. It's not about who is smarter or more experienced or who downloaded the best tactics from a forum. It's about making experiences. It's about creating games that you laugh and have fun during - games you remember.
I know some people treat miniature games as math problems, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I think they should loosen up a bit on occasion and enjoy a game for the things you can't quantify with discrete math.
You miss the point. It's got nothing to do with thematic vs mechanical rules or whatever. It's because these joke rules break the fourth wall, and that breaks the immersion. Suddenly it's not about the story of two armies doing battle, it's the story about two guys playing a game with figurines and one of them is dancing around pretending to be a pony.
Bottle wrote: You miss the point. It's got nothing to do with thematic vs mechanical rules or whatever. It's because these joke rules break the fourth wall, and that breaks the immersion. Suddenly it's not about the story of two armies doing battle, it's the story about two guys playing a game with figurines and one of them is dancing around pretending to be a pony.
Bottle, thank you for this! I pay attention to your posts because you have been both a fan of AoS, and shown that you're willing to be reasonable, and even critical of things on occasion.
You can like AoS, and not swallow everything GW releases whole - and this is a great example of that.
To do the reverse (as I'm usually critical of AoS) that Runeson model looks great... just wish the head plume were as detailed as that sweet beard!
You miss the point. It's got nothing to do with thematic vs mechanical rules or whatever. It's because these joke rules break the fourth wall, and that breaks the immersion. Suddenly it's not about the story of two armies doing battle, it's the story about two guys playing a game with figurines and one of them is dancing around pretending to be a pony.
In this case, the model's special ability is literally insulting another unit. It's not breaking the fourth wall. If anything, it's roleplaying, completely in character, and should enhance your feeling of two armies doing battle. In other words, it's thematic.
As for the fourth wall thing, every single game I've ever played of Warmachine has involved unpainted armies on flat tables with felt cut outs representing forests and hills, with proxy models and occasionally empty bases representing models. Follow Privateer Press on Twitter and see retweet after retweet of empty tables with unpainted armies. That's the entirety of the Warmachine experience. I'll take players having fun and enjoying themselves in the spirit of the game over that any day.
We like what we like and we struggle to explain why. Ultimately, no justification will do, and no debate will change what we like. So, I'll just say, I like the silly rules and I'd rather play a game with a similar minded player than with a player who feels such rules are beneath them.
Uck, the pose on the runemaster wrecks him for me. The Runefather looks like you are supposed to remove that long gold section of the axe handle if you mount him on foot, then he would be fine. Runeson looks solid but suffers from the same off-dynamic posing as many of the fireslayers do. Salamander looks good overall, the saddlethrone thing is a bit silly but not so bad that I couldn't overlook it.
But for $110 that is a trash model. I am expecting a higher quality and much better design on a model with that premium of a price, otherwise forgettable errors become major factors when the price is cranked up that high. For $18 more I can get a magma dragon from forgeworld that will be bigger and look a hell of a lot better.
You miss the point. It's got nothing to do with thematic vs mechanical rules or whatever. It's because these joke rules break the fourth wall, and that breaks the immersion. Suddenly it's not about the story of two armies doing battle, it's the story about two guys playing a game with figurines and one of them is dancing around pretending to be a pony.
In this case, the model's special ability is literally insulting another unit. It's not breaking the fourth wall. If anything, it's roleplaying, completely in character, and should enhance your feeling of two armies doing battle. In other words, it's thematic.
As for the fourth wall thing, every single game I've ever played of Warmachine has involved unpainted armies on flat tables with felt cut outs representing forests and hills, with proxy models and occasionally empty bases representing models. Follow Privateer Press on Twitter and see retweet after retweet of empty tables with unpainted armies. That's the entirety of the Warmachine experience. I'll take players having fun and enjoying themselves in the spirit of the game over that any day.
We like what we like and we struggle to explain why. Ultimately, no justification will do, and no debate will change what we like. So, I'll just say, I like the silly rules and I'd rather play a game with a similar minded player than with a player who feels such rules are beneath them.
