Overread wrote: Of course it depends where in the motion you pause it because no legs on the ground is also realistic
Spoiler:
GW's poses are BS. I want hover horses now!
A bit more seriously, the complaint isn't actually all that out there. Unlike beefy Chaos steeds skinny elven horse ankles may prove to be one of those less durable things that break for people who actually use the models in games instead of just sitting them on a shelf. GW has proven not to care how flimsy their models are as long as they can cast and ship them on sprue. End user troubles don't usually enter into their design process. I can certainly see Cronch's point, looking at the picture in the article. Might prove to be fine in real life, but until I actually see that proof I can't help but feel concerned about it.
No one here has played Rohan for Middle Earth obviously. 20 odd years of plastic horses in charging poses and as long as you're not cack handed, they're perfectly fine.
Very nice! The classic elf look doesn't suit my personal preferences but I can seriously respect the quality of design. My elfophile friends are really going to love them.
As it happens, I spent a lot of time today working on three Rogue Trader Rough Rider horses, and boy did their 1-2 feet down poses annoy me during this process. I had "wisely" cut out all the plastic tabs that connected the in-air hooves to the base, so I ended up having to pin one of the horses down because of course the miniscule plastic connection point between hoof and base eventually broke while I was trying to pin the metal rider down.
It's also a real illustration of how much GW's horse sculpting has advanced over the years, the RT steeds didn't even have saddle belts moulded on, just a simple square shape suggesting a saddle.
Agamemnon2 wrote: As it happens, I spent a lot of time today working on three Rogue Trader Rough Rider horses, and boy did their 1-2 feet down poses annoy me during this process. I had "wisely" cut out all the plastic tabs that connected the in-air hooves to the base, so I ended up having to pin one of the horses down because of course the miniscule plastic connection point between hoof and base eventually broke while I was trying to pin the metal rider down.
It's also a real illustration of how much GW's horse sculpting has advanced over the years, the RT steeds didn't even have saddle belts moulded on, just a simple square shape suggesting a saddle.
That's because they just used the WFB horses, and for those, the saddle, stirrups and etc were modeled on the riders, not the horses.
Yep for a long time horses were mostly a generic shape - a few varied sculpt modifications, but by and large quite plain. I think we really started to see more wild poses with the wild riders for Wood Elves (very glad those models were not retired from sale). Since then GW has just been getting better and better.
My Ossiarch Deathriders also show another aspect which is that mounts have got bigger over the years in comparison to the rider.
It's one thing I'd like from revised Deamonette Seekers (although even more so fro the human variation where the male rider appears to be sitting on what amounts to a small pony in equivalent size ). If you look at the art the Seeker mount is quite broad and large; yet the current models the seekers are quite small in comparison to the rider. The old Diaz were more of a size though the riders were also much smaller too.
Cronch wrote: 1 hoof on the ground, on an animal which is well known for it's delicate feet even IRL. GW's allergy to stable miniatures is well-established now.
Have you seen a horse run?
One hoof on the ground is realistic
You've completely missed the point.
It's another GW model where the connection between base and model is tiny, and essentially leaves you hoping nothing happens to the model. Those are gaming models, not display pieces, they need to survive being handled, and maybe occasionally knocked off the table or rattled in the carrying case.That's my complaint, not if the trot is realistic (what if elves are actually denser than lead and the horse can't trot at all? )
Actually I'd say my current horses from GW - the Deathriders - are pretty stable and safe. Lets not forget many models only have a small contact point of two feet on the base - even way back in the old "slotta" era there was only really the feet on the model (The slot was glued in so the feet were the weak contact point).
I've more issue with flying things all told - things like khinerai, which are much more fragile.
Having two points is significantly more stable though, even with a similar amount of contact area. Personally I would not play those cavalry without additional support, but I know myself. All of my models are VERY well glued.
The updates keep saying these are coming soon. when do people think these will be released? I would love it if they came in March, but is it too wishful to think that?
Carlovonsexron wrote: The updates keep saying these are coming soon. when do people think these will be released? I would love it if they came in March, but is it too wishful to think that?
Slightly too wishful. We're at a month of bi-weekly updates, and there are still two releases that were shown off at the Vegas Open that haven't generated a Monday article of rambling text.
By April (ie, three more updates), we might start seeing signs of the release. Or at least a ramble about the book or models we haven't already seen.
Argive wrote: Have there been any leaks regarding the price for the Cav ?
I want those bits for my shining spears/eldar
Prices are the last thing we'll learn about, in the week pre-orders go up.
At a guess I'd assume they'll have the same price as the Ossies' cavalry. The LVO preview suggests the elves will be released in a five-man box as well, and Ossies were released after the last round of price hikes, so new releases in the near future should be priced similarly to comparable units the undead just got.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Decent SC boxes. But for the love of Khaine the Daughters need a leader model other than Morathi that's not part of the Bloodwrack kit
Well, there'll be the Daughters warband for Underworlds whenever that drops.
Personally, I think this is a good solve. Three potential leaders in one set puts you in Magmadroth territory.
They're talking about seraphon's "coalescence", meaning some of the lizards have become flesh and blood again. Guess the summoning will still be there, though.
Cronch wrote: The warscroll cards show tokens for 1 and 5 CCP, I assume it'll be coalescence points for summoning.
Celestial Conjuration Points.
Also, Warscroll shows that Seraphon have lost the Celestial and Daemon keywords. Big changes.
No Sheild ability on the Old Blood Warscroll, new Cold Ferocity ability, Wrath of the Seraphon replacing Paragon of Order as the Command ability, Bravery 8 now, improved save, more attacks, but weapon stats seem very similar.
Tokens mention some techy feel wording.
Terrain fluff/rule hint confirms that Seraphon are terraforming the realms to be more Jungly.
Always nice to see more Start Collecting boxes. Amused at how few Gitz are in the Gitz box though!
And the Bloodwrack Throne is a crazy miniature to be in such a small army. I think it looks silly that it is on wheels.
Interested in a new Seraphon battletome. I might pick it up. I was very disappointed with the last one, so I hope this is better.
The Daughters box seems to be in there just to highlight the throne's availability. The model has been 'temporarily out of stock' in the States for over a year now, and I suspect they want to push sales of it, and deal with its absurd price point at the same time by combining it with the medusas.
It isn't quite as odd as the fyreslayers box (which is the same price as their giant lizard, and has infantry besides), but it makes a lot more sense as a stock/pricing driven box rather than a rational starting point for building a Daughters of Khaine army.
Voss wrote: The Daughters box seems to be in there just to highlight its availability. The model has been 'temporarily out of stock' in the States for over a year now, and I suspect they want to push sales of it, and deal with its absurd price point at the same time by combining it with the medusas.
It isn't quite as odd as the fyreslayers box (which is the same price as their giant lizard, and has infantry besides), but it makes a lot more sense as a stock/pricing driven box rather than a rational starting point for building a Daughters of Khaine army.
Just so we're on the same page:
The Fyreslayers Start Collecting box is the Magmadroth box. They no longer sell Magmadroths individually.
Please note – when you purchase this miniature, you’ll receive the Start Collecting! Fyreslayers box. This contains the complete Magmadroth kit, with all the options as described here, as well 10 Vulkite Berzerkers, for the same price
When it was available by itself, the Magmadroth was something like $110. The Carnosaur was in a similar situation for a decent chunk of time, but when the Seraphon box went up in price they just kept selling Carnosaurs for $85.
Voss wrote: The Daughters box seems to be in there just to highlight its availability. The model has been 'temporarily out of stock' in the States for over a year now, and I suspect they want to push sales of it, and deal with its absurd price point at the same time by combining it with the medusas.
It isn't quite as odd as the fyreslayers box (which is the same price as their giant lizard, and has infantry besides), but it makes a lot more sense as a stock/pricing driven box rather than a rational starting point for building a Daughters of Khaine army.
Just so we're on the same page:
The Fyreslayers Start Collecting box is the Magmadroth box. They no longer sell Magmadroths individually.
Please note – when you purchase this miniature, you’ll receive the Start Collecting! Fyreslayers box. This contains the complete Magmadroth kit, with all the options as described here, as well 10 Vulkite Berzerkers, for the same price
When it was available by itself, the Magmadroth was something like $110. The Carnosaur was in a similar situation for a decent chunk of time, but when the Seraphon box went up in price they just kept selling Carnosaurs for $85.
That's baffling. Then why keep it on the store page like they're selling it individually?
Much the same way GW keeps listings for units that are built from multikits and yet lists them each as their own option. It's most likely because it gets more attention and also grasps the attention of those going for a big signature model like that.
Seraphon is fantastic news and the newer twist to them becoming corporal living creatures I think is a welcome move. It leaves the door wide open for so many story options that don't have to involve a Slaan nearby.
Also when Seraphon come it marks the 2.0 completion of AoS which is a massive moment for the game in its history!
No new models is a shame, but at the same time lets not forget that most armies in AoS didn't get any new models or only got one token model. There's armies worse off than seraphon for finecast and metals.
DoK getting started set is a good set, though I expect it to be up there at the £60 bracket, but a very welcome set. I can well see them selling strongly as, noted above, it has all the non-morathi heroes inside. It's just such a key cornerstone of the army.
Liking the new SC! sets but the DoK box seems a bit cheeky, a cauldron and five of the snake archer thingies... aren't the other models there just left over/optional bits from the... er, cauldron kit?
Then there the Lizardmen scenery... looks disappointingly diminutive and squished together size/dimension wise, especially lined up next ot a skink!
Is this replacing the current Seraphon start collecting box? Is it worth grabbing a couple of the current one while it's still available if I'm thinking about Seraphon?
Overread wrote: The Cauldron Kit makes a lot depending how you build it
Spoiler:
Eg
A)
1 Cauldron with Slaughter Queen
1 Hag Queen
1 Bloodwrack Medusa
B)
1 Cauldron with Hag Queen
1 Slaughter Queen
1 Bloodwrack Medusa
C)
1 Bloodwrack Shrine
1 Slaughter Queen
1 Hag Queen
1 Avatar of Khaine
D)
1 Slaughter Queen
1 Hag Queen
1 Bloodwrack Medusa
1 Avatar of Khaine
Assorted cauldron bits.
If you add magnets then you can swap things over as much as you want/need
And of course they advertised the one which resulted in the largest number of individual models, so that they can proudly display that the box contains "9 Citadel Miniatures". Not entirely sure why they put that on the box in big print; not exactly makes it look like good value for all these recent sets that have only a handful of models in them...
That said, it is indeed a nice and flexible kit in that sense. Doesn't just have leftover bits, but leftover bits that are actually directly useful.
TheWaspinator wrote: Is this replacing the current Seraphon start collecting box? Is it worth grabbing a couple of the current one while it's still available if I'm thinking about Seraphon?
GW won't keep both on sale so chances are the old one will cycle out and retire. So if you want them I'd grab them right now as chances are the stock will only reduce - probably pretty fast as it basically gives you a lot of core infantry and cavalry and a huge dinosaur. It's actually curious that GW would replace it, then again it might be that they are planning to remodel the models in that box in the future (eg new cavalry) so they are withdrawing that box now and releasing a new collecting set. Of coures this plan could be years off and it might even be that its not considered economical for them, esp as they sell the mounted dinosaur for just as much as the collecting set.
Same goes for any finecast or metal models still in their range if you like them. Don't forget 2.0 battletome releases are still a time when GW might remove models from the army. Seraphon might be like Skaven and not lose anything or they could lose things. There is no way to tell.
Every DoK player I know is livid about the SC centering on the damn Shrine again just like every single DoK bundle before it instead of making Wyches affordable.
lord_blackfang wrote: Every DoK player I know is livid about the SC centering on the damn Shrine again just like every single DoK bundle before it instead of making Wyches affordable.
Yeah but lets face it, every DoK current player isn't the target of a start collecting set. The set itself is fantastic for anyone starting DoK or who hasn't got that far with their army yet. As a set its a very good deal
Start Collecting is designed for new players to a faction to get a feel for that particular range models and painting/getting to grips with them in a very easy and basic way.
