Rank and flank is back, baby!

We still mostly have rumours and speculation so obviously things will change when we can look at actual rules. In the meantime...

What army (or armies) are you going to start out with? What units or build styles are you excited about trying out to see if they're viable and you can make work?

Personally - as primarily a High Elf player - I've found Lothern Seaguard to be underwhelming in any edition where I've fielded them, but I'm hoping that THIS time they'll be viable enough that I can build an army around them. I'm also going to try my hand at making Ellyrian Reavers useful for me.

What about you?

I’ve got my old WFB Vampire Counts ready to go, but I think I might add TK as a different spin on undead.

The only 2 armies I was interested in were dwarfs and Lizardmen. I never finished my lizard army, but still have my dwarfs.

If GW can undercut the price of ebay recasters, I might finally finish by Bretonnian army.

Sadly, I expect GW to set the price so high even the recasters say 'Hey, GW, now you're just being greedy...'

Dwarfs, as well.

I'll likely hold out for empire or kislev, most of my old WHFB are now AoS armies, though my chaos dwarves/legion of azgorh are looking for a home since being legendsed out of AoS, so if the whfb pdf list is any good I'll put the effort in there.

I might do bretonnians but if they put those old Pegasus Knights minis in the faction box I'm probably out. The old skellies in the Tomb kings box killed any chance if me buying that set.

I'm excited for Bretonnia after seeing the Royal Pegasus. I had a Bretonnian force decades ago but it was impatient me having built & painted.

I'm looking forward to what I can do now, even with some of the aged models.

Well nothing at 1st but once high elves come might try that. 1st gw army so kind of nostalgy army for me. The army box will decide largely

They went and put the old Pegasus knights kits in the bretonnian starter. Dunno how they could justify that next to the *new* Pegasus kit.

Royal Pegasus vs standard Pegasus?

Just a random guess.

Skaven and Lizardmen.

Dwarfs and TK.

If the get by rules are decent and not completely half assed, I might be finally inspired to finish building my ogres and converting up some maneaters. Also if the army box prices are actually competitively priced, I might grab one of them.

No idea yet.

I was thinking about picking up Asoiaf when I got back from my sick leave and can work again.

But now I'm not sure if I should invest my money and time on Asoiaf or Old World. :(

I'm excited to try some of my Wood Elf units I've been collecting since the announcement. I've played a few games of 8th that have gone terriby... but then I'm playing a hybrid shooting/fast cav/tree force instead of specializing into one. I've heard fast cav Woodies was the way to go in 8th but it sounds tremendously unfun to me.

So yeah, it's all pretty new to me. I'm excited to see what standard Wood Elf shooting and magic can do I guess. I wish I had some hawk riders but I haven't found any models I'm happy with so I hope they get a new kit when the Asrai get thei turn in the release spotlight.

I'm waiting to see how things pan out. Given that nearly half the armies are Legacy rules and GW has a poor history with those (or rules in general really) I'm not getting overly excited about it yet. I sold my Brets earlier this year to fund a new gaming PC so I might buy a starter for them to play them with 8th rules but so far nothing I've seen has convinced me to move to TOW.

Waiting until I have the rules in my hands to decide. Might probably just stick with me Empire army and just invest in larger movement trays as I sure as hell ain't rebasing anything.

The other alternative is I have several boxes of Wood Elf Glade Guard/Glade riders I bought off a friend getting out of the hobby. I could just make that my Old World army as I really not sure what to do with them yet.

If I decide to play it, I have a massive TK army stored away.

If I do it, it’ll be on the cheap and easy. Maybe an empire force built out of Wargames Atlantic conquistadors.

When GW cancels TOW for lack of sales, blame Polonius for buying 3rd party minis ;P

Lol. I’m sure I’m the only one. I just don’t see having the time to play, but I have some fantasy projects I wouldn’t mind exploring

I've got a decent Orcs & Goblins army, mostly painted, that I put together after WHFB was killed in hopes of playing 6th Edition or Renaissance.

I've also got the start of a Dwarf force that could easily be expanded.

I got too many armies for old WHFB, so will try to consolidate.

I think Skaven and WoC probably. Perhaps a bretonnia force as a painting project.

I started painting an Ogre Kingdoms army in october. I came to the realization that I played as a clown in 8th edition, so for the re-launch I should have an army that matches my playstyle. So I´m painting up a clown-themed army

Gonna have to get that Bretonnian starter kit, I reckon - just debating with myself as to how far I'm willing to go, heraldry-wise. On the one hand, a nice unified colour scheme is probably easier, but having a classic "everyone's got their own colours" Bretonnian army wouldn't be half bad!

I've also still got my old Ogre Kingdoms horde from way back when. I know they're legacy, but my hope is that - with two armies - I can introduce my mate who's just started 40K to the joys of complex regimental manoeuvres as well. A man can dream, eh?

 YeeeMako wrote:
Gonna have to get that Bretonnian starter kit, I reckon - just debating with myself as to how far I'm willing to go, heraldry-wise. On the one hand, a nice unified colour scheme is probably easier, but having a classic "everyone's got their own colours" Bretonnian army wouldn't be half bad!

I've also still got my old Ogre Kingdoms horde from way back when. I know they're legacy, but my hope is that - with two armies - I can introduce my mate who's just started 40K to the joys of complex regimental manoeuvres as well. A man can dream, eh?

My plan for Bretonnia is to do a hybrid scheme for the army. The peasant archers, men-at-arms, and the like will all have the scheme of the lord. My knights of the realm (both foot and mounted) will also either follow the lords scheme or have their personal heraldries quartered or marshaled to the lords scheme, so they will still be predominantly cohesive to the main scheme but still have some individualistic flair, to represent that they have taken vows and pledged fealty to the lord and are loyal retainers, etc.

The knights errant will have their own individual schemes, representing that they are wandering knights that are trying to be seen and make names for themselves and aren't thus pledged to service to anyone else.