What the hell does Warmachine have to do this with?? It's the same problem with some competitive-focused players of *all* games. I've seen LEGIONS of grey space marines- posing as vikings or vampires or monks. This is hardly uniquely a Warmachine problem.
Although that point doesn't address the issue anyway. The models are grey because the players are lazy, not because of any requirement by the game itself. In comparison, the game is telling you (the player) to yell at some models to represent your characters. This sort of role playing is popular with some, but I'm not fond of it. The joke runs dry after the first time doing it.
I definitely agree with Bottle, it breaks the 4th wall and I had hoped that GW was going away from it, and hope even more so that it doesn't translate to 40k.
Bottle wrote: You miss the point. It's got nothing to do with thematic vs mechanical rules or whatever. It's because these joke rules break the fourth wall, and that breaks the immersion. Suddenly it's not about the story of two armies doing battle, it's the story about two guys playing a game with figurines and one of them is dancing around pretending to be a pony.
Bottle, thank you for this! I pay attention to your posts because you have been both a fan of AoS, and shown that you're willing to be reasonable, and even critical of things on occasion.
You can like AoS, and not swallow everything GW releases whole - and this is a great example of that.
To do the reverse (as I'm usually critical of AoS) that Runeson model looks great... just wish the head plume were as detailed as that sweet beard!
Haha, thanks. I'm glad I don't just annoy everyone :-) I made a decision when getting back into the hobby that I would stick with Warhammer Fantasy where ever GW took it. Now I'm here in the Age of Sigmar trying to make sense of how my Altdorf City Guard fit into this new world - there are things I love about AoS and some things I miss so so much from Fantasy Battle.
You miss the point. It's got nothing to do with thematic vs mechanical rules or whatever. It's because these joke rules break the fourth wall, and that breaks the immersion. Suddenly it's not about the story of two armies doing battle, it's the story about two guys playing a game with figurines and one of them is dancing around pretending to be a pony.
In this case, the model's special ability is literally insulting another unit. It's not breaking the fourth wall. If anything, it's roleplaying, completely in character, and should enhance your feeling of two armies doing battle. In other words, it's thematic.
You're saying "should" as if it's me at fault for not getting into the spirit of these rules, but in truth I am all about having a fun thematic game and love the non-fourth wall breaking rules (like the Auric Runemaster's ability to spot Ur-gold and how that plays in the game). These rules don't do anything to enhance my experience like a good campaign map or issuing a challenge (from WHFB) might do. In fact they detract from the experience.
As for the fourth wall thing, every single game I've ever played of Warmachine has involved unpainted armies on flat tables with felt cut outs representing forests and hills, with proxy models and occasionally empty bases representing models. Follow Privateer Press on Twitter and see retweet after retweet of empty tables with unpainted armies. That's the entirety of the Warmachine experience. I'll take players having fun and enjoying themselves in the spirit of the game over that any day.
Lol, what is this warmachine shade for?
We like what we like and we struggle to explain why. Ultimately, no justification will do, and no debate will change what we like. So, I'll just say, I like the silly rules and I'd rather play a game with a similar minded player than with a player who feels such rules are beneath them.
Wow, again, what's with all the passive insults? I don't feel these rules are beneath me, it's just not my kind of fun in the context of a wargame.
Kanluwen wrote: "Breaking the fourth wall" is when the unit itself would do something like insult the opposing player.
Just sayin'. This isn't breaking that fourth wall.
If you're here to be pedantic at least offer an alternative. Yes, you're right, "breaking the fourth wall" is usually attributed the other way round - the miniatures becoming aware of us, the players (if it were possible). I want to articulate why I don't like the "joke" rules in a better way than simply calling them silly. Do you have any suggestions? :-)
Kanluwen wrote: "Breaking the fourth wall" is when the unit itself would do something like insult the opposing player.
Just sayin'. This isn't breaking that fourth wall.