The DoK ones really show the varied models and approach and seems pretty awesome/flashy for an introduction to a new faction. Most SC now days focus on that, a generic 'infantry' unit, a cavalry or hero, then a big centre piece and a leader hero type unit.
GW currently has two starters for Stormcast, and two (one demon one mortal) for Nurgle and Khorne. Considering both skinks and sauruses are significantly different unit types, there is no reason why they won't keep both. Note the new one is called "SC: Skink" not Seraphon.
We both know GW is not replacing the decrepit saurus models any time soon, or they'd do it now, so I bet the 2-box thing will stay.
GW currently has two starters for Stormcast, and two (one demon one mortal) for Nurgle and Khorne. Considering both skinks and sauruses are significantly different unit types, there is no reason why they won't keep both. Note the new one is called "SC: Skink" not Seraphon.
We both know GW is not replacing the decrepit saurus models any time soon, or they'd do it now, so I bet the 2-box thing will stay.
But they’ve removed the older Khorne warband, I grabbed the last one at Miniature Market. It had 3 mortal juggernaut riders a hero and 10 warriors. The new Slaves to darkness box will replace the old start collecting box , I think it’ll just take time as the old box has not as shiny models in it. The fact that Stormcast have multiple boxes is because they have different chambers.it would be like saying marines have multiple start collecting boxes and showing a blood angel box, a space wolf box and a raven guard box. They are different entirely.
Space Marines DO have multiple Start Collecting sets though? One classic, one Primaris. Space Wolves also have two in the same vein.
Stormcast Chambers are all found in the same book and play the same army, so the comparison with different flavours of Marines doesn't even work.
And the original Khorne Bloodbound set is only gone because it was replaced by a new one, which continues to exist alongside the Daemons of Khorne set.
So yeah, I'd be decently confident that the Skinks SC set won't replace the current one.
Stormcast are a bit of a special case and I think that GW was originally going to make them identical to marines in so much as having different Chambers released as separate armies in their own right. Much like how marines have their own Chapters
I think GW abandoned that idea and is instead going for a wider selection of fantasy races, however I suspect work on the two Getting Started sets was far enough along that they couldn't stop it. So instead of stopping, they let it complete and just shifted things around in the book so that they were all one single army.
Two SC sets is still very rare for GW,I'm still of the view the old one will go; which is the standard mode of operation for GW for the vast majority of their armies. One or two exceptions doesn't change that.
Of course only time will tell, its impossible to predict GW's actions
It's worth noting that most factions lack the internal diversity to make multiple Start Collecting boxes worthwhile. For most factions, across AoS and 40K, it wouldn't make sense to have multiple boxes that ultimately build the same army. Other than Space Marines, where we already see it happening, Drukhari are the only exception in 40K, with the Kabalite / Wych Cult / Haemonculus Coven divide.
Where it does make sense in AoS, we see it just as much as we don't. Stormcast, Khorne, Nurgle, Legions of Nagash, and Cities of Sigmar all have multiple sets, Tzeentch Mortals, Clan Verminus, and Bonesplitterz could have sets but don't, Gutbusters and Clan Skryre couldn't until their recent plastic hero releases, and now Skinks might have theirs.
I fully expect the Sacrosanct Chamber to receive one eventually too, likely in the form of their half of Soul Wars (with Nighthaunt getting a SC of their own).
But yes, GW certainly has a well earned reputation for unpredictability. The biggest cause for doubt that Start Collecting: Skinks will be a standalone box is that it just makes too much sense.
TheWaspinator wrote: Is this replacing the current Seraphon start collecting box? Is it worth grabbing a couple of the current one while it's still available if I'm thinking about Seraphon?
GW won't keep both on sale so chances are the old one will cycle out and retire. So if you want them I'd grab them right now as chances are the stock will only reduce - probably pretty fast as it basically gives you a lot of core infantry and cavalry and a huge dinosaur.
Ehhh I don't think GW will replace the Seraphon box currently out there. I mean the new Start Collecting box is labelled "Skinks" not "Seraphon" so I think they will keep both.
Daughters of Khaine has some cool miniatures in it, but I agree that Wych Elves would have made more sense. However, Start Collecting sets are the best thing GW has done in AGES so I am not gonna complain about them!
The Temple thing, is a bit of a meh from me. A stepped temple is one of the easiest terrain pieces to make yourself, and it can look pretty decent with minimal effort. I think the GW one is alright but it is a bit small and toy like to my eyes and I dislike the magical doodad on the top. Still, options for people who don't like to make their own terrain are always good.
The Realmshaper Engine pieces are double sided so you can either build as the shown overgrown version (halfway through converting an area) or as a newly built version.
Jesus... talk about an empty box. Bugger all in those SC boxes, and GW are charging top dollar for it. Oh well, fool's and their money are easily parted.
So if going by box contents alone with prices from GW shop:
- Daughters of Khaine content is worth 100€ (that is from 2 kits) so saving would be 30€.
- Gloomspite Gitz is 102.50€ from 3 kits. Least savings.
- Skins gives the most worth, 10 skinks can be counted as 15€ (1/2 from original kit) so it would end up as 126€ from 4 kits. Giving 46€ savings in neat box.
I kind of like the look of the Realmshaper Engine for the most part. The only part I'm not really a fan of are the 4 snake pillars. They are too recognizable while not feeling fully integrated into the rest of the piece. They basically look like they were kit bashed onto it. Also, I really wish they had an example of what the reversed clean sides look like.
Jesus... talk about an empty box. Bugger all in those SC boxes, and GW are charging top dollar for it. Oh well, fool's and their money are easily parted.
The Skinks one is still a decent savings compared to individual boxes (the bastilodon comes free in essence), if that's *fair* price that's another thing.
Starborne forces represent the Azyrite Seraphon. Extremely mobile and blessed with the ability to summon new reinforcements to the battlefield, they’re flexible, powerful and excel at objective-based play or when using powerful casters like Slann Starmasters. Lords of Space and Time is their signature ability, letting you deliver key units to wherever they’re needed most.
COALESCED ARMIES
Coalesced armies represent the more savage, terrestrial Seraphon that have made their home in the Mortal Realms, and as such, they have gained several powerful advantages to their combat prowess. For example, whether you’re fielding Saurus, Stegadons or anything in between, you’ll get a helpful extra attack with any jaw-based weapons you’re using!
SUB-FACTIONS
TOP WARSCRILL CHANGES
BOUND ENDLESS SPELLS
Lots of armies in Warhammer Age of Sigmar now have Endless Spells, but the Seraphon have mastery over them like no other faction. Special “bound” versions of the standard Endless Spells found in the Malign Sorcery set offer the same powerful benefits as their counterparts, with a key twist – bound predatory endless spells can only be moved by a player using a Seraphon army. No more watching Purple Suns and Geminids of Uhl-Gysh crash into your own units – just utter magical destruction at your command!
TBD wrote: Ehh, not sure if I like that background for the Lizardmen.
Slann temple-ships... this isn't 40K. We don't need starships in AOS, thank you.
Lizardmen are going to be a bit like the Dragon Riders of Pern. A sci-fi faction "technically" but visually and functionally fantasy for the most part.
Also don't forget the Mortal Realms is a touch closer to Steam Punk than the Old World was - though the current Cities of Sigmar models don't really reflect that yet. In the stories they've already had walkers, steam type horses etc... Heck the Realm of Metal has living creatures born with pistons for muscles and such.
Remember much of the "spaceship" Lizardmen is more how they got to the Realms from the Old World. Heck one whole half of this new battletome army options is going to be basically "feral" Lizardmen. Those who aren't even on the Arkships any more and are living, breeding, breathing in the Mortal Realms
The Lizardmen spaceships have been around since the very start. There’s a picture of one in the original AoS core book, or one of the very early books at least.
Literally just finished re reading End Times Thanqual again and the “space ships” are the old Lustrian temples from the world that was that they used to escape Lustria when Morrslieb broke apart and basically destroyed a lot of the continent.
So they still are/ always have been star faring beings in essence
Pretty optimistic/hyped. Everything so far looks okay to pretty neat. I'm very curious about the Thunder Lizard Subfaction. I hope it's not locked to Starbourne or Coalesced.... But it'll be one or the other no doubt.
No wolves on Fenris wrote: Literally just finished re reading End Times Thanqual again and the “space ships” are the old Lustrian temples from the world that was that they used to escape Lustria when Morrslieb broke apart and basically destroyed a lot of the continent.
So they still are/ always have been star faring beings in essence
TBD wrote: Ehh, not sure if I like that background for the Lizardmen.
Slann temple-ships... this isn't 40K. We don't need starships in AOS, thank you.
Once again its ging back to the older lore when the wto rules sets were much closer and Amazons and Slann could have high tech weaponry. Lizardmen all the way up to 8th ed and the end used "magical" weapons that seemed to also be Lascannons, Power Swords etc.
TBD wrote: Ehh, not sure if I like that background for the Lizardmen.
Slann temple-ships... this isn't 40K. We don't need starships in AOS, thank you.
Once again its ging back to the older lore when the wto rules sets were much closer and Amazons and Slann could have high tech weaponry. Lizardmen all the way up to 8th ed and the end used "magical" weapons that seemed to also be Lascannons, Power Swords etc.
The Temple-ships are from the End Times.
This. As explained above, they're not new lore. They've been in AOS since the beginning (And before). So it's not long they're adding anything
TBD wrote: Ehh, not sure if I like that background for the Lizardmen.
Slann temple-ships... this isn't 40K. We don't need starships in AOS, thank you.
Once again its ging back to the older lore when the wto rules sets were much closer and Amazons and Slann could have high tech weaponry. Lizardmen all the way up to 8th ed and the end used "magical" weapons that seemed to also be Lascannons, Power Swords etc.
The Temple-ships are from the End Times.
This. As explained above, they're not new lore. They've been in AOS since the beginning (And before). So it's not long they're adding anything
Bit more on one of the Temple Ships previosuly mentioned
Also, one of the more recent Horus Heresy novels has Eldrad killing a member of an older race while on a "temple of the old ones" that happened to be a ziggurat in a jungle.
Kirasu wrote: Also, one of the more recent Horus Heresy novels has Eldrad killing a member of an older race while on a "temple of the old ones" that happened to be a ziggurat in a jungle.
Originally WHFB was just a world in 40k, Sigmar a lost Primarch, and the Old Ones which created the Slaan were the same Old Ones who fought the Necrons.
Anyways, I am really digging this expansion of the Seraphon fluff. It gives players a lot of what we've wanted while also avoiding a massive ret-con. Well done GW.
The rules content looks fun as well, excited to see more.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Originally WHFB was just a world in 40k, Sigmar a lost Primarch, and the Old Ones which created the Slaan were the same Old Ones who fought the Necrons.
Anyways, I am really digging this expansion of the Seraphon fluff. It gives players a lot of what we've wanted while also avoiding a massive ret-con. Well done GW.
The rules content looks fun as well, excited to see more.
Pretty sure Sigmar being a primarch is a fan theory. The Old Ones being the same Old Ones as in 40k is heavily implied though, at least in 7th - 8th ed. I think it was also implied in the 6th ed lizardmen army book, but I don't want to dig it out to check.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Originally WHFB was just a world in 40k, Sigmar a lost Primarch, and the Old Ones which created the Slaan were the same Old Ones who fought the Necrons.
Anyways, I am really digging this expansion of the Seraphon fluff. It gives players a lot of what we've wanted while also avoiding a massive ret-con. Well done GW.
The rules content looks fun as well, excited to see more.
Pretty sure Sigmar being a primarch is a fan theory. The Old Ones being the same Old Ones as in 40k is heavily implied though, at least in 7th - 8th ed.
I think it was also implied in the 6th ed lizardmen army book, but I don't want to dig it out to check.