The Questing Knights I haven't yet entirely figured out, GW has historically presented them as retaining their individual heraldry, but the fluff indicates that a Questing Knight has to surrender all their domains, titles, lands, and possessions, forsake all ties with family, kin, etc. Logically this would also mean surrendering ones coat of arms and heraldry. Part of me is tempted to have them "take the black" and paint them sans any heraldry at all, but in fluff such "black knights" are treated with suspicion and seen negatively so it doesn't feel appropriate to go that route - we'll see.

Grail Knights will all be back to their own distinct custom heraldry, but dialed up to 11. They are the individualistic living saint folk-heroes of the Bretonnia and are pledged to the Lady, not to a lord, so they get their own heradlry. Foot squires and mounted yeomen, my intent is to have them in schemes shared with the Grail Knights - each Grail Knight having a handful of squires/yeomen who share their heraldry and attend to them.

Those are some really sound ideas, actually - I may also do that, as it seems like a really happy compromise between my two options!

With your Questing Knights, I guess you could have them dress in sackcloth and some other primary colour (perhaps white?) rather than having them "take the black." Sackcloth would show a kind of disregard for worldly things as they carry out their quest, as well as a humility and penitence before the Lady which would hopefully win her favour and bring them closer to finding the Grail. A nice white, or something like it, is also symbolically a "pure" colour in religious terms (as I understand it), so it'd complement the cloth.

Of course, there's probably issues with this approach too, but I thought I'd suggest it just in case, eh!

I have High Elves I'm waiting to build until we get base rules for them. Well, that, and getting to play TOW to see if I like it enough to base specifically for it rather than figuring out movement trays/spacers or whatever.

My first games are going to be with my dwarf army, I think. I should probably see how much repairs it needs, a lot of Slayers were falling off their bases last time I brought it out.

I also want to do Chaos Dwarfs, sometime down the line. But normal Dwarfs will probably see the table first. I assume the army list will be based off of their Tamurkhan/Legion of Azgorh incarnation, since those were the most recent rules and models.

Yeah, that seems the safe bet, given the way they phrased it as "armies that had rules in 8th edition" or whatever. The only rules Chorfs had in 8th was Legion of Azgorh so its probably going to be built around that rather than whatever they might have had in older editions.

Well, to be fair, LOA/Tamurkhan rules are pretty much an expansion/twist on the old 4th rules. Some stuff gets renamed, but all the old options are there, plus more.

Weird. I seem to remember a lot of complaints from old school Chorf fans when the army list came out about how Legion of Azgorh wasn't "real" chaos dwarves and how GW ruined the faction. I assumed there were probably big changes that occurred.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Weird. I seem to remember a lot of complaints from old school Chorf fans when the army list came out about how Legion of Azgorh wasn't "real" chaos dwarves and how GW ruined the faction. I assumed there were probably big changes that occurred.

The models very very different but the rules were broadly similar other than the size increase for Bull Centaurs and the new units like the trains and bound daemons.

I had no issue using my Chaos Dwarf army I built up under the Ravening Hordes rules with the LoA rules without buying anything new.

Tbh though the ideal would be an approach like CA have done for TWW, where you get *both* the old stuff and the new as slightly different units. They use the 8th Ed versions of the warmachines, but otherwise the only thing missing from either edition is the hobgoblin bolt thrower.

Yeah, the big divide in the Chorf community was between big hats and masks on the models. It's mostly a in-joke now, but it was pretty heated, from what I hear.

If it is successful locally, I'll get into it. Probably one of the evil armies.

What are the easiest armies to paint?

SU-152 wrote:

What are the easiest armies to paint?

Tomb Kings as they're mostly skeletons. Wraithbone spray for undercoat and base paint, Agrax Earthshade wash, and a nice dry brush of ushabti bone will do most of the work.

It will look pretty nice and all you need is to pick a colour for the shields and add gold to the trim, do the weapons black for the handles and silver for the blades.

I'll be starting a Bretonnian army, always wanted one since fifth edition, but I was a 40k player and in my early teens with very little money to spare. I've loved the idea of mostly non-magical, normal dudes fighting monsters and the like, it's very heroic.

The Empire, I will need to construct new movement trays thought. I do not plan to re-base my entire army and still want to be able to play older editions.

Not buying into The Old World itself, but I'm looking forward to a box or two of Bretonnian Knights for games of Full Tilt.

 Bonegrinder wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

What are the easiest armies to paint?

Tomb Kings as they're mostly skeletons. Wraithbone spray for undercoat and base paint, Agrax Earthshade wash, and a nice dry brush of ushabti bone will do most of the work.

It will look pretty nice and all you need is to pick a colour for the shields and add gold to the trim, do the weapons black for the handles and silver for the blades.

Wow thanks, those are good tips!!!

I'm sorting through my armies trying to figure out what I already have. I have plainly forgotten some things. My Empire collection is... generational. A few Reiksguard foot, including some of the Marauder Miniatures sculpts (before they were incorporated by Citadel/GW).
Even have some really terrible and small halberdiers with shields (including stickers) from a pretty terrible playing mat game that GW put out with some toy company or other.

Though it dead ends before stuff like Demigryphs and some of the reworks of the plastics. The metal crossbowmen with almost completely undetailed plastic crossbows amuse me the most, though.

I have a lot of core troops, but not a lot of weird stuff.

Tomb Kings will be interesting to sort through. I know I have two heavily pinned catapults, at least two tomb scorpions, a bone giant and some ushabti. But no snake surfers or necrosphinx.

The whole change to base sizes puts me off of using any of my existing armies as rebasing scares me of breaking fully painted models and movement trays with weird spacers just makes me want to do kings of war multibases instead.

I do have dwarf / empire armies that never got past the buying models phase, so I could buy a pack of larger bases and start on them. But I'll wait for their books to come out and see what models get a rerelease etc.

Given the time this is set in I was expecting a focus on the empire, so maybe they will get some nice new minis that will give me the bug, but so far I'm happy to wait and see how the game pans out.

I'm kind of excited to try my Empire army out. Though first thing I'll do is play some solo games between my old metal dwarf army and my orc & goblin army.

I'd never rebase a model because a game company wants me to, and as some others have pointed out it won't make a big difference in this game (and it's difference is a vastly overstate meme for past games). But it's easy enough to just cut movement trays to whatever size you want and put your models on it. I buy 28"x44" sheets of thick card from Blick, you can cut out a lot of trays from just one $3 sheet, give them a quick spray of green paint and you're good to go.