If you're here to be pedantic at least offer an alternative. Yes, you're right, "breaking the fourth wall" is usually attributed the other way round - the miniatures becoming aware of us, the players (if it were possible). I want to articulate why I don't like the "joke" rules in a better way than simply calling them silly. Do you have any suggestions? :-)
Why should I really bother to offer an alternative? It's not going to change your opinion or anyone else's opinion of these so-called "silly rules". At the very least I can make sure people stop whining about them "breaking the fourth wall".
Read the stupid rule. In no way, shape, or form are you required to do it. The bonus it gives as well is something that won't really have an effect on gameplay--if you choose to use it, you get to reroll To Hit rolls of 1. The Auric Runeson hits on 3+.
It's a rule that someone can take advantage of during a game when they feel like they're doing poorly without unbalancing the game in their favor. It also(shock! horror!) assumes that you are playing with people that you are comfortable enough to engage in such behavior with.
This is an AoS rumour thread. Now do I have to show a pic of my non GW books figs etc before the white knight comments start?
Just wondered why saying;
"Cool, I'm buying some for my KoW army"
particularly differs from saying
"Cool, I'm buying some for my AoS army".
2 letters difference. We're all liking the same models. The thread is about the release of new models.
When I bought my first Citadel miniatures, they were manufactured for any fantasy game you were playing. Why does it bother people so much nowadays?
I don't think it's anything you said, but what's implied.
Remember the long period where KoW players were constantly criticized for playing an "inferior game"? Well, now the Sigmar players are super defensive of their thread. Some KoW posts always have to take a shot at AoS and it's faults, which admittedly you did not do, I think it's just people being defensive.
You're saying "should" as if it's me at fault for not getting into the spirit of these rules, but in truth I am all about having a fun thematic game and love the non-fourth wall breaking rules (like the Auric Runemaster's ability to spot Ur-gold and how that plays in the game). These rules don't do anything to enhance my experience like a good campaign map or issuing a challenge (from WHFB) might do. In fact they detract from the experience.
You are misunderstanding me. I'm saying that if you like thematic games, then something which contributes to theme should, I would assume, contribute to what you enjoy about it. I was not implying that you should feel obligated to agree, just that, to me, it seemed like a logical progression.
Lol, what is this warmachine shade for?
My point is that unpainted models on flat terrain do more to destroy the illusion of armies fighting on a battlefield than a silly rule about insulting another unit, yet one is acceptable (even expected, occasionally the standard) while the other is somehow offensive. I'm not saying that the people who pay $40 for glorified, silver pawns are playing the game wrong, just that holding silly rules to the standard of "immersion breaking" is a bit hypocritical considering how prevalent the former attitude is.
Wow, again, what's with all the passive insults? I don't feel these rules are beneath me, it's just not my kind of fun in the context of a wargame.
I did not mean to implicate you in that comment. It was a more general purpose comment, that we can't help what we like and can't change what others like, and that I would rather play with someone who is willing to have fun with the game than someone who took it too seriously. Reading the comment again, I can see how it would appear to be a veiled insult, and I assure that was just poor word choice on my part.
I don't think it's anything you said, but what's implied.
Remember the long period where KoW players were constantly criticized for playing an "inferior game"? Well, now the Sigmar players are super defensive of their thread. Some KoW posts always have to take a shot at AoS and it's faults, which admittedly you did not do, I think it's just people being defensive.
I don't care if anybody likes Age of Sigmar. It's just that KoW are starting to remind me of vegans, constantly bring up the game regardless of the discussion or appropriateness of the comment. You can almost hear their voices get a little louder when they say it: "Oh, these are nice GW dwarves. I'll use them in my KINGS OF WAR ARMY." "GW makes expensive models, that's why I quit them to start PLAYING KINGS OF WAR." "GW's financials aren't as terrible as I was expecting, but it doesn't matter because my entire group now PLAYS KINGS OF WAR." "I'm sorry your aunt died. I never got the chance to play KINGS OF WAR WITH HER." "Gun control is a complicated subject, but you know what isn't complicated? KINGS OF WAR". "Did you KINGS OF WAR about the KINGS OF WAR?"