It's a pretty weak fan theory, since Sigmar was actually born. And since Fantasy predated 40k, it's not like he was ever meant to be a primarch. I mean, sure you can retcon that the twin tailed comet was actually his pod crashing to the old world, but the primarchs were all found eventually. No such thing as a missing primarch, just lost ones.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Originally WHFB was just a world in 40k, Sigmar a lost Primarch, and the Old Ones which created the Slaan were the same Old Ones who fought the Necrons.
Anyways, I am really digging this expansion of the Seraphon fluff. It gives players a lot of what we've wanted while also avoiding a massive ret-con. Well done GW.
The rules content looks fun as well, excited to see more.
Pretty sure Sigmar being a primarch is a fan theory. The Old Ones being the same Old Ones as in 40k is heavily implied though, at least in 7th - 8th ed.
I think it was also implied in the 6th ed lizardmen army book, but I don't want to dig it out to check.
Its definitely a fan theory, the HH books pretty easily spell out the "missing 2" were killed by Russ.
The point I was trying to make is that core background lore for Lizardmen and indeed the setting as whole has gone through dramatic changes since some of the earlier writing. Fluff from pre-2000s needs to be taken with a grain of salt since it may have been ret-conned some time ago. Details as to the exact nature of things would make for an interesting discussion but not one that is on-topic here.
Old ones are almost certainly the same species, since they came into Old World via dimensional gates. But there is no proof that Old World was part of 40k setting, merely connected via the Warp that connects all multiverse in GW lore.
As for the rules, I am happy so far, though I wished sauruses would get beefed up more. I'll wait and see for full rules of course.
Cronch wrote: Old ones are almost certainly the same species, since they came into Old World via dimensional gates. But there is no proof that Old World was part of 40k setting, merely connected via the Warp that connects all multiverse in GW lore.
As for the rules, I am happy so far, though I wished sauruses would get beefed up more. I'll wait and see for full rules of course.
Hmmm the most recent reference to any sort of connection was about when 8th edition came out. The Hammerhall Herald noted a distinct lack of daemonic activity in the Mortal Realms “as if they had all gone somewhere else”, itself a reference to the Great Rift forming and the daemons rampaging everywhere.
Though the Herald is very tongue in cheek so it’s not a very serious lore connection.
TBD wrote: Ehh, not sure if I like that background for the Lizardmen.
Slann temple-ships... this isn't 40K. We don't need starships in AOS, thank you.
Once again its ging back to the older lore when the wto rules sets were much closer and Amazons and Slann could have high tech weaponry. Lizardmen all the way up to 8th ed and the end used "magical" weapons that seemed to also be Lascannons, Power Swords etc.
The Temple-ships are from the End Times.
This. As explained above, they're not new lore. They've been in AOS since the beginning (And before). So it's not long they're adding anything
Much before. There's a Slaan spaceship that gets recovered from the Chaos Wastes in one of the pre-Black Library anthologies (around 3rd/4th edition) [Edit: 'The Star Boat,' in Ignorant Armies, 1989]. This was back when Slaan were degenerate descendants of the Old Ones and didn't answer to anyone else- they were the ones who terraformed the old world and brought in elves, humans and dwarfs.
Lizards -not- having spaceships would be a bigger departure from the background.
Galas wrote: Even Saurus can have -1 rend in their weapons but chaos warriors can't :(
They do: chaos warriors get a choice between re-rollable hits, 2" reach, 5+ fnp against mortals, or -1 rend. Going by the new profile saurus will have a choice between -1 rend and 2" reach. So unless they also get two wounds and an improved save profile a chaos warrior is still going to be more badass than a saurus is.
They just might, the sneak peeks for KO didnt mention 2W for grundstocks either I think. I mean, despite how goofy they are I do love the sarususes so whatever boosts them is good.
Galas wrote: Even Saurus can have -1 rend in their weapons but chaos warriors can't :(
They do: chaos warriors get a choice between re-rollable hits, 2" reach, 5+ fnp against mortals, or -1 rend. Going by the new profile saurus will have a choice between -1 rend and 2" reach. So unless they also get two wounds and an improved save profile a chaos warrior is still going to be more badass than a saurus is.
Yeah but then you compare my poor blood warriors agaisnt Ard Boyz and...
IMHO this is a very hideous piece of terrain. Probably the worst since AoS came out. I love quite a lot of GWs terrain kits, but this one... sheesh. It’s very easy to do a better pyramid yourself. Just make sure you have some spare Lizardmen bits, and you’re set.
I like how Lizardmen are flesh and blood creatures who reproduce via spawning vats again. I wasn't a fan of the whole energy beings made from the memories of Slaan thing.
They could have spent a bit more time on those glyphs and carvings - these really look like the least possible effort, just very little detail or anything of interest (even more so when compared to real-world examples).
It'd be a lot more useful/functional/interesting if it was shorter with broader steps you could put a mini on, and no ball lightning (or whatever that is supposed to be) on top. The freestanding snake carvings propping up the lightning aren't good either.
I feel like a more diverse dinorider army would be more fun.
Saurus on Carnasaur
Skink Priest on Troglodon
Stegadon
Bastiladon
Ripperdactyls
Pteradons
Saurus Knights
This, this is where GW shines. What other wargame let's you run an army like this? You can feel the excitement oozing through the article and know this is an army someone is going to have a whole lot of fun playing--and they even admit at the end that it isn't all that good.
What's funny is that stegadon spam is considered to be a viable doomstack in total war. Now all I need is for GW to copy the rank and file aspect as well and that'll be great.
I don't like how blowpipes are now apparently flamethrowers. They still look like blowpipes to me, I don't care what fancy high fantasy name GW gave them.
highlord tamburlaine wrote: Every article they've written just reminds me they really missed the perfect opportunity to update the line.
Plus the Total War references and lack of new Kroxigors makes me even sadder.
Dino armies are where it's at though. You all can take your piddly infantry when my hungry stompy dinos plod along the table.
GW seem to slowly updating metal and finecast models for 40k. I expect they'll do the same for AoS when they're done. I'm sure that's part of the plan for the Old World project.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What's funny is that stegadon spam is considered to be a viable doomstack in total war. Now all I need is for GW to copy the rank and file aspect as well and that'll be great.
I don't like how blowpipes are now apparently flamethrowers. They still look like blowpipes to me, I don't care what fancy high fantasy name GW gave them.
They're magic sticks now. No need to be JUST giant blowpipes. Now they shoot magic fire made of starstuff and fire.
I'm pretty hyped for this. It's honestly making me look at the three Stegs I have and want to buy at least 4-6 more. For Engines, variants, and a apparently Hero keyword basic Steg.
The only models that need to be updated are the saurus, in my opinion. And seeing the prices GW are charging for Howling Banshees I am fine with them remaining cheap and a bit goofy looking to be honest.
That's one way to utilize the updated 2015 monsters. And I mean it in a nice way, they're clearly the best looking kits in the army right now, and I imagine a bunch of us love the lizards for their big monsters.
Cronch wrote: That's one way to utilize the updated 2015 monsters. And I mean it in a nice way, they're clearly the best looking kits in the army right now, and I imagine a bunch of us love the lizards for their big monsters.
The Stegadon is actually much older than that. It’s held up really well.
Cronch wrote: That's one way to utilize the updated 2015 monsters. And I mean it in a nice way, they're clearly the best looking kits in the army right now, and I imagine a bunch of us love the lizards for their big monsters.
The Stegadon is actually much older than that. It’s held up really well.
The big lizards, as well as the Skinks actually (the basic ones on foot that is, not just the Steg riders). Looking at the alternative scheme in the opening picture (perhaps something seen in older AoS publications, but I hadn't seen it before) made me realize that those still look pretty nice. Decent level of detail, sufficiently dynamic, good proportions. And as result, all plastic Skinks from various kits look good next to each other too I guess.
Cronch wrote: That's one way to utilize the updated 2015 monsters. And I mean it in a nice way, they're clearly the best looking kits in the army right now, and I imagine a bunch of us love the lizards for their big monsters.
The Stegadon is actually much older than that. It’s held up really well.
Is it? Still must be past 2010 release, which is significantly younger than the 2001-2002 6th ed release of the foot skinks, sauruses and salamanders/slann.
Cronch wrote: That's one way to utilize the updated 2015 monsters. And I mean it in a nice way, they're clearly the best looking kits in the army right now, and I imagine a bunch of us love the lizards for their big monsters.
The Stegadon is actually much older than that. It’s held up really well.
Is it? Still must be past 2010 release, which is significantly younger than the 2001-2002 6th ed release of the foot skinks, sauruses and salamanders/slann.
The plastic Stegadon was released in February 2009:
H.B.M.C. wrote: So is it just Stegadon armies, or could you just as easily bring an army full of Bastiladons?
The Bastiladon is such an awesome mini.
No. There's no indication that Bastiladons become Battleline or have a version that is a Leader. It does however up the number of Bastilidons you can take since they're no longer competing with Stegadons for those Behemoth slots.
That pyramid is truly terrible. The bits on the top just look like they are a Saurus standard chopped up and glued to the top. No attachment point, no sense of weight, no interesting design
The leaves/vines going up the side are also truly awful and look completely 2D. They might as well have been painted on.
There have been a number of smaller companies that have released truly stunning imaginative Lizardmen in the last couple of years. GW just crapped in the bed with this release. It looks home made, and not in the good sense.
Cronch wrote: That's one way to utilize the updated 2015 monsters. And I mean it in a nice way, they're clearly the best looking kits in the army right now, and I imagine a bunch of us love the lizards for their big monsters.
The Stegadon is actually much older than that. It’s held up really well.
Is it? Still must be past 2010 release, which is significantly younger than the 2001-2002 6th ed release of the foot skinks, sauruses and salamanders/slann.
Well the book goes on pre-order tomorrow so doesn't that mean we get the standard page by page flip through on youtube? Or do those only come on release day?
Overread wrote: Well the book goes on pre-order tomorrow so doesn't that mean we get the standard page by page flip through on youtube? Or do those only come on release day?
Usually happens on Preorder days. The consensus is that those videos won't help much.
Why? Lots of folk are doubtful of reviewers knowing what to look for. Or that there won't be anything overtly powerful to see, so won't be much in-depth at first.
Carnikang wrote: Usually happens on Preorder days. The consensus is that those videos won't help much.
Why? Lots of folk are doubtful of reviewers knowing what to look for. Or that there won't be anything overtly powerful to see, so won't be much in-depth at first.
They usually do a flip through of the book, so anyone can look for whatever they’re looking for in them.
Realmshaper engine sprue - 2 in a box by keeping the center panels a uniform shape they can be flipped and then the corners and extra pieces fill in the gaps. Clever design if somewhat basic looking overall. I assume you could combine several kits to make a bigger Ziggurat although it might need some trimming and filling here and there.
Most of the changes seem good for removing redundant abilities and just rolling them into the units. A lot is going to depend on point values. Saurus got a bump in slightly smaller units and against non-rending units and same against rend 1. The worst part is going to be the wholly within and a lot of the bonuses went to CP instead which makes them worse. Overall Saurus will need a point drop since most of their combo's went away and they were already a bit high.
What is strange is that , barring skinks, shields don't have any hability associated. This is a first, I believe. And is a shame that skins losed their retreat hability. And I lost a game because of that fething hability, but it was very tactical.
Gallahad wrote: That pyramid is truly terrible. The bits on the top just look like they are a Saurus standard chopped up and glued to the top. No attachment point, no sense of weight, no interesting design
The leaves/vines going up the side are also truly awful and look completely 2D. They might as well have been painted on.
There have been a number of smaller companies that have released truly stunning imaginative Lizardmen in the last couple of years. GW just crapped in the bed with this release. It looks home made, and not in the good sense.
It is not the Alter of Skulls, but hey, what terrain piece is save the Alter of Skulls. I really don't think it is nearly as bad as you make it out to be. Maybe snake pillars at the top could have had a bit better mounting blocks to give the impression they well secured in the ziggurat. Maybe the steps could have been a bit wider. The vines probably like the stuff on the Death Forest terrain which isn't bad but doesn't photograph well. I suspect the sides of the model were intentionally to keep in style of many ziggurats as well as actually prevent models from climbing on it and becoming practically impossible for for other models to charge them or more easily stay wholly within it's aura if any.