I'm going to play a real duckhead list at first.

2k dwarfs,
King, engineers.
20 thunderers, longbeards, warriors.
6 cannons
15 hammerers.
1 gyrocopter.

None of it moves except the gyrocopter. Come get me.

After that probably WoC and try to rebase some stuff.

Watching some of the videos around to figure out what units and characters made the transition in various army lists.

Did not expect Empire wizards to get access to everything: dark, necromancy and daemonology as well as battle, illusion and elementalism.

That's oddly appealing, especially given some of the old models I've dug up. I've got some weird old metal chaos sorcerers that are a lot more interesting than the standard 'holding a staff and sword' college wizards.

Not sure if I will get into this game, but if I do, a Nurgle-marked Chaos Warriors army could be fun, possibly made to look like the Rotblood Marauders from Vermintide 2.

I'm going for Bretonnia. Having watched the GMG review for the faction I'm interested in doing both the Exiles and Crusaders themes.

I've had most of the parts of an Empire Mortar sitting in my bitz box for a while and with some other spare parts I've made it serviceable as the Border Prince Bombard. I'll throw in some of the mercenary types as well for an interesting side project.

Overall, even though thus far my group isn't interested, I'm really looking forward to this as a project.

I got a poorly assembled, overpriced high elf army on ebay, but at least it was mostly unpainted and the seller was kind enough to include the sprues that still had parts on them.

It seems to be mostly assembled with superglue so I'll be trying to redo the most egregious offenders, but I don't have the highest hopes for these spearmen.

Edit: Disassembly went mostly smoothly. These things were completely covered in superglue so some pieces didn't come apart quite as well as I would have liked, and there is plenty to clean up before reassembly.

Tomb Kings baby!

We are back!

Definitely thinking Bretonnian Errantry Crusade army! Leaning hard into the all-cavalry list. At 2k, I'm squeezing in about ~56 mounted models, based on prelim list tinkering.

Not sure if it'll be any good, but damn will it be thematic and a fun army to paint!

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
Not sure if I will get into this game, but if I do, a Nurgle-marked Chaos Warriors army could be fun, possibly made to look like the Rotblood Marauders from Vermintide 2.

That would be amazing. I have my 8th ed WFB nurgle Warriors of Chaos, but unfortunately I put most of them on round / oval bases for AOS.

So I'm thinking of doing WoC again with the re-launch of Old World, but I will focus on Slaanesh for a true painting project.

Meh. Given the starter set I suspect my army list isn't going to be valid either because of the rules or because of the meta.

I used to run Brets, some archers, some M@A, a Grail Reliquae, a couple units of Knights Realm/Errant, a small unit of questiing knights, some Pegasus Knights, and a block of Grail - but realistically the army was about Hammer and Anvil with the Grail Reliquae and a Deathstart of Grail Knights - Grail Knights, full command, The Lord on Warhorse, a Damsel, and the BSB Paladin, war banner, banner of defense. It was fairly layered on defense vs shooting and magic, with the mobility for the flank+ charge...

Breton wrote:
Meh. Given the starter set I suspect my army list isn't going to be valid either because of the rules or because of the meta.

I used to run Brets, some archers, some M@A, a Grail Reliquae, a couple units of Knights Realm/Errant, a small unit of questiing knights, some Pegasus Knights, and a block of Grail - but realistically the army was about Hammer and Anvil with the Grail Reliquae and a Deathstart of Grail Knights - Grail Knights, full command, The Lord on Warhorse, a Damsel, and the BSB Paladin, war banner, banner of defense. It was fairly layered on defense vs shooting and magic, with the mobility for the flank+ charge...

I do not see why it should not be valid or powerful...

You have the compulsoty units. Plenty of % in characters. Grail knights up to 25% of the army.

And it does not seem weak...

SU-152 wrote:

Breton wrote:
Meh. Given the starter set I suspect my army list isn't going to be valid either because of the rules or because of the meta.

I used to run Brets, some archers, some M@A, a Grail Reliquae, a couple units of Knights Realm/Errant, a small unit of questiing knights, some Pegasus Knights, and a block of Grail - but realistically the army was about Hammer and Anvil with the Grail Reliquae and a Deathstart of Grail Knights - Grail Knights, full command, The Lord on Warhorse, a Damsel, and the BSB Paladin, war banner, banner of defense. It was fairly layered on defense vs shooting and magic, with the mobility for the flank+ charge...

I do not see why it should not be valid or powerful...

You have the compulsoty units. Plenty of % in characters. Grail knights up to 25% of the army.

And it does not seem weak...

It looks like they're building the theme around the winged horses. I haven't seen any of the rules etc yet, but it just looks like they're pushing away from the Death Star units into the Lone Hero thing.

Edit to Add: I haven't even seen a kit yet for a mounted (on warhorse) lord, or a Mounted Damsel.

Breton wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

Breton wrote:
Meh. Given the starter set I suspect my army list isn't going to be valid either because of the rules or because of the meta.

I used to run Brets, some archers, some M@A, a Grail Reliquae, a couple units of Knights Realm/Errant, a small unit of questiing knights, some Pegasus Knights, and a block of Grail - but realistically the army was about Hammer and Anvil with the Grail Reliquae and a Deathstart of Grail Knights - Grail Knights, full command, The Lord on Warhorse, a Damsel, and the BSB Paladin, war banner, banner of defense. It was fairly layered on defense vs shooting and magic, with the mobility for the flank+ charge...

I do not see why it should not be valid or powerful...

You have the compulsoty units. Plenty of % in characters. Grail knights up to 25% of the army.

And it does not seem weak...

It looks like they're building the theme around the winged horses. I haven't seen any of the rules etc yet, but it just looks like they're pushing away from the Death Star units into the Lone Hero thing.

Edit to Add: I haven't even seen a kit yet for a mounted (on warhorse) lord, or a Mounted Damsel.

I've seen the rules in various places and been list building and I have yet to add Pegs to a list. Also, no Lone Heroes either. They sit nicely in units for Brets, from what I am seeing.