It's the smug self-satisfaction that I think rubs me the wrong way, just like vegans and cross-fitters, hence the joke. We get it. People are butthurt about getting dumped by WHFB and feel the need to overcompensate in the promotion of their rebound girlfriend, but it's getting absurd.
Yeah I don't like the giant lizard thing either. Like the stunties themselves it has terrible musculature. The flame/spike things on the shoulders also look weird to me, they segment the body from the limbs too much and make it look like an action figure where the arms pivot but only around a single axis. Don't like the excessively long tongue. Other than that I guess it's ok, but they tried too hard to make it look like a child's toy.
You're saying "should" as if it's me at fault for not getting into the spirit of these rules, but in truth I am all about having a fun thematic game and love the non-fourth wall breaking rules (like the Auric Runemaster's ability to spot Ur-gold and how that plays in the game). These rules don't do anything to enhance my experience like a good campaign map or issuing a challenge (from WHFB) might do. In fact they detract from the experience.
You are misunderstanding me. I'm saying that if you like thematic games, then something which contributes to theme should, I would assume, contribute to what you enjoy about it. I was not implying that you should feel obligated to agree, just that, to me, it seemed like a logical progression.
I'm going to have to agree with Bottle on that one. There's thematic rules that stay within the game and these ones are rules that break jarringly from the game, breaking the 4th wall (just to piss off Kan ). You can like one without following your logical progression of liking the other.
Your two categories of rules (thematic and mechanical) are very broad, broad enough to have sub categories that individuals may like or dislike.
I'd go one step further and say thematic rules don't have to be at the expense of mechanical rules at all. I like a game that is mechanically sound, but that doesn't mean I don't like thematic rules, I did collect both Orcs and Orks after all
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'm going to have to agree with Bottle on that one. There's thematic rules that stay within the game and these ones are rules that break jarringly from the game, breaking the 4th wall (just to piss off Kan ). You can like one without following your logical progression of liking the other.
I'm not saying you have to like them. I just thought that the thematic approach of insulting other units to make them run away is not far removed from a special ability death stare that lowers the bravery of other units. The only difference - and I mean, the ONLY difference - is the one requires a little bit of roleplaying on the part of the player while the other simply exists. I have trouble understanding why involving the player in such a way would be such a major deal breaker for a lot of players. There's obviously some sort of line between player and game that these rules cross, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it is.
I mean, you guys would be fine with the rules if it was mechanically identical, but didn't involve the player's involvement, right? Like, if you didn't have to come up with an insult, but you still got the +1 to bravery rolls. So, the unforgivable crime being committed here isn't even something that is quantified by the game rules themselves.
And it's not fourth wall breaking. That doesn't work in a board game where almost every mechanic is self aware - you think armies just waited their turn to charge the enemy? A better term is immersion breaking. Except I don't understand that either, since coming up with the insult that a model yells, getting to shout it and hear it and experience something which is only mechanically hinted at - that's MORE immersive, not less. Certainly not less than immersive than rolling three score dice a half dozen times. AoS obviously wants to blur the lines between miniature game and role playing game, and I just don't see what contract is being broken by that.
Your two categories of rules (thematic and mechanical) are very broad, broad enough to have sub categories that individuals may like or dislike.
Well obviously. Such a simple categorization could never hope to cover such a broad spectrum of things. It is more intended to contrast the different goals between them. Thematic rules exist to model character, while mechanical rules seek to simulate interaction within a complex system. Thematic rules and Mechanical rules can very much be at odds - they often are, but not always - as what is best for the character of a unit may not mesh well with what is best for the system - thematic rules aren't fair, predictable, or balanced because they are innately seeking to model something which can not be fair, predictable, or balanced. Having a unit that is afraid of chickens is thematic, but impairs the carefully crafted (and predictable) balance of the game. Have 1,500 pt armies fight against each other is a mechanic that intends to create balance, but has no thematic purpose at all, as armies are rarely balanced, if ever.