It certainly isn't going to be in the top ten best of 2020, but I think it will be at least serviceable if the price is the same as most of the other faction specific terrain pieces. I think a lot of the design appears to be limited to keep it on par with the other faction terrain which is why it has the issues it does. Chances are to make a better kit GW would have had to add an additional sprue thus making it the most expensive and possibly the largest foot print of faction terrains.
If the Saurus warriors got the short end up the stick it hopefully.means that there are plans to eventually replace.them with new.flashy models with new flashy rules... sometime before.never.
Nice vid, not heard of that channel before. Happy to be wrong about the pyramid, looks a lot better than in the photos.
Sticking it upside down and placing it in a hill would make an interesting "stairway to the Lizardmen lair" type of scenery for D&D and suchlike. A throne from a Slann Priest or any of the top bits (throne, engine etc) from the Stegadon kit would also look great at the pyramid's summit.
Not heard of the Terrain Tutor before? Odd bloke. Very passionate. Very knowledgeable. Makes a lot of great videos, and it seems he has caught the eye of GW, hence the advanced terrain set.
And yeah, as soon as he turned it upside down my mind started spinning with the possibilities.
Galas wrote: What is strange is that , barring skinks, shields don't have any hability associated. This is a first, I believe. And is a shame that skins losed their retreat hability. And I lost a game because of that fething hability, but it was very tactical.
Shields in general seem to be moving to a flat +1 to armor save with no abilities. It's there in Cities of Sigmar in quite a few spots.
Scrub wrote: Nice vid, not heard of that channel before. Happy to be wrong about the pyramid, looks a lot better than in the photos.
Sticking it upside down and placing it in a hill would make an interesting "stairway to the Lizardmen lair" type of scenery for D&D and suchlike. A throne from a Slann Priest or any of the top bits (throne, engine etc) from the Stegadon kit would also look great at the pyramid's summit.
Nice and versatile. Sold!
If we consider that Seraphon are from Azyr, and Azyr is the realm of Heavens, I believe that makes a purchase of the new terrain box a literal 'buying the stairway to heaven.'
Scrub wrote: Nice vid, not heard of that channel before. Happy to be wrong about the pyramid, looks a lot better than in the photos.
Sticking it upside down and placing it in a hill would make an interesting "stairway to the Lizardmen lair" type of scenery for D&D and suchlike. A throne from a Slann Priest or any of the top bits (throne, engine etc) from the Stegadon kit would also look great at the pyramid's summit.
Nice and versatile. Sold!
If we consider that Seraphon are from Azyr, and Azyr is the realm of Heavens, I believe that makes a purchase of the new terrain box a literal 'buying the stairway to heaven.'
(March, April, December? or Spring, Summer, Fall?)
Probably late spring/early summer.
Given they're doing bi-weekly articles and have barely hit half of the reveals from LVO, and they said in the LVO article that there would be more models revealed closer to release, before mid-April would be a shock.
I'd expect an article on the Hollow Knight tomorrow, Teclis on the 23rd and maybe they'll start previewing other models on the 6th of April. Though I suspect there will be more padding articles.
A May release would work. So would June, especially if they play with the pre-order date technicality.
I’d be surprised if we didn’t. I’m half expecting Tyrion to be shown off, given there’s clear mention here of both the twins being Gods to the Lumineth.
To the Lumineth, runes are more than just a form of symbolism – they represent their way of life and are a fundamental part of their civilisation. In addition to serving as a type of language,* runes represent the higher forms of learning and enlightenment embodied by the Hyshian aelves. That the Vanari Auralan Wardens display runes so overtly on their shields only serves to reinforce that they are students of far more than just war.
Integral to this is the Runic Mandala, the Lumineth evolution of the Pantheonic Mandala which once depicted the aelven gods from the world-that-was. In addition to representing an amalgam of the runes of the four Hyshian geomantic spirits, the more elaborate versions incorporate the twin aspects of sun and moon, both separate yet intrinsically linked, just as with the godly twins that embody them.
Spoiler:
The 'mountain' rune seems to be associated with the Auralan Wardens, at least in conjunction with the 'river' rune.
Maybe a re roll to saves or something akin to the ethereal rule like a static save that doesn’t decrease due to rend. River rune more likely to be linked to movement. Maybe charging or running
Some really gorgeous sculpts there. The 'High Elf' aesthetic has never been my thing but even I am drawn to these.
Voss wrote: Its amazing how much ridiculously impractical headgear kills my enthusiasm.
So... giants?
It helps me to remember that the model is representative and many items like helmets, plates, weapons, etc. Are often thinner and have much less mass to them in the actual fluff (see artwork). In miniature form these details would be too flimsy and the visual effect would not be as clear if they were represented at the same ratio. Still leaves many things fully in the realm of ridiculous, but that's where artistic licence/rule of cool comes in.
YMMV of course, but it works for me... Most of the time.
The winged leonine beast that accompanies Teclis is Celennar, the living manifestation of the Hyshian moon spirit. Among the first things you’ll notice about the model is that Teclis is not riding Celennar as a mount. Unlike Alarielle the Everqueen, who stands imperious atop her subservient wardroth beetle, Teclis and Celennar are very much a partnership, having become inseparably bonded to one another. This is intrinsic to the relationship between the Lumineth and the geomantic spirits – it’s one of mutual trust and benefit as opposed to one of dominance.
Why would being willingly carried around by a massive creature companion automatically imply dominance? It's very little effort for said beasty, and obviously very practical for the rider. Continuously having to float around it seems far less logical on so many levels, and I'm not sure how it benefits either party involved compared to the alternative.
Riding an animal typically represents dominance. Breaking the mount to be able to allow you to ride it. Floating together on the same level would show respect as equals rather than one being a packmule for the other.
The winged leonine beast that accompanies Teclis is Celennar, the living manifestation of the Hyshian moon spirit. Among the first things you’ll notice about the model is that Teclis is not riding Celennar as a mount. Unlike Alarielle the Everqueen, who stands imperious atop her subservient wardroth beetle, Teclis and Celennar are very much a partnership, having become inseparably bonded to one another. This is intrinsic to the relationship between the Lumineth and the geomantic spirits – it’s one of mutual trust and benefit as opposed to one of dominance.
Why would being willingly carried around by a massive creature companion automatically imply dominance? It's very little effort for said beasty, and obviously very practical for the rider. Continuously having to float around it seems far less logical on so many levels, and I'm not sure how it benefits either party involved compared to the alternative.
Probably because floating around isn't a big deal for a god like Teclis? That and the big beast is probably not keen on being ridden.
Who knows? It's not a huge deal honestly. Wouldn't like the model any more than I do now if Teclis was astride the creatures back.
Why would he need to ride his buddy's back at all? Teclis is a god and a magically-inclined one at that; flying around at sufficient speed is the least he can do.
Inquisitor Gideon also nails that in terms of model design it is a matter of symbolism. To go further one may note that for an army like Lumineth where they have clearly emphasized the importance of symbolism this is a rather more important than for other mount-is-a-partner characters.
Sneak peek of some new Lumineth Realm-lords from the GAMA Trade Show...
Spears, horsemen, legendary warriors of yore – the Lumineth Realm-lords are shaping up to be a stunning army. And you’ve not even seen the whole range yet! Feast your eyes upon the Auralan Sentinels!
Providing long-ranged support to phalanxes of Auralan Wardens, Auralan Sentinels reimagine the classic High Elf Archer in stunning Warhammer Age of Sigmar fashion, featuring fantastic detail, great customisability and even fully strung bows – some of you might even recognise them from a previous Rumour Engine.
Of course, what would an aelven army be without some mages?
This is an Alarith Stonemage – an aelven wizard attuned to the power of the elements. This model isn’t just a brilliant example of what modern miniatures design technology can do (look how delicately they’re balanced!), it’s also a valuable battlefield unit that enhances nearby allies, as well as smiting enemies with gravity manipulating magic!
The archers are... oh. Its the horrible triple stringed bow from a months ago rumor engine. Three strings of different lengths all tied to the same bottom anchor point. Nope.
The full shot of the stonemage makes me even more irritated
This model isn’t just a brilliant example of what modern miniatures design technology can do (look how delicately they’re balanced!)
No, this is bad, not brilliant. Delicate balance is a _problem_ in a game piece, not something to tout.
There is nothing about the floating mage that says “female” to me. Looks like a dude. And I’m guessing that given the mage is an adept sporting the mountain rune, further supports that assumption, as the qualities of the mountain are distinctly masculine.
Dread Master wrote: There is nothing about the floating mage that says “female” to me. Looks like a dude. And I’m guessing that given the mage is an adept sporting the mountain rune, further supports that assumption, as the qualities of the mountain are distinctly masculine.
Can’t see much of the body at this angle, but the face looks female to me.
Ugh.... apart from the armour suit guy and the cav(which are stunning) these are the ugliest concepts of elf ive ever seen... had high hopes for these to maybe get on board with AOS. Alas... nope.
Yes the sculpting quality is the high standard that we have come to expect from GW. However, the aesthetics are just... crap. A 3 string bow? A head piece that makes even Nagash have a reflective moment?
I was looking forward to seeing how the reimagined High Elves developed. Now upon seeing them, it just makes the loss of the WFB plastic High Elf kits all the more sad.
The basic troop models are alright though, as long as they are in the same scale they will work well. It is mostly the character models that have the whacky, out there aesthetics.
Some of it is cool, but I agree, the elves themselves (for the character models I have seen) look pretty goofy.
I will see what the rest of the range looks like I suppose. I don't hate the cavalry or infantry shown so far.
Hm. Well, that's a shame. There's a lot about the Lumineth I like, but those stupid fething bows... Just no.
If that turns out to be the only awful thing in the range and it's possible to field a decent army without them, then I might still be interested. But those bows are an abomination to both aesthetics and reason.
(Incidentally, that floaty mage reads as male to me. The female Lumineth models seem to have a slightly more slender and 'curvy' cuirass. This subtle difference is actually one of the design elements I most like about the range.)
I hate to say it but these elves are hideous. Falconer dude is cool, but the archers look comically bad. Floaty mage is a misguided design, similar to teclis: The focus lies on a secondary feature (the terrain), not the miniature itself, horns/helmet are too big, ugly face.
Good thing I stocked up on High Elves. Still have hopes for the cavalry being in scale with the old stuff - they'd make some nice Silver Helms.
To me the floaty mage has has the face of what I'd consider a "matron". Mature, sure of herself, perhaps not as youthful of "sculpted" as one might imagine an aelf. I think its a neat and interesting design take.
Overall I really like them! Triple strings is just the kind of steam/metal punk madness that we expect from the Realms and fantasy - just like well most of the other stuff we get.
Also the DoK models look fantastic for Underworld! They do somewhat lack the individuality that some of the other warbands have shown, but they are very solid models in their own right and really great!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Dam, GW is basically just bragging with that mage sculpt. That is absolutely nuts.
That's the vibe I'm getting as well, and not in a good way. I mean yes, having your infantry character stuck to a 20mm square for around 30 years sucked for capturing outrageous aesthetics, but there's just no moderation in the studio at all anymore. Everything's as gaudy as a golden toilet, celebrating the technological prowess of its own manufacturing process by being stuck in an elaborate, precarious, and difficult to transport pose.
Dread Master wrote: There is nothing about the floating mage that says “female” to me. Looks like a dude. And I’m guessing that given the mage is an adept sporting the mountain rune, further supports that assumption, as the qualities of the mountain are distinctly masculine.
Can’t see much of the body at this angle, but the face looks female to me.
It kind of does to me too but article said it's a he, so, yeah...
Dread Master wrote: There is nothing about the floating mage that says “female” to me. Looks like a dude. And I’m guessing that given the mage is an adept sporting the mountain rune, further supports that assumption, as the qualities of the mountain are distinctly masculine.
Can’t see much of the body at this angle, but the face looks female to me.
It kind of does to me too but article said it's a he, so, yeah...