You list sounds like a well-rounded all-comer style list and I'm pretty sure it's entirely legal too.

I think the mounted damsel is meant to use the Elaine de Douchard kit or whatever her name is

I'll be going for a proper mish-mash Tomb Kings army, but built to mostly be a display army that I hope to form some sort of cohesive army out of. My general will be riding a Warsphinx because I'm not a huge fan of crocodragon (TK didn't need a dragon), and because I decided his title was "Lion of the Desert" so a cat mount seemed apt.

I want to get some of those high elf lions from that chariot and Tomb Kingify them to be his pets (painted to look appropriately like animated statues), but I have no idea what to run them as outside of just doing a lion chariot.

I'm also planning on turning crocodragon into just croco by omitting the wings, shortening the neck, and leaving the palanquin off of its back. But again I'm not sure what it would be used as in a game.

Crocodtagon could probably be used as a necrosphinx

Croc's base is 3 times the size tho, isn't it?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Croc's base is 3 times the size tho, isn't it?

It's massive compared to the necrospinx base. If I can't somehow squeeze it on there, I'll try to get it vertical and use it as a Colossus or something.

I've been frantically rebasing my Empire army. Being among the lucky few whose orders shipped before the snowstorm closed Memphis, I got my books today (along with the bases for my cavalry). I give you my 2k list:



Characters:

Grandmaster on barded warhorse, full plate, shield, sword of might
BSB in full plate, NO shield, ruby ring, Imperial Banner
Ulrican priest with greataxe (because WYSIWYG)
L1 Wizard (Daemonology)
Engineer

Ouch, these guys are expensive, and it's hard to resist sexy toys. Originally had a L3 Daemonologist because the lore has 3 spells that would help the greatswords...but then I noticed the rampaging banner. Sorry, rerolling charges is a must. I didn't want to drop the priest because he adds D3" to that charge... and everything depends on them getting the charge. So a L1 gets a 3/6 chance of getting ONE of the 3 good spells, and the signature is a decent magic missile. If the wizard gets what I want, he goes with the greatswords. If not, he just goes in the swordsmen and shoots. Then...40 points left over, that almost pays for an engineer so the great cannons don't misfire. dropping the BSB's shield gets me over the top!

Core:

40 Swordsmen with FC
20 Crossbows
20 Handguns

Special:

Great Cannon
Great Cannon
28 Greatswords with FC and Rampaging Banner
10 Inner Circle knights with lances, preceptor, and banner.

No Rares. All of it is rebased except the cavalry. Left out are 40 swordsmen, 2x20 halberdiers, 10 crossbows, 10 handguns, 5 pistoliers, 2 mortars, and more characters, so I could go 3k without stretching, but I'll be in no hurry to rebase the mortars, pistoliers, and halberdiers, nor to repaint the remaining 20 in that unused block of swordsmen (who are also not rebased, although the bases are done, so I could field 20 now)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 That1Dud3 wrote:
Tomb Kings baby!

We are back!

Yeah...but with 40% of the armies out there being TK on day one, I'll rebase those after I'm done rebasing my Empire army.

I was initially planning to go for Tomb kings but because I am an underdog type ..when they were the first army to be released I lost my interest.
Currently hoping to see more Chaos dwarfs.. but if their noses are no longer as big as they were I will skip those too and probably either go skaven or beasts.

The fixation with the size of chaos dwarf noses i've seen from various corners of the community is honestly mystifying to me.

After briefly skimming the legacy pdfs.

I'm currently interested in VC as my army for ToW.


Ghoul King on Terrorgheist *General*
Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
1 Wight Lord BSB
30 Grave Guard
1 Special Terrorgheist
2 Rare Terrorgheist.

Can hit 2k and all minimum requirements with that.

 Rogzor87 wrote:
After briefly skimming the legacy pdfs.

I'm currently interested in VC as my army for ToW.


Ghoul King on Terrorgheist *General*
Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
1 Wight Lord BSB
30 Grave Guard
1 Special Terrorgheist
2 Rare Terrorgheist.

Can hit 2k and all minimum requirements with that.

Good luck finding any games though.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


Good luck finding any games though.

Shouldn't be too hard once I get it ready.

 Rogzor87 wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


Good luck finding any games though.

Shouldn't be too hard once I get it ready.

If I saw that army across the table, I think I would reconsider playing. Out of morbid curiosity, I put a list together and it just seems disgusting and like it would be very, very un-fun to play against.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Rogzor87 wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


Good luck finding any games though.

Shouldn't be too hard once I get it ready.

If I saw that army across the table, I think I would reconsider playing. Out of morbid curiosity, I put a list together and it just seems disgusting and like it would be very, very un-fun to play against.

Spoiler:

Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Flayed Hauberk, Biting Blade
[380]

Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Blood Drinker, Talisman of Protection
[405]

Wight Lord BSB
Spelleater Axe, Enchanted Shield
[110]

Core:
(30) Grave Guard
Full Command, Great Weapons, Drilled, Drakenhof Banner
[488]

Special:
Terrorgheist
[205]

Rare:
Terrorgheist
[205]

Terrorgheist
[205]

[1998]

Not a legal army. You need 12pts more in the Grave Guard unit (needs to be 500pts min) and you need to spend 30pts to make one of the Ghoul Kings a wizard to be the General - both probably at the expense of a chunk of your magic items.

Tbh, I think ‘1999+1pts’ is going to be a common thing ti prevent exactly this sort of silliness.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Rogzor87 wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


Good luck finding any games though.

Shouldn't be too hard once I get it ready.

If I saw that army across the table, I think I would reconsider playing. Out of morbid curiosity, I put a list together and it just seems disgusting and like it would be very, very un-fun to play against.

Spoiler:

Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Flayed Hauberk, Biting Blade
[380]

Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Blood Drinker, Talisman of Protection
[405]

Wight Lord BSB
Spelleater Axe, Enchanted Shield
[110]

Core:
(30) Grave Guard
Full Command, Great Weapons, Drilled, Drakenhof Banner
[488]

Special:
Terrorgheist
[205]

Rare:
Terrorgheist
[205]

Terrorgheist
[205]

[1998]

Yeah, that looks like a great army to play against someone you don't want to be friends with anymore.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Rogzor87 wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


Good luck finding any games though.