With these silly rules, I think we are seeing the exact same juxtaposition, but I think it is happening slightly higher up. Rather than being quantified by the rules themselves, they instead exist in the area between the rules and the player. Some invisible line has been crossed and some players feel that these silly rules, which works towards this particular style of game, makes it impossible to have another, different style of game. While they may be okay with some players using the silly rules as options, they feel that it codifies that particular style of game in such a way that they can not have the other style of game.
I was reading another, different article by the designer of the Imperial Settlers board game, questioning what kind of things should be put in the rulebook - should they codify player behavior in the rules themselves? For instance, he asks whether the rulebook for Mall of Horror should point out that you need to betray your friends. "Treason" is in the spirit of the game, not the rules. And that may be what these silly AoS rules are all about. They are trying to codify the spirit of the game, not just the mechanical interaction between game pieces.
To all the people who complain about the silly rules in AoS, how many games have you actually played that used them?
Agreed, as usual they're doubling down on a strategy despite the response. I think any hope most people had of the game turning a corner with the dwarf release have been dashed...
If the models were better, it could be something to overlook (and use them in any fantasy system you like). But with such a lack of posing options, even fielding a small force of these will look extremely repetitive quickly.
Duplicate sculpts are one of my least favorite things (I do everything I can to avoid it with Privateer Press models, too) as it really breaks the immersion of the game.
I was going to use one of the new dwarves as a character for ym D&D campaign - but after seeing them, I'll just use heroforge and make my own or use the berserker from avatars of war.
It's actually kind of sad how bad some of the sculpts are.
To all the people who complain about the silly rules in AoS, how many games have you actually played that used them?
Quite a few now. My pet hate is the grail knight "For ze lady!" as it quickly becomes a taunt to signal a block of Knights of the Realm proxying as Grail Knights are going to obliterate which ever unit they touch.
The one I find most immersion breaking through is the staring contest I have to have with a night goblin opponent for a formation bonus of theirs.
I take Kan's advice and don't use them myself. But I am sad to see them continue with the Fyreslayers here. As RiTides says, they should have listened to the largely negative reception they recieved (not just on Dakka, my local GW was the same).
I wouldn't liken these to Roleplaying rules either because they would seem just as out of place and immersion breaking in a tabletop roleplaying game like D&D:
"You enter the Dragon's lair and feel it's piercing gaze through the gloom..."
*The DM stares you in the eye.*
"Um, what are you doing?"
"I am the dragon and this is its piercing gaze. You looked away and so now have disadvantage on all rolls against it."
No fan of the funny rules myself. What I find a shame when I see them is the missed opportunity for a better rule. I love seeing unique abilities on a war scroll and would rather that real estate taken up by something more within the game world. However, I don't think they're a big deal if sparse and largely ignorable, and I think the models in this army are great, especially when seen on video.
Edit: There's got to be like one or two guys in GW who like these funny rules and keep pushing them, because I have to imagine 90% of everyone, GW staff included, aren't a fan.
RiTides wrote: Man that (saddle / howdah?) looks awkward...!
Without it, he'd have to be doing the splits in order to ride Would that look better?
I think he'd look better standing on the thing's back, like Fremen on a sandworm. Give him a couple of hooks to hang on and steer with, Bob's your uncle.
coldgaming wrote: No fan of the funny rules myself. What I find a shame when I see them is the missed opportunity for a better rule.
This. So much.
There's a difference between a "funny" funny rule and a "stupid" funny rule.
Take Konrad's "one bat short of a belfry": his lunacy provides a perfect justification for an exotic, unique special rule... not one that involves you talking to the bloody miniature. It can be fluffy, and not stupid.
However, I do have to say I was saddened to see a "funny" rule for one of them. It isn't too bad, but I hoped they would not return with the new races. Ah well.
.
Do tell, or link to them. Some of us don't have a privacyinvasionbook account.
I'm intrigued about the inclusion of "funny" rules for the newer armies. That right there is a very curious development.