Yes the sculpting quality is the high standard that we have come to expect from GW. However, the aesthetics are just... crap. A 3 string bow?
Yup, bows need to have one and only one string with more complex arrangements being forbidden and breaking all suspense of disbelief:
The article makes no mention of the wizard’s gender one way or the other, but she’s got the larger eyes and colored lips of their female paint job.
Also there’s a distinct difference between a compound bow utilitzing one string strung thru a set of pulleys and those weird bows with two additional strings that meet the third half way down.
Having seen the artwork on the GAMA banner, it seems like the mage could have been intended to be female. But without that artwork, it’s still difficult to see for me.
...And i thought i was annoyed about GW and model balance before. that mage is sending me into a bit of a fit (so the thing i dislike most about their modern model designs is a thing they are touting now? good to know). the sentinel with the bird looks nice, though.
Dread Master wrote: There is nothing about the floating mage that says “female” to me. Looks like a dude. And I’m guessing that given the mage is an adept sporting the mountain rune, further supports that assumption, as the qualities of the mountain are distinctly masculine.
Can’t see much of the body at this angle, but the face looks female to me.
It kind of does to me too but article said it's a he, so, yeah...
Yes the sculpting quality is the high standard that we have come to expect from GW. However, the aesthetics are just... crap. A 3 string bow?
Yup, bows need to have one and only one string with more complex arrangements being forbidden and breaking all suspense of disbelief:
The article makes no mention of the wizard’s gender one way or the other, but she’s got the larger eyes and colored lips of their female paint job.
Also there’s a distinct difference between a compound bow utilitzing one string strung thru a set of pulleys and those weird bows with two additional strings that meet the third half way down.
Indeed - and as is often the case, Irbis is hoisted by his own petard...again!
The new (A)Elves look nice, but nothing here is moving the needle enough to make me want to start another AoS army...
That mage... no... just no.
This GW thing of making everything hover or fly on plastic tendrils is awful, but this mage turns it up to 11. It's horrendous. Seeing every character in AoS or 40k float or be mid leap from ruins is terrible. Please bring back a boss stood solidly on the ground.
On the other hand, those archers look designed to rank up nicely on square bases.
Yes the sculpting quality is the high standard that we have come to expect from GW. However, the aesthetics are just... crap. A 3 string bow? A head piece that makes even Nagash have a reflective moment?
I was looking forward to seeing how the reimagined High Elves developed. Now upon seeing them, it just makes the loss of the WFB plastic High Elf kits all the more sad.
These look way better than the old goofy WFB High Elves in my opinion. The three string bow looks sick! Which head piece are you referring to?
No way these look better than the Island of Blood High Elves in my opinion. But I liked the Cavalry and basic infantry shown before and the archers would be okay with a normal bow.
Dread Master wrote: There is nothing about the floating mage that says “female” to me. Looks like a dude. And I’m guessing that given the mage is an adept sporting the mountain rune, further supports that assumption, as the qualities of the mountain are distinctly masculine.
Can’t see much of the body at this angle, but the face looks female to me.
It kind of does to me too but article said it's a he, so, yeah...
Yes the sculpting quality is the high standard that we have come to expect from GW. However, the aesthetics are just... crap. A 3 string bow?
Yup, bows need to have one and only one string with more complex arrangements being forbidden and breaking all suspense of disbelief:
The article makes no mention of the wizard’s gender one way or the other, but she’s got the larger eyes and colored lips of their female paint job.
Also there’s a distinct difference between a compound bow utilitzing one string strung thru a set of pulleys and those weird bows with two additional strings that meet the third half way down.
The model has no bow but rather is a shaped piece of plastic, part of which represents a bow. The bow exists and functions only in the mind. It's a symbol and would make much more sense to the average person than the actual bow posted. In this regard it's a success.
Another vote of "no thanks" for both the three-stringed bows and the mage balancing on a rock while floating balancing on some rocks. Guess it's one of those cases where "they were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"...
Dread Master wrote: There is nothing about the floating mage that says “female” to me. Looks like a dude. And I’m guessing that given the mage is an adept sporting the mountain rune, further supports that assumption, as the qualities of the mountain are distinctly masculine.
Can’t see much of the body at this angle, but the face looks female to me.
This pic from the Age of Sigmar Facebook page says to me that the Aralith Stonemage is definitely female...
The hero characters are all floating about, the cavalry all look dynamic, fluid and pretty fantastic, I must say, and then we have the archers... as lovely as they are design and detail wise they look straight out of Warhammer Fantasy Battle of yore! Regimented and perfectly lined up for a formation... of square bases!?!
I suppose this fits the bill in portraying this army as well drilled and organised but after the new, more dynamic and savage looking Chaos Warriors I'd have thought we'd get to see those fancy compound, wizard bow things in a few different poses.
Cool army overall, I know I'll buckle to a Start Collecting or Christmas Battleforce set circa 2022! >.<
I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone mention the new DoK warband for Underworlds. Looks like a (relatively) cheap way to get a Hag Queen without being a shrine.
Yes the sculpting quality is the high standard that we have come to expect from GW. However, the aesthetics are just... crap. A 3 string bow?
Yup, bows need to have one and only one string with more complex arrangements being forbidden and breaking all suspense of disbelief:
Less of the snark please...
The bow in the picture is one string that has a series of pullies that give the compound bow a lot more strength. The Aelf one is not the same, there is no pulley system, just 1 string hooked on to 4 points. I see where GW were going with the idea, just the resulting model doesn't work... now there may be some Mcguffin hand waving magical in game way to make it work. Which is fine, but that doesn't come across from looking at the model in isolation. Background fluff is separate from the model, as they (the model) can be used in any fantasy system.
I love when people cry about realism........ in age of sigmar.
How dare a bow have 3 separate strings!
No elf in their right mind could make that work.
That is of course, if elves were real too.
90% of the creations in warhammer aren’t actually close to realistic or functional and that’s just from a gear perspective.
It’s designed to look exaggerated and dynamic.
They can’t use normal bows as it’s a big part of their history, so they improvised to make them stand out.
If you want completely screwed dynamics, find a vehicle in 40k that could even function or do its job.
It’s a game though, much like a film, artistic license plays a big part in it.
It doesn’t need to have real work functionality or physics as it’s meant to be for show.
If you want pin point accuracy then try a historical game instead, you won’t get anything close to it here.
Jackal90 wrote: I love when people cry about realism........ in age of sigmar.
How dare a bow have 3 separate strings!
The original argument was that 3 strings are "gak aesthetics" and not the lack of realism. In fact, it was the counter argument that appealed to realism (compound bow). So it's actually people justifying weird designs with realism in this case.
But its not three separate strings. Its three strings attaching to the top of the laminated(?) bow (3 layers), and one string attaching to the lower recurve. It just doesn't make sense.
Fortunately, it looks like the front two strings can be easily removed, and the hook bolts will just look like they're holding the top of the bow together. Easy peasy.
These are a ton nicer than the previous elf archers, though I wish they had stuck with a standard elvish longbow. Ah well. I do like the spearmen, and will likely pick some of the up. Who am I kidding, I'll get a little of everything for skirmish.
Actually it might be 3 strings. Just 3 strings with different upper connection points, but the same lower connection point.
Anyway its fancy and elfish and strange which fits AoS. It can go up with with pauldrons so huge you can't move your arms; spears that are too short (a LOT of spears are too short in wargames); tanks that are both too small and too big at once*; heroes and close combat in space
What's actually stranger is that they've got bowstrings at all. A lot of GW's archers don't have strings. Daughters of Khaine Melusai don't have strings at all on their bows and this holds true with several others scattered throughout the range.
*the classic IR Lemon Russ is both too small to actually hold everything inside it; whilst at the same time having much too big and tall a profile to be an effective modern/advanced/future war tank.
EnTyme wrote: It just looks to me like GW was trying to imply a medieval version of a compound bow.
I see that and it screams 'magic item' to me. When something has a design that is clearly nonsensical materially that is generally the case. Many people do not want to put two and two together, for varied reasons, which will lead to some disliking it as a result. But that is how artistic appeal works.
Oh, I know. It's this way with pretty much every release. Regardless of which army gets previewed, one section of the community will nitpick it to death, one section will say it's the best design yet, and at least a couple will say it's the army that finally inspired them to get into AoS. The first group is just typically the loudest.
Who cares about the bow.. look at those ugly pdgy faces and stupid droopy helmets…
To clarify:
The animated armour guy and cav are huge hits for me stunning work.
The rest so far is a huge miss.. Its almost as if these were done by two separate design studios..
I fully agree. Armor ghost is amazing, and I really wish they went with that as one of the main themes. The massive peacock plumes and bits designed to snap in constructions (like said three thin bowstrings) are not cool.
It's really weird. Generally GW was good about updating the aesthetics to their new setting, but both the incredibly goofy bone trash collectors and these elves are more miss than hit to me.
I like the cavalry and melee infantry and could see the archers being good with some modification. That is the most important part of the range in my opinion.
The characters are very goofy and OTT and look impractical as gaming pieces. But I rarely buy GW characters because they are so over priced in any case.
BertBert wrote: Their bows also have three seperate upper limbs to match! Any physicists around to explain how feasible this is?
Only 1 string will be sending energy to the arrow, while the other...to the bow's limb, which is similar to dry fire (firing without any arrow), and (probably) break the limbs. Or cause micro fraction.
Also pretty obvious that drawing 3 string at the same time require much more strenght than drawing just one. Unlike a compound bow, which some one try to bring up here, you don't draw all the strings on it. The string is on a pulley system that help the user reduce the drawing weight while still having a powerful shot.
Way to go researching ...horse motion and lance bucket. But bow design and proper mediterranean 3 fingers draw? Nah bruh.
Guess it can work if the bowstring is elastic (not sure if it's technically sensible even then, but at least there is a point - at present, the tension will be on the front string, with those behind it going limp when drawing the first backwards).
Even from an aesthetic point of view, I just don't see the point. A normally strung bow would not have upset anybody and few people would have strongly preferred the current design over it, while quite some people strongly dislike what they've made here. Guess it just had to be something original.
(Also, I hope to one day witness a discussion on realism in fantasy where nobody says "who cares about realism.. it's fantasy!". If you'd see a figure holding a sword by the blade end, or uses a spear backwards with the blunt wooden part towards the enemy, you'd rightfully say that looks silly if there is no in-universe logic to explain it. That's how fantasy works: suspension of disbelief for a limited number of factors, and everything else pertains to e.g. the same laws of physics as in our own world. After all, that's why they tend to use sharp metal weaponry, add flights to their arrows and make bows out of curved wood, rather than make an arrow out of a grass straw with a heavy golden weight at the back, shot from a stone bow.)
Overread wrote: What's actually stranger is that they've got bowstrings at all. A lot of GW's archers don't have strings. Daughters of Khaine Melusai don't have strings at all on their bows and this holds true with several others scattered throughout the range.
The harp of that one Slaanesh character has strings. It's possibly the latest thing, started with that model, that we will now be seeing more of.
Bowstrings are probably too mundane for GW's marketing team to be highlighted as "a brilliant example of what modern miniatures design technology can do".
Overread wrote: What's actually stranger is that they've got bowstrings at all. A lot of GW's archers don't have strings. Daughters of Khaine Melusai don't have strings at all on their bows and this holds true with several others scattered throughout the range.
The harp of that one Slaanesh character has strings. It's possibly the latest thing, started with that model, that we will now be seeing more of.
Bowstrings are probably too mundane for GW's marketing team to be highlighted as "a brilliant example of what modern miniatures design technology can do".
Or not, like this model for Necromunda which was just announced at GAMA alongside the Auralan Sentinels...
Possibly. Or Specialist Games models aren't designed by the same people that favor the same things. Or these models are too old to follow the same paradigm because bowstrings were still in the testing phase when these were designed. We'll see.
They model the string to show off their 200 iq triple limbs, triple string design. Without it no one would even understand what's going on with these bow with 3 limb stacked on top of each other.