Shouldn't be too hard once I get it ready.

If I saw that army across the table, I think I would reconsider playing. Out of morbid curiosity, I put a list together and it just seems disgusting and like it would be very, very un-fun to play against.

Spoiler:

Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Flayed Hauberk, Biting Blade
[380]

Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Blood Drinker, Talisman of Protection
[405]

Wight Lord BSB
Spelleater Axe, Enchanted Shield
[110]

Core:
(30) Grave Guard
Full Command, Great Weapons, Drilled, Drakenhof Banner
[488]

Special:
Terrorgheist
[205]

Rare:
Terrorgheist
[205]

Terrorgheist
[205]

[1998]

Not a legal army. You need 12pts more in the Grave Guard unit (needs to be 500pts min) and you need to spend 30pts to make one of the Ghoul Kings a wizard to be the General - both probably at the expense of a chunk of your magic items.

Tbh, I think ‘1999+1pts’ is going to be a common thing ti prevent exactly this sort of silliness.

Oh, that is an easy fix. Overall, it still generally stands and looks unpleasant, which was my point.

And yeah, new edition - same old points finagling. It didn't seem as necessary at first but this army sells me on it again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:


Yeah, that looks like a great army to play against someone you don't want to be friends with anymore.

Exactly my point!

I don't know about you all but there are people who will play against list like this. Even though its "legends/legacy" it will help for similar list in competitive play. Not to say Random local tournaments will possibly allow "legends" armies in the tournaments.

In a casual/friendly setting I could understand people being hesitant but even if this list is brought it's not like I would be like "HA! Surprise!". I would make it known and accept tailoring against it. You could agree to not play and I'll just look for someone else.

 Rogzor87 wrote:
I don't know about you all but there are people who will play against list like this. Even though its "legends/legacy" it will help for similar list in competitive play. Not to say Random local tournaments will possibly allow "legends" armies in the tournaments.

In a casual/friendly setting I could understand people being hesitant but even if this list is brought it's not like I would be like "HA! Surprise!". I would make it known and accept tailoring against it. You could agree to not play and I'll just look for someone else.

Yeah fair play. Optimizing for filth and playing against other folks optimizing for filth is a perfectly legitimate way to play. As a High Elf player, this'd be a list where I could bring a double dragon + whatever else unfun things I can think up and not feel bad about it.

If I brought a well rounded "play friendly games at the store" list - or if I was starting out and had a "I'm fielding what I think looks cool and it's all I got" -and I got rolled by a list like that I might feel a bit sore about it.

Though of course a lot depends on the attitude of the person you're playing the game with.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The fixation with the size of chaos dwarf noses i've seen from various corners of the community is honestly mystifying to me.

Its just a thing I like of them, gives them their character, its like how I think the older Ork models in Aos look better cause they look more like chimps.

i'm probably not going to have the funds to start buying into TOW until at least summer, which means GW will be a bit further along in the re-releases of armies, and at that point, it comes down to what is already out. if WE are out, probably that, or maybe O&G. from the returning armies, those are most interesting to me, but i've also thought about ogres (which would also turn into a project of how to figure out a way to base them for TOW and AOS at the same time)

 Vulcan wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 Rogzor87 wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


Good luck finding any games though.

Shouldn't be too hard once I get it ready.

If I saw that army across the table, I think I would reconsider playing. Out of morbid curiosity, I put a list together and it just seems disgusting and like it would be very, very un-fun to play against.

Spoiler:

Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Flayed Hauberk, Biting Blade
[380]

Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Blood Drinker, Talisman of Protection
[405]

Wight Lord BSB
Spelleater Axe, Enchanted Shield
[110]

Core:
(30) Grave Guard
Full Command, Great Weapons, Drilled, Drakenhof Banner
[488]

Special:
Terrorgheist
[205]

Rare:
Terrorgheist
[205]

Terrorgheist
[205]

[1998]

Yeah, that looks like a great army to play against someone you don't want to be friends with anymore.

its probably more fun than the old Wood Elf armies

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
i'm probably not going to have the funds to start buying into TOW until at least summer, which means GW will be a bit further along in the re-releases of armies, and at that point, it comes down to what is already out. if WE are out, probably that, or maybe O&G. from the returning armies, those are most interesting to me, but i've also thought about ogres (which would also turn into a project of how to figure out a way to base them for TOW and AOS at the same time)

There are some "base adapter" options out there that make round ones square, which can then go into trays. I am doing that exact thing with my Ogres, so I can play them in both games.

lizardmen with a slan and 2 EOTG. might not be geat (who knows) but i want to showcase the best casters in the lore

Ethereal Slann BSB is going to be nasty.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
i'm probably not going to have the funds to start buying into TOW until at least summer, which means GW will be a bit further along in the re-releases of armies, and at that point, it comes down to what is already out. if WE are out, probably that, or maybe O&G. from the returning armies, those are most interesting to me, but i've also thought about ogres (which would also turn into a project of how to figure out a way to base them for TOW and AOS at the same time)

There are some "base adapter" options out there that make round ones square, which can then go into trays. I am doing that exact thing with my Ogres, so I can play them in both games.

oh! that would be perfect, yes. thank you! certainly earlier than some sort of convoluted solution to do with swapping the actual bases. that definitely makes ogres more enticing as something to get into, knowing it can work for two games. a shame that Genestealers can't take ogryns or i might be able to make them work in a third game

As someone who has never played WHFB, I thought TOW to be an easy pass for me. I am a Dwarf guy and I don't think, the range aged very gracefully. Then I discovered the alternatives from Highlands Miniatures and now I am seriously tempted. I also found a designer with alternative woodelves which are really charming. Still not sure if I will pull the trigger, as my printer broke and I need a new one (which I eventually want to buy anyway).

Bago wrote:
As someone who has never played WHFB, I thought TOW to be an easy pass for me. I am a Dwarf guy and I don't think, the range aged very gracefully. Then I discovered the alternatives from Highlands Miniatures and now I am seriously tempted. I also found a designer with alternative woodelves which are really charming. Still not sure if I will pull the trigger, as my printer broke and I need a new one (which I eventually want to buy anyway).