Auric Runeson's "Explosive Rage" - pick a visible unit to the Runeson to be the target of his wrath. Re-roll hit rolls of 1 against that unit. If a battleshock test is made against that unit before your next hero phase, you can add 1 to the result if you deliver a "suitably characterful insult or furious put down" aimed at the unit.
EDIT: Games should be fun. I've always liked the silly rules and I'm glad to see them return.
Mandatory fun isn't fun though. If both players are the sort of folk who're into banter, you get a bit of banter based on what happens in that particular game, and that's fun. Having a section in the rules with "FUN MODE ENGAGED: MANDATORY INSULT ACTIVATED, I GAIN +1 DICE ROLLS. FUN COMPLETE" isn't just really forced, like bad standup, it's gakky for players who're not into banter.
If you need the rules of the game to spoonfeed you "humour", you need to find new folk to play with.
Yodhrin wrote: If you need the rules of the game to spoonfeed you "humour", you need to find new folk to play with.
Indeed. There was no real shortage of banter before these rules were around. I'd often walk in on a game and hear one of the players talking like an Orc People who like the silliness don't need a rule to tell them they are allowed to be silly.
It's easy to avoid these rules by refusing to play them.
Back on topic, the Dwarf's salamander saddle doesn't seem to know if it is meant to be a saddle or a howdah and falls into an unfortunate compromise between them. Not one of GW's better results, I feel. It should have been either more mechanically realistic or more outrageously over the top.
Edit: My one lingering question though, is who are the blacksmiths and the grim wrath berserkers? They're listed in the lodge chart but not seemingly released yet. Wonder if it will be a third week of Fyreslayers, but strikes me a bit weird to come after the battle tome and not be seen in any of the pictures yet.
Battlesmith will be the BSB guy that was very first leaked and the Grimwrath Bezerker will be the guy with the twin headed axe is my guess :-)
And they must be in a third week of releases.
Not necessarily, provides room to add in future.
There are 4 disciplines of Stormcast referred to in the Battletome that we've not even seen artwork for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: Do you mind not making any sweeping statements that paint people in certain ways?! how about talking more about miniatures and less about vegans...
As a member of one of the maligned groups, I see enough of the "Yes, but I haven't told you about X for at least 5 minutes!" within it in others to find the humour in the parallel.
As for silly rules - my regular opponent used longbeards, so our group now polices the grumbling rule. Has to be valid, can't use the same grumble twice, etc. Works both ways...
Auric Runeson's "Explosive Rage" - pick a visible unit to the Runeson to be the target of his wrath. Re-roll hit rolls of 1 against that unit. If a battleshock test is made against that unit before your next hero phase, you can add 1 to the result if you deliver a "suitably characterful insult or furious put down" aimed at the unit.
Oh goody. Cue dorks spamming the "Your mother was a hamster" routine and then arguing how it's still as funny now as it was the last 30 times they did it.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's easy to avoid these rules by refusing to play them.
Back on topic...
It is on topic, we're discussing the rules of a new AoS release. And that response to criticisms of the silly rules is a nonsense - you can refuse to play *any* part of *any* ruleset, that doesn't mean the stupidity isn't part of that ruleset, and by that virtue will be considered the default. Considering AoS is already a game that requires you to convene the bloody UN to mediate what parts of the shoddy core rules you're going to use, ignore, or houserule up the backside to make functional, adding yet another point of contention that people have to resolve before they can get on with having a game is hilariously inept design.
Also, there's an even easier way to avoid these rules; don't play AoS, which seems to be a fairly popular option, although probably not the one GW or people who like AoS and want it to stick around would favour.
The closer I look at the Magmadroth, the more i like it. I love how the fin and spikes are wavey, giving them a flaming feel. The paint job make a huge impact there. I think they made a mistake painting the nostrils brighter than the eyes, as I initially took them as such. I'm a huge, huge fan of Monster Hunter, and I think this dude craps all over the Agnaktor, the lava dragon from MH3U. In fact, everything about the Magmadroth, including its name, screams Monster Hunter - and that's a good thing in my eyes.