Irbis wrote: Yup, bows need to have one and only one string with more complex arrangements being forbidden and breaking all suspense of disbelief:
Build a bow the way GW did and give it a shot. You'll see the problems quite quickly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jackal90 wrote: I love when people cry about realism........ in age of sigmar.
How dare a bow have 3 separate strings!
No elf in their right mind could make that work.
That is of course, if elves were real too.
90% of the creations in warhammer aren’t actually close to realistic or functional and that’s just from a gear perspective.
It’s designed to look exaggerated and dynamic.
They can’t use normal bows as it’s a big part of their history, so they improvised to make them stand out.
If you want completely screwed dynamics, find a vehicle in 40k that could even function or do its job.
It’s a game though, much like a film, artistic license plays a big part in it.
It doesn’t need to have real work functionality or physics as it’s meant to be for show.
If you want pin point accuracy then try a historical game instead, you won’t get anything close to it here.
That's a fair criticism. Most of the melee weapons are unfeasably big too, and the wielders would be cut to ribbons by people fighting with realisticlly-sized weapons in short order.
Overread wrote: What's actually stranger is that they've got bowstrings at all. A lot of GW's archers don't have strings. Daughters of Khaine Melusai don't have strings at all on their bows and this holds true with several others scattered throughout the range.
The harp of that one Slaanesh character has strings. It's possibly the latest thing, started with that model, that we will now be seeing more of.
Bowstrings are probably too mundane for GW's marketing team to be highlighted as "a brilliant example of what modern miniatures design technology can do".
Or not, like this model for Necromunda which was just announced at GAMA alongside the Auralan Sentinels...
Spoiler:
Yeah, GW doesn't seem to understand bow strings.
Having three strings doesn't make the bow look cool or fantastical. It just looks dumb. It's worse than having multiple arrows on a string. Big ass swords and guns aren't practical either, but at least they have a coolness factor behind them. If they wanted to make a bow look cool they did it wrong. They should have made them greatbows, like in the Dark Souls series. No bow string looks cheap. I would assume that its due to manufacturing issues, but if you can have 2 useless strings on a model bow then you can make a bow with 1 string.
pm713 wrote: I can't believe someone is claiming shooting multiple arrows at once from a single bow isn't cool. That would make me actually like the archers.
No, it wouldn’t look cool. It would look ridiculous. Then again, looking ridiculous seems to be the look they’re going for with half the AoS range.
Coenus Scaldingus wrote: Guess it can work if the bowstring is elastic (not sure if it's technically sensible even then, but at least there is a point - at present, the tension will be on the front string, with those behind it going limp when drawing the first backwards).
Even from an aesthetic point of view, I just don't see the point. A normally strung bow would not have upset anybody and few people would have strongly preferred the current design over it, while quite some people strongly dislike what they've made here. Guess it just had to be something original.
I'd bet on it being part of the post-Chapterhous everything-must-be-unique design direction of GW. While I am not bothered by what they went with, a more normal bow design would have appealed to me more.
[(Also, I hope to one day witness a discussion on realism in fantasy where nobody says "who cares about realism.. it's fantasy!". If you'd see a figure holding a sword by the blade end, or uses a spear backwards with the blunt wooden part towards the enemy, you'd rightfully say that looks silly if there is no in-universe logic to explain it. That's how fantasy works: suspension of disbelief for a limited number of factors, and everything else pertains to e.g. the same laws of physics as in our own world. After all, that's why they tend to use sharp metal weaponry, add flights to their arrows and make bows out of curved wood, rather than make an arrow out of a grass straw with a heavy golden weight at the back, shot from a stone bow.)
All-or-nothing thinking at it's finest; the argument such people are making is 'because fantasy inherently involves some degree of improbability, any degree of probability is acceptable' which is in turn an extrapolation of the sentiment 'all improbable things are equally improbable.' At which point you realize they individual in question is not taking the discussion all that seriously and probably don't mean to come across as such. Rather, the implied statement is "this is a fantasy setting where realism will be bent to some degree and this falls within a reasonable range of that."
Long way of saying that sometimes it's just a matter of communication.
Jackal90 wrote: I love when people cry about realism........ in age of sigmar.
How dare a bow have 3 separate strings!
No elf in their right mind could make that work.
That is of course, if elves were real too.
90% of the creations in warhammer aren’t actually close to realistic or functional and that’s just from a gear perspective.
It’s designed to look exaggerated and dynamic.
They can’t use normal bows as it’s a big part of their history, so they improvised to make them stand out.
If you want completely screwed dynamics, find a vehicle in 40k that could even function or do its job.
It’s a game though, much like a film, artistic license plays a big part in it.
It doesn’t need to have real work functionality or physics as it’s meant to be for show.
If you want pin point accuracy then try a historical game instead, you won’t get anything close to it here.
All of that is just lazy excuse.
You know don't you you can have fantasy and magic AND have it make sense? Just requires effort by professional writer. The momemt you have to resort "it's magic" or "it's fantasy" you admit text was writtem by poor lazy writer.
In gw case not even surprise when ability to shout enthustiatically waaaagh counts more than actual ability for hiring
pm713 wrote: I can't believe someone is claiming shooting multiple arrows at once from a single bow isn't cool. That would make me actually like the archers.
No, it wouldn’t look cool. It would look ridiculous. Then again, looking ridiculous seems to be the look they’re going for with half the AoS range.
I can't find the multi-arrow scene so have a cool patriot arrow scene instead.
Also for all those arguing about reality why aren't you having a go at quivers?
It's nothing new, High Elves had multi-bolt throwers years ago; they had boats being pulled by eagles; wood elves surfing on eagles and dragons; Skaven doing - well just SKAVEN
Jackal90 wrote: I love when people cry about realism........ in age of sigmar.
How dare a bow have 3 separate strings!
No elf in their right mind could make that work.
That is of course, if elves were real too.
90% of the creations in warhammer aren’t actually close to realistic or functional and that’s just from a gear perspective.
It’s designed to look exaggerated and dynamic.
They can’t use normal bows as it’s a big part of their history, so they improvised to make them stand out.
If you want completely screwed dynamics, find a vehicle in 40k that could even function or do its job.
It’s a game though, much like a film, artistic license plays a big part in it.
It doesn’t need to have real work functionality or physics as it’s meant to be for show.
If you want pin point accuracy then try a historical game instead, you won’t get anything close to it here.
All of that is just lazy excuse.
You know don't you you can have fantasy and magic AND have it make sense? Just requires effort by professional writer. The momemt you have to resort "it's magic" or "it's fantasy" you admit text was writtem by poor lazy writer.
Also for all those arguing about reality why aren't you having a go at quivers?
It's nothing new, High Elves had multi-bolt throwers years ago; they had boats being pulled by eagles; wood elves surfing on eagles and dragons; Skaven doing - well just SKAVEN
Because Rule of Cool only applies to things I like! My opinion of what is cool is the only one that matters! Also, something, something White Knighting!
Overread wrote: Also for all those arguing about reality why aren't you having a go at quivers?
I'm probably missing something obvious here - but what about quivers?
There's evidence that many ancient archers didn't use them. Or at the very least never drew their arrows from them. Instead often planting them in the ground at their feet or even holding them three at once to fire them. There's lots of variation and honestly quivers likely did exist in some form and role for arrow transportation. Of course much of this is looking at archers working in a fixed (or mostly fixed) firing position and aiming to fire volumes of shots. Whereas many fantasy depictions they are more bow and quiver and firing fewer, but very accurate shots.
But basically the quiver is not totally authentic for all situations and is perhaps actually far over-represented to what it was in the past.
Overread wrote: Also for all those arguing about reality why aren't you having a go at quivers?
I'm probably missing something obvious here - but what about quivers?
There's evidence that many ancient archers didn't use them. Or at the very least never drew their arrows from them. Instead often planting them in the ground at their feet or even holding them three at once to fire them. There's lots of variation and honestly quivers likely did exist in some form and role for arrow transportation. Of course much of this is looking at archers working in a fixed (or mostly fixed) firing position and aiming to fire volumes of shots. Whereas many fantasy depictions they are more bow and quiver and firing fewer, but very accurate shots.
But basically the quiver is not totally authentic for all situations and is perhaps actually far over-represented to what it was in the past.
Does that mean that Kurnoth Hunters actually have the most historically appropriate quivers because their arrows are actually close to being stuck in the ground?
Well, the bows with three strings sure look different than "normal" bows with just that.
Though I suspect that the fact three strings are more solid than one when you use plastic as material for your 32 mm miniatures also may be a good helping factor here, for showing the actual said strings on the miniature rather than "imagining they're here" while we used to do before.
I really like them- they look suitably "high civilisation" ,which was the High Elfthing and the floating mage is perfect- she makes me think of ceremonial Chinese culture and MonkeyMagic for some reason.. The hats are now as big as their egos!
Not my kind of elves but I like what they did. Personally more interested to see if the turn the Kurnothi into a full faction of wild elves..
I like the archers and the mage more than the first batch of the spearmen and knights. This second batch seems to be more Chinese inspired opposed to the Greek inspired of the first batch.
Also for all those arguing about reality why aren't you having a go at quivers?
It's nothing new, High Elves had multi-bolt throwers years ago; they had boats being pulled by eagles; wood elves surfing on eagles and dragons; Skaven doing - well just SKAVEN
Because quivers did exist, ok they may not have been used in the way that a lot of fantasy models depict them, but they were a useful way to transport arrows. Also there is no need to suspend belief in reality from a model using a device designed to hold arrows, it doesn't need to be explained as being magical... unlike these 3 string bows, which just simple wouldn't work, unless 'magic' is involved.
The sky chariots being pulled by Eagles where and remain dumb, so do the Wood Elf Eagle riders. The repeater bolt throwers are fine, we know repeater crossbows existed... so it isn't too hard to imagine that an advanced race like Elves could figure a way to make a bolt thrower version.
Either way, these just confirm that Age of Sigmar isn't for me... far too much American styled fantasy (World of Warcraft, Magic the Gathering, etc). I'll stick to more European fantasy.
Anglo. You mean anglo fantasy. Because wargame-wise, continental companies in the last two decades put out thngs like Alkemy, Chronopia, Confrontation, Anima Tactics or Helldorado, which had nothing at all in common with Tolkienian ye olde timey depictions.
No, I mean European... fantasy doesn't have to be Tolkien inspired. I am a big fan of the old Rackham stuff... which is a far cry from Tolkien, yet isn't over the top like American fantasy.
You are referencing something that has constantly shifted, split, and changed over the course of history and continues to do so every decade as if it is a genetic heritage. American heritage comes mostly from European heritage anyways, so that means all of the things you listed are technically 'European fantasy'.
Everyone’s busy hating on the triple string bow but no one is complaining about that built in thigh plate armor...
If it were separate then great, alas it appears fixed to the model and thus ruins what would have been great let’s for conversions
stonehorse wrote: No, I mean European... fantasy doesn't have to be Tolkien inspired. I am a big fan of the old Rackham stuff... which is a far cry from Tolkien, yet isn't over the top like American fantasy.
...Rackham had a snake character with an umbrella. BDSM werewolves. I...WHAT?
Shrug, I like the triple-strung bow look. To each their own. Only things I don’t like are the floaty mags and the pose for the Teclis model. The animated armor, knights and infantry all look awesome.
stonehorse wrote: No, I mean European... fantasy doesn't have to be Tolkien inspired. I am a big fan of the old Rackham stuff... which is a far cry from Tolkien, yet isn't over the top like American fantasy.
...Rackham had a snake character with an umbrella. BDSM werewolves. I...WHAT?
Yes some of the Rackham stuff was a bit more bizarre... however the overall look of the range was by AoS standards quite reserved.
You will note that even the Devourers of Vile-Tis (or BDSM Werewolves to use your term), had weapons and armour that was inspired by real world equivalent, just very slightly exaggerated. Werewolves are something that is quite common in Eastern European folklore, so isn't too wild and out there.
Anyway, this is going off topic, and we'll never be able to change each other's mind... as we know debating on the internet is futile. So shall we just leave it there, and allow people to talk about the new Aelves?