Well, if it's just about using the cool miniatures, there are some model agnostic systems that will be easier to get into (KoW, One Page Regiments, Hobgoblin). But admittedly none of them communicate faction identity through the rules as well as GW.

Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD

chaos0xomega wrote:
Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD

To be fair a lot of people may not be able or want to build models in resin or metal, so in that case the only way to go is third party if a decent proxy is out there. Though it isn't helped by the generic nature of the minis (which as you say was a problem for WHFB). Having watched a few videos on YT I've no interest in attempting the Bretonnian trebuchet but it's not like it's hard to find a generic plastic trebuchet to fill in for it.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD

Well the options currently are:

1) You already had the miniatures
2) You use third party miniatures
3) You don't play the game

Y'know, on account of GW not selling the miniatures.

I think, when it comes to Lizardmen, you can build (almost) any TOW unit out of AoS Lizardmen currently on sale? Maybe bar Jungle Swarms, but these are very easy to do (green stuff snakes on a base- can't get simpler than that).

thats correct - almost the entirety of the old WHFB army list is available in AoS plastics.

For jungle swarms I would recommend wadrhun hunting packs from conquest though.

chaos0xomega wrote:Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD

Well, that didn't kill the game. GW did. They wanted to do their whole Age of Sigmar thing and reinvent their brand. Now they are doing what so many brands do now - capitalize on nostalgia. It allows them to sell 20+ year old kits for big prices and people eat it up. I am guilty of it myself. After seeing the rules and watching the batreps - I am on board fully, because they at least did a good job with the rules this time.

I've still got a plague cart load of Skaven from the early naughts that I'll be finishing off and using. Real Soon Now.

Good news, GW itself already putting in additional comp for Warhammer World events



(rule of three on everything, including core)

Oh boi, Does that also apply to units that got Core'ed like Graveguard when i pick a prince?

Or is that a "diffrent" unit?

same unit in general, not same unit per slot

chaos0xomega wrote:
Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD

the GW paradox
making the best fantasy plastic models in the world, but mediocre rules (at best)
yet everyone wants to play their games with models from other companies

 kodos wrote:
same unit in general, not same unit per slot

chaos0xomega wrote:
Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD

the GW paradox
making the best fantasy plastic models in the world, but mediocre rules (at best)
yet everyone wants to play their games with models from other companies

Not a paradox, GW prices are absurd for a rank and file.

F.e. You can buy a whole Pike and Shotte army to run as an empire army for a fraction of the cost GW would demand of you with arguably better minis.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Bago wrote:
As someone who has never played WHFB, I thought TOW to be an easy pass for me. I am a Dwarf guy and I don't think, the range aged very gracefully. Then I discovered the alternatives from Highlands Miniatures and now I am seriously tempted. I also found a designer with alternative woodelves which are really charming. Still not sure if I will pull the trigger, as my printer broke and I need a new one (which I eventually want to buy anyway).

Well, if it's just about using the cool miniatures, there are some model agnostic systems that will be easier to get into (KoW, One Page Regiments, Hobgoblin). But admittedly none of them communicate faction identity through the rules as well as GW.

Way easier to find people who want to play TOW than the other systems though.

And if there were nice dwarf miniatures from GW, I wouldn't bother with third party. But a) GW dwarves are currently not available. b) They don't look as nice in my opinion. I am explicitly thinking of TOW because of the range of highland miniatures they have for dwarves. Without that, I would not be interested at all.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Not a paradox, GW prices are absurd for a rank and file.

F.e. You can buy a whole Pike and Shotte army to run as an empire army for a fraction of the cost GW would demand of you with arguably better minis.

this is true for all their model ranges
you get a full TOW army for half the price from others, with the same quality (personal taste on design is a different story)
but than the only reason to go with GW are the models

(as the game being popular and easier to find people to play with is countered by the argument that it only is "fun" if you find like minded people to play anyway)

 kodos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Not a paradox, GW prices are absurd for a rank and file.

F.e. You can buy a whole Pike and Shotte army to run as an empire army for a fraction of the cost GW would demand of you with arguably better minis.

this is true for all their model ranges
you get a full TOW army for half the price from others, with the same quality (personal taste on design is a different story)
but than the only reason to go with GW are the models

(as the game being popular and easier to find people to play with is countered by the argument that it only is "fun" if you find like minded people to play anyway)

In order to find if it is even "fun", there must be players. So GW games it is.

I am tired of trying to show/promote other games/scales for nothing.

So for me there is no paradox. Only games with players available in my small (-ish) city are GW's, so it is like there are NO other rules.

So, GW's rules with any models.

I suppose that's the brutal difference between having a friend group with a shared hobby, and having a hobby for which you have to find people to do it with.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Good news, GW itself already putting in additional comp for Warhammer World events

(rule of three on everything, including core)

That isn't too shocking since its a feature of their other games.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Good news, GW itself already putting in additional comp for Warhammer World events

(rule of three on everything, including core)

That isn't too shocking since its a feature of their other games.

Yeah they should have put it in the main rules - helps restrict stupid lists

Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?

Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.

This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?

Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.

This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.

Dude, this came out within days of the release - people building to the "army comp rules" literally haven't had them long enough to be screwed yet. This is to prevent spamming units - something we see in their other games already. It goes beyond gyrobombers, obviously. This will help keep the game healthier for longer, imo.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?

Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.

This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.

This event is 1500 pts, but it will be pretty funny if wording stays as is and in 2000k points you can have 6 of a 0-3 per 1000 special, but only 3 of an "unlimited" core

Don't you know black, statetroops op! We must limit them! And so too goblin archers!!

 lord_blackfang wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?

Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.

This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.

This event is 1500 pts, but it will be pretty funny if wording stays as is and in 2000k points you can have 6 of a 0-3 per 1000 special, but only 3 of an "unlimited" core

Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.

What problems does this cause unless you are trying to game the game in which case who cares or you are runing a scenario - in which case you are exempt as its a scenario.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.

No, that's not what it says.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.

No, that's not what it says.