Like the raw look of the bow. I acknowledge all the real world faults with it, buuuut it looks cool and I imagine the squad all lined up will be a awesome imposing wall and more than likely in game they'll be expensive but fire off a barrage of shooting.
Hate the infantry, those spears are finally something more frustrating than uruk-hai pikemen! cant wait to see them moonwalk into combat just so they can fit more dudes in
Cavalry actually looks... Good.. I normally hate anything not Asrai (Wild riders, sisters of the thorn and Wardancers are 10/10) but they look like quintessential elves. Shame it took the ending of the old world for a new Silverhelm kit :p now if they do chariots pulled by lions, that may have my attention.
Cataphract wrote: The Daughters of Khaine have bows which are enchanted to seek the hearts of their intended targets.
Magic.
And their khinari throw spears which they summon out of shadow magic (which sadly isn't really represented in the model); which makes for a really neat image of them holding their arms; summoning a spear and then sending it flying through the air to strike for the victims heart.
Jackal90 wrote: 90% of the creations in warhammer aren’t actually close to realistic or functional and that’s just from a gear perspective.
Had a friend over for the week-end recently and we somehow got to looking at AoS models, comparing how high-fantasy they were compared to WFB's low-fantasy.
We found a guy who's weapon is anvil.
On fire.
With a chain.
The guy just use an flaming anvil on a chain to hit his opponent.
Apparently it works great in the game rules.
lol
The character isn't but the unit was a End- Times unit, the wrathmongers.
The Skullgrinder (i.e., the guy with the anvil) was released in September 2015, a couple of months after Age of Sigmar dropped in July. You are correct on the Wrathmongers, which dropped alongside the End Times: Archaon book.
Tamwulf wrote: Anyone else kinda disapointed in no new models for the Seraphon besides a terrain piece of dubious use?
Same argument can be said for a lot of races. It mostly highlights how much GW had ignored the game.
However it also highlights how far GW has come in quite a short span of time; especially with regard to their plastics. Don't forget it wasn't that long ago that models like the new Greater Demons in plastic were impossible; that heroes and leaders in anything but metal wasn't economically viable and that plastic really lagged behind metal in detailing potential.
AoS has a lot of legacy models in a lot of armies. There is ample room for GW to update almost every single army that wasn't released after AoS started; and of those new armies only Stormcast have a massive roster. Armies like KO and Idoneth are quite small in comparison to armies in the past and comparable armies like Stormcast. Meanwhile forces like Skaven - big and full of choices; are chock full of old stuff even back to the metal era.
In one way its a shame, but in another its a sign of just how much there is sitll to come for AoS. Plus along the way we get releases like Ossiarchs adding totally fresh forces and ideas. In time I'm sure most armies will get a "Gloomspite" level release that updates them.
Tamwulf wrote: Anyone else kinda disapointed in no new models for the Seraphon besides a terrain piece of dubious use?
A bit, but not particularly surprised.
I know they don't really like replacing plastics, even when they really need it (like the saurus warriors- that kit is looking really dated at this point), but this would have been a good time to get rid of the last of the resin/metal kits- the chameleons, Kroxigor, razordon and salamander. Especially since they were the first army officially migrated to AoS and got nothing that time either.
At some point GW needs to transition back from a book supplement company to a model company and start finishing off these ranges in plastic.
Alpharius wrote: As much as AoS is over the top at times, I don't think WFB can be correctly categorized as 'low fantasy'.
No, I am pretty sure either the Thirty Years War or War of the Roses had steam tanks and helicopters.
According to my experience arguing the merits of AoS the last four years, "low fantasy" is "any fantasy setting that I like because I apparently ignore everything that's over the top if I like the setting." I wonder if these people realize that Lord of the Rings is high fantasy according to most literary scholars.
The definitions are arbitrary, relative, and have no inherent good or bad quality. Yet they are frequently used as strange pseudo-criticisms in a manner I find deeply fascinating.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The definitions are arbitrary, relative, and have no inherent good or bad quality. Yet they are frequently used as strange pseudo-criticisms in a manner I find deeply fascinating.
I don’t think so. I think the terms are simply used to state a preference. However, it’s true that people are usually misusing the terms when they do that. The actual definitions of low and high fantasy are very specific, but their misuse has become so common, it’s rare to actually see then used correctly these days.
Alpharius wrote: As much as AoS is over the top at times, I don't think WFB can be correctly categorized as 'low fantasy'.
No, I am pretty sure either the Thirty Years War or War of the Roses had steam tanks and helicopters.
According to my experience arguing the merits of AoS the last four years, "low fantasy" is "any fantasy setting that I like because I apparently ignore everything that's over the top if I like the setting." I wonder if these people realize that Lord of the Rings is high fantasy according to most literary scholars.
Maybe people should be using "high fantasy" for Lord of the Rings, and "the-writing-staff-are-too-high fantasy" for Age of Silliness?
Alpharius wrote: As much as AoS is over the top at times, I don't think WFB can be correctly categorized as 'low fantasy'.
No, I am pretty sure either the Thirty Years War or War of the Roses had steam tanks and helicopters.
According to my experience arguing the merits of AoS the last four years, "low fantasy" is "any fantasy setting that I like because I apparently ignore everything that's over the top if I like the setting." I wonder if these people realize that Lord of the Rings is high fantasy according to most literary scholars.
Maybe people should be using "high fantasy" for Lord of the Rings, and "the-writing-staff-are-too-high fantasy" for Age of Silliness?
Well, the idea that there are degrees of “highness” in fantasy comes from the now almost ubiquitous misuse of the term. To clarify, when the terms were coined, low fantasy referred to stories set in our real world but with added fantastical elements, high fantasy stories are set in fictional, imaginary worlds.
Alpharius wrote: As much as AoS is over the top at times, I don't think WFB can be correctly categorized as 'low fantasy'.
No, I am pretty sure either the Thirty Years War or War of the Roses had steam tanks and helicopters.
According to my experience arguing the merits of AoS the last four years, "low fantasy" is "any fantasy setting that I like because I apparently ignore everything that's over the top if I like the setting." I wonder if these people realize that Lord of the Rings is high fantasy according to most literary scholars.
Maybe people should be using "high fantasy" for Lord of the Rings, and "the-writing-staff-are-too-high fantasy" for Age of Silliness?
Well, the idea that there are degrees of “highness” in fantasy comes from the now almost ubiquitous misuse of the term. To clarify, when the terms were coined, low fantasy referred to stories set in our real world but with added fantastical elements, high fantasy stories are set in fictional, imaginary worlds.
Then by that definition LotR and the whole Silmarillion Cycle should be classed as Medium Fantasy; yes they are set in a fictional world but it’s also supposedly our real world as it was in the Time Before. Tolkien’s own writings occasionally even imply that he was told the stories by an actual, living Hobbit and he was merely the translator/transcriber.
Most terms relating to books are general guidelines at best.
Heck take the "romance" section of most book stores - they are equally as full of romance stories as they are stories with werewolves and vampires which would technically be fantasy.
Meanwhile you've got things like the Dragonriders of Pern novels which many would class as fantasy yet are technically all sci-fi stories. etc...
They are rough guidelines and best left at that. They convey a general theme or idea and concept to potential readers. If someone says low fantasy to you you'd not expect wall to wall demons and monsters and dragons and wizards throwing mountains at each other. Just as if you got told something was high fantasy then a classic Arthurian style story with Merlin being about the only wizard and even then half his stuff being on the boundary between magic and science - would be quite a disappointment.
Alpharius wrote: As much as AoS is over the top at times, I don't think WFB can be correctly categorized as 'low fantasy'.
No, I am pretty sure either the Thirty Years War or War of the Roses had steam tanks and helicopters.
According to my experience arguing the merits of AoS the last four years, "low fantasy" is "any fantasy setting that I like because I apparently ignore everything that's over the top if I like the setting." I wonder if these people realize that Lord of the Rings is high fantasy according to most literary scholars.
Maybe people should be using "high fantasy" for Lord of the Rings, and "the-writing-staff-are-too-high fantasy" for Age of Silliness?
Well, the idea that there are degrees of “highness” in fantasy comes from the now almost ubiquitous misuse of the term. To clarify, when the terms were coined, low fantasy referred to stories set in our real world but with added fantastical elements, high fantasy stories are set in fictional, imaginary worlds.
Then by that definition LotR and the whole Silmarillion Cycle should be classed as Medium Fantasy; yes they are set in a fictional world but it’s also supposedly our real world as it was in the Time Before. Tolkien’s own writings occasionally even imply that he was told the stories by an actual, living Hobbit and he was merely the translator/transcriber.
Indeed, that’s where the waters get muddied. LotR is generally considered a High Fantasy because, although it is meant to be our world thousands of years ago(?), the geography and peoples of Middle Earth are totally invented.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The definitions are arbitrary, relative, and have no inherent good or bad quality. Yet they are frequently used as strange pseudo-criticisms in a manner I find deeply fascinating.
I don’t think so. I think the terms are simply used to state a preference. However, it’s true that people are usually misusing the terms when they do that. The actual definitions of low and high fantasy are very specific, but their misuse has become so common, it’s rare to actually see then used correctly these days.
The terms do have a specific meaning in the literary world. However, like the term skirmish, it has also taken on a different meaning in tabletop gaming culture though not nearly as well defined. So I am not going to poke the bear too much on it.
I find the idea of someone preferring the Old World and referring to it as low fantasy kinda funny though. I remember way back in the late 80's/early 90's the old gray beards saying the exact same thing about AD&D 2nd which the games I played in felt far less fantastical that of Warhammer Fantasy Battles. So I am somewhat entertained by those who scoff at AoS level of fantasy when I could have heard the same thing level at WFB from the Chainmail crowd.
I find it just as hilarious as I look over to my army Warriors and Knights which have practically nothing fantastical about them save being a tad on the Black Knight/army of baddies and way bigger than a human ought to be. Age of Sigmar is a huge, huge setting that has entire stretches devoid of anything fantastic if a person wants that sort of thing. It is just the focus is on the crazier, over-the-top elements which I think is more a reflection of modern fantasy settings preferences (as well as a heapin' pile of IP protection). We are well past the 1980s/1990s and fantasy has evolved some since then. I know, I don't like being reminded that that I am getting old too. A person might not like the direction it has taken, but I would hope they can avoid becoming those cranky, old Chainmail and historical players that looked down their noses at everything that isn't what they liked. Miniatures war gaming really doesn't need a new generation of that kind of grognard saying how their games are better than what the kids are doing these days.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The definitions are arbitrary, relative, and have no inherent good or bad quality. Yet they are frequently used as strange pseudo-criticisms in a manner I find deeply fascinating.
I don’t think so. I think the terms are simply used to state a preference. However, it’s true that people are usually misusing the terms when they do that. The actual definitions of low and high fantasy are very specific, but their misuse has become so common, it’s rare to actually see then used correctly these days.
The terms do have a specific meaning in the literary world. However, like the term skirmish, it has also taken on a different meaning in tabletop gaming culture though not nearly as well defined. So I am not going to poke the bear too much on it.
I find the idea of someone preferring the Old World and referring to it as low fantasy kinda funny though. I remember way back in the late 80's/early 90's the old gray beards saying the exact same thing about AD&D 2nd which the games I played in felt far less fantastical that of Warhammer Fantasy Battles. So I am somewhat entertained by those who scoff at AoS level of fantasy when I could have heard the same thing level at WFB from the Chainmail crowd.
I find it just as hilarious as I look over to my army Warriors and Knights which have practically nothing fantastical about them save being a tad on the Black Knight/army of baddies and way bigger than a human ought to be. Age of Sigmar is a huge, huge setting that has entire stretches devoid of anything fantastic if a person wants that sort of thing. It is just the focus is on the crazier, over-the-top elements which I think is more a reflection of modern fantasy settings preferences (as well as a heapin' pile of IP protection). We are well past the 1980s/1990s and fantasy has evolved some since then. I know, I don't like being reminded that that I am getting old too. A person might not like the direction it has taken, but I would hope they can avoid becoming those cranky, old Chainmail and historical players that looked down their noses at everything that isn't what they liked. Miniatures war gaming really doesn't need a new generation of that kind of grognard saying how their games are better than what the kids are doing these days.
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here. However, I think it’s too easy though to equate somebody saying they don’t like something with looking down their noses, as you put it.
As a child in the 70s and 80s I was obsessed with fantasy as a genre, far more than any other. That’s no longer the case. As you say, fantasy has evolved because just like everything else, there are changes in taste and fashion over time. The style of fantasy I enjoy just isn’t mainstream anymore. Age of Sigmar just doesn’t appeal to me at all, neither did the Warhammer Old World for that matter. Fantasy has moved away from what I enjoy, so I’ve moved on to sci fi, which I enjoy far more these days.
This doesn’t mean that I look down on modern fantasy, Age of Sigmar or anything else. It’s just not for me. The things I enjoy are just different, not intrinsically better. If anything, I’m actually a bit envious of the people who do like it because they have a mainstream fantasy miniatures game they enjoy.
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here. However, I think it’s too easy though to equate somebody saying they don’t like something with looking down their noses, as you put it.
As a child in the 70s and 80s I was obsessed with fantasy as a genre, far more than any other. That’s no longer the case. As you say, fantasy has evolved because just like everything else, there are changes in taste and fashion over time. The style of fantasy I enjoy just isn’t mainstream anymore. Age of Sigmar just doesn’t appeal to me at all, neither did the Warhammer Old World for that matter. Fantasy has moved away from what I enjoy, so I’ve moved on to sci fi, which I enjoy far more these days.
This doesn’t mean that I look down on modern fantasy, Age of Sigmar or anything else. It’s just not for me. The things I enjoy are just different, not intrinsically better. If anything, I’m actually a bit envious of the people who do like it because they have a mainstream fantasy miniatures game they enjoy.
Which having different tastes and preferences is fine. I just don't think there is much to be gained dropping posts like '3-stringed bows look like crap.' end post. There is a good deal of things in Age of Sigmar that don't suit my tastes and preferences. At least locally, more than a few people do like those things. So I am not going to make comments the are little more than getting something off my chest. It doesn't make them feel good about what they like and doesn't change the fact that it exists. I see that as a lose-lose.
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here. However, I think it’s too easy though to equate somebody saying they don’t like something with looking down their noses, as you put it.
As a child in the 70s and 80s I was obsessed with fantasy as a genre, far more than any other. That’s no longer the case. As you say, fantasy has evolved because just like everything else, there are changes in taste and fashion over time. The style of fantasy I enjoy just isn’t mainstream anymore. Age of Sigmar just doesn’t appeal to me at all, neither did the Warhammer Old World for that matter. Fantasy has moved away from what I enjoy, so I’ve moved on to sci fi, which I enjoy far more these days.
This doesn’t mean that I look down on modern fantasy, Age of Sigmar or anything else. It’s just not for me. The things I enjoy are just different, not intrinsically better. If anything, I’m actually a bit envious of the people who do like it because they have a mainstream fantasy miniatures game they enjoy.
Which having different tastes and preferences is fine. I just don't think there is much to be gained dropping posts like '3-stringed bows look like crap.' end post. There is a good deal of things in Age of Sigmar that don't suit my tastes and preferences. At least locally, more than a few people do like those things. So I am not going to make comments the are little more than getting something off my chest. It doesn't make them feel good about what they like and doesn't change the fact that it exists. I see that as a lose-lose.
While I sort of agree, you go down that road and you end up asking what’s the point of anyone expressing their opinion of everything. Saying, “I hate this mini” really adds nothing to discussion of news items. On the other hand saying, “I love this mini”, adds nothing either. I tend to find that people only complain about the negative posts though
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here. However, I think it’s too easy though to equate somebody saying they don’t like something with looking down their noses, as you put it.
As a child in the 70s and 80s I was obsessed with fantasy as a genre, far more than any other. That’s no longer the case. As you say, fantasy has evolved because just like everything else, there are changes in taste and fashion over time. The style of fantasy I enjoy just isn’t mainstream anymore. Age of Sigmar just doesn’t appeal to me at all, neither did the Warhammer Old World for that matter. Fantasy has moved away from what I enjoy, so I’ve moved on to sci fi, which I enjoy far more these days.
This doesn’t mean that I look down on modern fantasy, Age of Sigmar or anything else. It’s just not for me. The things I enjoy are just different, not intrinsically better. If anything, I’m actually a bit envious of the people who do like it because they have a mainstream fantasy miniatures game they enjoy.
Which having different tastes and preferences is fine. I just don't think there is much to be gained dropping posts like '3-stringed bows look like crap.' end post. There is a good deal of things in Age of Sigmar that don't suit my tastes and preferences. At least locally, more than a few people do like those things. So I am not going to make comments the are little more than getting something off my chest. It doesn't make them feel good about what they like and doesn't change the fact that it exists. I see that as a lose-lose.
While I sort of agree, you go down that road and you end up asking what’s the point of anyone expressing their opinion of everything. Saying, “I hate this mini” really adds nothing to discussion of news items. On the other hand saying, “I love this mini”, adds nothing either. I tend to find that people only complain about the negative posts though
That's because people enjoy their hobby and want to share that enjoyment with others and have that enjoyment reinforced. So comments like "I love that model" create a positive atmosphere environment people want to be a part of. It rewards those who agree with the viewpoint and has minimal effect on those who don't. However in contrast negative comments create more of a negative association and tend to be more personally taken by those who might disagree with them.
That's why negative comment get more pushback than positive ones. It's also why many try to encourage/force positive environments rather than negative ones.
I think online there's also a bit of a lean toward the negative. People tend to take less effort to post the positive which results in an increase in the negative. As a result you get more pushback; especially when a community has a bit of a habit of being slightly over critical/negative.
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here. However, I think it’s too easy though to equate somebody saying they don’t like something with looking down their noses, as you put it.
As a child in the 70s and 80s I was obsessed with fantasy as a genre, far more than any other. That’s no longer the case. As you say, fantasy has evolved because just like everything else, there are changes in taste and fashion over time. The style of fantasy I enjoy just isn’t mainstream anymore. Age of Sigmar just doesn’t appeal to me at all, neither did the Warhammer Old World for that matter. Fantasy has moved away from what I enjoy, so I’ve moved on to sci fi, which I enjoy far more these days.
This doesn’t mean that I look down on modern fantasy, Age of Sigmar or anything else. It’s just not for me. The things I enjoy are just different, not intrinsically better. If anything, I’m actually a bit envious of the people who do like it because they have a mainstream fantasy miniatures game they enjoy.
Which having different tastes and preferences is fine. I just don't think there is much to be gained dropping posts like '3-stringed bows look like crap.' end post. There is a good deal of things in Age of Sigmar that don't suit my tastes and preferences. At least locally, more than a few people do like those things. So I am not going to make comments the are little more than getting something off my chest. It doesn't make them feel good about what they like and doesn't change the fact that it exists. I see that as a lose-lose.
While I sort of agree, you go down that road and you end up asking what’s the point of anyone expressing their opinion of everything. Saying, “I hate this mini” really adds nothing to discussion of news items. On the other hand saying, “I love this mini”, adds nothing either. I tend to find that people only complain about the negative posts though
That's because people enjoy their hobby and want to share that enjoyment with others and have that enjoyment reinforced. So comments like "I love that model" create a positive atmosphere environment people want to be a part of. It rewards those who agree with the viewpoint and has minimal effect on those who don't. However in contrast negative comments create more of a negative association and tend to be more personally taken by those who might disagree with them.
That's why negative comment get more pushback than positive ones. It's also why many try to encourage/force positive environments rather than negative ones.
I think online there's also a bit of a lean toward the negative. People tend to take less effort to post the positive which results in an increase in the negative. As a result you get more pushback; especially when a community has a bit of a habit of being slightly over critical/negative.
Personally I don’t find Dakka to be my go to place to have my enjoyment reinforced. That’s what Instagram is for.
Personally I don’t find Dakka to be my go to place to have my enjoyment reinforced. That’s what Instagram is for.
Maybe it's a discussion for another topic but I'll ask anyway as it's something I've been contemplating recently and you've certainly touched on it here...
Are there alternatives to Facebook and other such nonsense for discussing wargaming in general these days? I'm from a perdiof of time where forums like Dakka were the go-to, forefront of discussions surrounding Wargaming of all stripes but with social media, which I've no personal interest in, this has long not been the case, I feel especially as it doesn't feel as lively as it used to be, though that could just as well be my own, incorrect, observations I suppose.
I guess what I'm really asking is; I wonder if there's anywhere like or alternative to Dakka out there on other platforms?
As for discussions surrounding subjective liking or disliking the latest miniature releases, especially GW, I've noticed an odd pattern where I tend to dislike what Dakka at large agrees are awesome plastic troopers and very much enjoy what is usually, on here anyway, denounced as total dross*. Each to their own!
*I welcome our new, precariously balanced, zen wizarding overlords!
The problem I find with Facebook groups - at least general groups - is they are very impersonal. You might recognises people if you're super active an they are too; but if the groups large you get lost in the sea.
Furthermore because they are basically like a forum with a single subsection; posts get bumped down fast. You might get a few replies and then your post is lost and buried. So unlike forums where you might have multiple communities interacting and sharing and chatting; where threads are more easily sorted and displayed - FB is a bit of a mess.
FB's only gain is that so many people use it casually that its very easy to connect with a community. It's just a very impersonal connection that only works by you reinforcing it with personal friends.
Personally I don’t find Dakka to be my go to place to have my enjoyment reinforced. That’s what Instagram is for.
Maybe it's a discussion for another topic but I'll ask anyway as it's something I've been contemplating recently and you've certainly touched on it here...
Are there alternatives to Facebook and other such nonsense for discussing wargaming in general these days? I'm from a perdiof of time where forums like Dakka were the go-to, forefront of discussions surrounding Wargaming of all stripes but with social media, which I've no personal interest in, this has long not been the case, I feel especially as it doesn't feel as lively as it used to be, though that could just as well be my own, incorrect, observations I suppose.
I guess what I'm really asking is; I wonder if there's anywhere like or alternative to Dakka out there on other platforms?
As for discussions surrounding subjective liking or disliking the latest miniature releases, especially GW, I've noticed an odd pattern where I tend to dislike what Dakka at large agrees are awesome plastic troopers and very much enjoy what is usually, on here anyway, denounced as total dross*. Each to their own!
*I welcome our new, precariously balanced, zen wizarding overlords!
I don’t think you can beat an actual forum for discussion of a topic. I use Instagram to post photos of my miniatures and to follow other people’s work. In fact I deleted all of my photos from Dakka and only post them on Instagram now. It gives me far more control over what I see and I’ve found it to be a very positive place. I’m more of a collector and painter though. I can’t really speak about social media as a way of discussing rules/tactics etc.
So getting into the Seraphon book; new fluff is good. The whole 'remembering' thing is gone and what's replaced it has more nuance and WAY more personality. I was not particularly bothered by the 1st edition fluff and generally abhor re-cons, but this was a good move in my eyes. It was both appropriate and artfully done by rolling the re-done older fluff into being legends and misconceptions. I have not gotten into unit details yet but still credit where credit is due to GW fluff writers for vastly improving things.
Matched play is totally imbalanced but it does open up a lot of options for casual players where before Seraphon were largely non-viable outside a narrow range of game breaking gimmicks. So, unlike the fluff, I would say the battletome is not well-written in a matched play sense but it IS a significant improvement.
I had "wisely" cut out all the plastic tabs that connected the in-air hooves to the base, so I ended up having to pin one of the horses down because of course the miniscule plastic connection point between hoof and base eventually broke while I was trying to pin the metal rider down.
). If you look at the art the Seeker mount is quite broad and large; yet the current models the seekers are quite small in comparison to the rider. The old Diaz were more of a size though the riders were also much smaller too.