How is that not what it says? I have re-read it a few times and that seems to be the case. Unless there is already a cap, it is 0-3 of any unit. The caps that exist are often already more restrictive than the 0-3 limit.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Unless there is already a cap, it is 0-3 of any unit.

These aren't the same thing. The second one is correct. Any cap, not lower cap. Means a 0-6 cap unit (ie. cannons in 2000 points) would stay 0-6 and not be subject to the rule of three.

Can still bring 5 Terrorgheist in 2k!

 kodos wrote:
same unit in general, not same unit per slot

chaos0xomega wrote:
Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD

the GW paradox
making the best fantasy plastic models in the world, but mediocre rules (at best)
yet everyone wants to play their games with models from other companies

It's the game everyone was playing... but the mini prices are not exactly competitive with what many other companies charge for similar minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.

No, that's not what it says.

How is that not what it says? I have re-read it a few times and that seems to be the case. Unless there is already a cap, it is 0-3 of any unit. The caps that exist are often already more restrictive than the 0-3 limit.

'Often' is not the same as 'always'.

I'm honestly just waiting to see if Tournaments/Standard play ends up being 2k, 1999 or less.

Bago wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Bago wrote:
As someone who has never played WHFB, I thought TOW to be an easy pass for me. I am a Dwarf guy and I don't think, the range aged very gracefully. Then I discovered the alternatives from Highlands Miniatures and now I am seriously tempted. I also found a designer with alternative woodelves which are really charming. Still not sure if I will pull the trigger, as my printer broke and I need a new one (which I eventually want to buy anyway).

Well, if it's just about using the cool miniatures, there are some model agnostic systems that will be easier to get into (KoW, One Page Regiments, Hobgoblin). But admittedly none of them communicate faction identity through the rules as well as GW.

Way easier to find people who want to play TOW than the other systems though.

And if there were nice dwarf miniatures from GW, I wouldn't bother with third party. But a) GW dwarves are currently not available. b) They don't look as nice in my opinion. I am explicitly thinking of TOW because of the range of highland miniatures they have for dwarves. Without that, I would not be interested at all.

Oh good point btw, I am really holding my breath here for what old world is going to do with how dwarves (and chaos dwarves!) look like, if they will be modeled after AOS dwarves I am going to die in pain..

I think dwarves should be 90% beard, 5% feet and 5% arms.

 Vulcan wrote:
It's the game everyone was playing... but the mini prices are not exactly competitive with what many other companies charge for similar minis.

the rules are not good and the miniatures too expensive
so people just play it because others play but everyone is grumpy because the don't play it because they like hence the toxic community

"because someone else is doing it" was never a good reason for anything

 kodos wrote:
the rules are not good

That is relative. Compared with LI the rules of TOW are a masterpiece of gameplay.

The rules are a GOOD effort, a nice combination of the best of 6th, 7th & 8th ed.

 kodos wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
It's the game everyone was playing... but the mini prices are not exactly competitive with what many other companies charge for similar minis.

the rules are not good and the miniatures too expensive
so people just play it because others play but everyone is grumpy because the don't play it because they like hence the toxic community

"because someone else is doing it" was never a good reason for anything

But "because no one else is playing it' is a very good reason to not get into a game. Unless you are supremely confident your community is willing to all try the same new thing together.

Yes, the Official GW Warhammer Minis (TM) are too expensive. That's why many Warhammer players use other company's minis, unless they are competing in Official GW Warhammer Tournaments (TM).

so your community is settled to only play games that a single company is selling currently in their shop
they are not playing games made by other companies, nor are the playing games that one company made in the past but currently does not sell

and the only reason why this is the case is because the community only plays games made from that single company

 kodos wrote:
so your community is settled to only play games that a single company is selling currently in their shop
they are not playing games made by other companies, nor are the playing games that one company made in the past but currently does not sell

and the only reason why this is the case is because the community only plays games made from that single company

To be frank, my local community is so fractured you have a hard time finding three people playing the same fantasy wargame. I've given up trying to get a game of anything in.

 kodos wrote:
so your community is settled to only play games that a single company is selling currently in their shop
they are not playing games made by other companies, nor are the playing games that one company made in the past but currently does not sell

and the only reason why this is the case is because the community only plays games made from that single company

One thing many people that criticize people for playing GW systems overlook is the longevity of Games Workshop. People might be more willing to invest in a Games Workshop game, because in 5 years, the game still exists. I play SW: Legion and was hit with an existential dread after Shatterpoint because I thought Legion is going to die. Yes, there are better game systems. Yes, there are cheaper miniatures. But go into a random LGS (after you move house maybe) 5 years down the road and you are more than likely to find a player who plays a GW system, than Kings of War for example.

and yet by now GW is the only company that killed one of their games to replace it a different one and in addition games were phased out like any other company has done as well

there was no reason to fear Star Wars Legion is removed when AMG added an Skirmish Game in the same setting

Yet there is no reason to think GW won't kill Warhammer Fantasy again, or removing Kill Team again to replace it with a similar but new game is they have done before

 kodos wrote:
and yet by now GW is the only company that killed one of their games to replace it a different one and in addition games were phased out like any other company has done as well

there was no reason to fear Star Wars Legion is removed when AMG added an Skirmish Game in the same setting

Yet there is no reason to think GW won't kill Warhammer Fantasy again, or removing Kill Team again to replace it with a similar but new game is they have done before

So, are you disagreeing that there is a high probability of finding players who play GW systems in x years and x location then others?

Granted, I only play non-GW-Systems that are quite young, but Imperial Assault is a good example of a dead system replaced by another? There are a lot of dead systems out there. It kind of reminds me of all the "WoW-Killers" that came out over the last 20 years like Hellgate London or Age of Conan, but WoW is still around and these are not.

40k: 1987 - YTD
WHFB: 1983 - 2015, 2023 - YTD
AoS: 2015 - YTD
Blood Bowl: 1986 - YTD
Necromunda: 1995 - YTD
MESBG: 2001 - YTD
Kill Team 2005 - YTD

A lot of fair criticism for GW, but they have a good record of long lasting games I think.

I am kind of tempted to do a goblin army.

Yes a bog standard goblin army.
Rock lobbas, spider and wolf riders, normal gobbos.

Nothing serious, at most 1000 pts because obviously goblins. but yeah.

But i'd first need to get my hands on the rule books.

Bago wrote:

40k: 1987 - YTD
WHFB: 1983 - 2015, 2023 - YTD
AoS: 2015 - YTD
Blood Bowl: 1986 - YTD
Necromunda: 1995 - YTD
MESBG: 2001 - YTD
Kill Team 2005 - YTD

intresting that you are listing the "pause" only for WHFB but not for Necromunda, Kill Team and Blood Bowl and Kill Team (as the first version was released with 3rd Edi 40k)
Warmaster is still dead, Inquisitor is still dead, Mortheim is still dead, Battlefleet Gothic is still dead, Epic is dead but replaced with a different game

Yeah, I totally see how going with GW guarantees that the game is still there and supported years after release which is outside of 40k not there at all

And Blood Bowl is also good example that "official support" has nothing to do with the game being dead or not but with the quality of the game and the community rather than having a company behind it

play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it
there is no longevity to overlook, as it is only there for 40k and by the same argument you can play Battletech as well as this is around for the same time, everything else comes and goes

Bago wrote:

So, are you disagreeing that there is a high probability of finding players who play GW systems in x years and x location then others?

yeah, because this highly depends on the region
finding someone who plays any game is always easy, finding someone that is playing the same game you want to play something very different and outside metropolitan areas difficult for any game
if you want to be sure to find someone to play with, Chess, Magic the Gathering and Pokemon are your best options, no matter where you are
and everything else depends

 kodos wrote:

Bago wrote:

40k: 1987 - YTD
WHFB: 1983 - 2015, 2023 - YTD
AoS: 2015 - YTD
Blood Bowl: 1986 - YTD
Necromunda: 1995 - YTD
MESBG: 2001 - YTD
Kill Team 2005 - YTD

intresting that you are listing the "pause" only for WHFB but not for Necromunda, Kill Team and Blood Bowl and Kill Team (as the first version was released with 3rd Edi 40k)
Warmaster is still dead, Inquisitor is still dead, Mortheim is still dead, Battlefleet Gothic is still dead, Epic is dead but replaced with a different game

Yeah, I totally see how going with GW guarantees that the game is still there and supported years after release which is outside of 40k not there at all

And Blood Bowl is also good example that "official support" has nothing to do with the game being dead or not but with the quality of the game and the community rather than having a company behind it

play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it
there is no longevity to overlook, as it is only there for 40k and by the same argument you can play Battletech as well as this is around for the same time, everything else comes and goes

Bago wrote:

So, are you disagreeing that there is a high probability of finding players who play GW systems in x years and x location then others?

yeah, because this highly depends on the region
finding someone who plays any game is always easy, finding someone that is playing the same game you want to play something very different and outside metropolitan areas difficult for any game
if you want to be sure to find someone to play with, Chess, Magic the Gathering and Pokemon are your best options, no matter where you are
and everything else depends

I only listed the pause for WHFB, because I didn't know the support for the other games ceased to exist at some point. I just pulled the publication dates of the first editions. And of course, there are specialist games that are deader than dead. There's always a chance. I also don't want to defeat you in an argument or defend GW. I play more non-GW games than GW systems. I just say that it's quick to say "just play "Random Game XYZ instead of GW system". The consistency of Games Workshop is a factor one should include when talking about starting a system.

"play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it"

I don't really think that is totally true either. MESBG has been without much support for longer times as well for example and has always had a community that stuck to it. WHFB was also kept alive by the community for the last years, wasn't it? But as I said. I don't want to defend GW or have any horse in this race.

The pause for WHFB shouldn't even be there, TOW is a different game. Theres as much argument that WHFB continued into AoS as there is for TOW being the same game - on launch all your WHFB armies and the majority of your minis (characters included) were available for play in AoS.

That's just corporate semantics tho. Functionally it's a new edition of WHFB. We've had two 40k rewrites with far, far more drastic changes than between 8th and ToW in the same timeframe.

Case in point, Age of Sigmar is the 9th, 10th, and 11th editions of WHFB. Same minis, same characters, the lore is a continuation of the story, rules changes are no more dramatic than some of the mechanical changes featured in 40k over the years.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Case in point, Age of Sigmar is the 9th, 10th, and 11th editions of WHFB. Same minis, same characters, the lore is a continuation of the story, rules changes are no more dramatic than some of the mechanical changes featured in 40k over the years.

I was unaware that 40K, at any point in time, used square bases for ranks-n-flanks gameplay.

As a matter of fact if you go back far enough at least some 40k minis were on square bases.

3rd Edition 40k still had some models square bases (Ogryns for Guard), so not that far back

And the 'ranks 'n' flanks' tactics instead of skirmishing?

I buy and sell a lot of minis, and all GW models hold value even after the game stops being supported. Maybe immediately afterwards they're discounted heavily, but if you had a WFB army, it wasn't worse much less after the End times than before. And if it was TK or Brets, it was worth more!

I know that's not a strict correlation, since plenty of people collect but dont' play, but I think it minimizes the idea that GW players are left holding the bag completely when GW stops support.

 Vulcan wrote:
And the 'ranks 'n' flanks' tactics instead of skirmishing?

3rd Edition IG Close Order Drill for your ranks

Armor Facing for your flanks.

But you know, thats a completely arbitrary metric to go by. Theres a long list of mechanics and rule concepts that 40k has abandoned over its 9 life-cycle updates. Gamemasters, using d4/8/10/12/20 for resolution, intelligence stats dictating ability to use certain weapons, 90 degree line of sight/fire arcs for every individual model (kinda rank and flank-y), following fire/sustained fire rules in place of just having more attacks on a weapon with multiple shots, vehicle targeting grids, pivot-turns for vehicles based on their forward speed (again, not unlike rank and flank), etc.

Okay, I concede the point.

 kodos wrote:

Bago wrote:


play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it

I've been a part of 3-4 different groups playing Warhammer Fantasy after the end times and before TOW either playing WAP, 6th or 8th. Mordheim has also done very well since GW dropped support. A lot in that community are worried that GW will start supporting it again and invalidate all great community warbands.

The populations get smaller, but they stay alive.