Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why magic and monsters together? Because they fit together or what?

I think it has something to do with Wizards controlling the monsters with all the magic floating around.

And the magical disturbances have awakened slumbering monsters...

Their magical creatures! I mean why make a manticore look like this:



when you can do this:



Or chimera:



or



for this:



or a cockatrice





for this

Meh, I think they should have done one or the other.

The Storm of Magic scenario involving a battle that is fought around the bases of magical conduits is an ok idea, and is reflective of 8th Edition fluff (i.e. everything is now infested with magic).

The monsters I'm less impressed with. They're not really much different from Dogs of War i.e. Has your army got a weakness? Then cancel it out with a big arse monster or two! It makes having different races fairly pointless IMHO.

Storm of Magic would have been a good release with better Arcane Fulcrums and new plastic wizards for every race (not just three!). If they were keen to release a load of monsters, there is plenty of stuff in the Beastman book that needs a model.

$$$$

I'm sure that some players will be more interested in monsters and some more interested in magic. By covering both, the product has a wider audience. Also, for a game that's all about the models, it is not that interesting if a set doesn't touch on this area of the hobby. Monsters always fit the bill.

All I can say about Storm of Magic (and GW's releases in general) is:

Less of this.
More of this.

1.) This question better fits the Warhammer Fantasy subforum which already has lots of SoM threads.
2.) If you think about it, magic and monsters is what separates Fantasy games from, say, historical tabletop games. In normal Warhammer games, the use of magic and monsters is (or rather should be) restricted to keep game balance and not invalidate all other units like standard troops. This supplement is for fun games, where you are allowed to go crazy with the big toys. SoM is good at doing this. If you rather want standard Fantasy battles, then Som is obviously not for you, but that's no problem.

Kroothawk wrote:1.) This question better fits the Warhammer Fantasy subforum which already has lots of SoM threads.

Are you angling for Mod status Kroot?

Kroothawk wrote:2.) If you think about it, magic and monsters is what separates Fantasy games from, say, historical tabletop games. In normal Warhammer games, the use of magic and monsters is (or rather should be) restricted to keep game balance and not invalidate all other units like standard troops. This supplement is for fun games, where you are allowed to go crazy with the big toys. SoM is good at doing this. If you rather want standard Fantasy battles, then Som is obviously not for you, but that's no problem.

I think also you can take what you want from it. The magical battle side appeals as a bit of fun, but none of my armies are large enough to justify it. The monsters though I can pretty much leave. Regardless, the £30 asking price is too much for a supplement no matter how funky the book is. GW are losing the plot on many things, but this is one of the things that bugs me the most.

H.B.M.C. wrote:All I can say about Storm of Magic (and GW's releases in general) is:

Less of this.
More of this.

Damnit man, GET THAT LAMASU OUT OF MY SIGHT!

Surtur wrote:Their magical creatures! I mean why make a lammasu look like this:



when you can do this:

Fixed that for you.

Goddard wrote:Damnit man, GET THAT LAMASU OUT OF MY SIGHT!

Oops, sorry. I misread what you said as "Damn it man, show me that Lammasu model now!"

Auuuuuugh! MY EYES!

Flashman wrote:

Goddard wrote:Damnit man, GET THAT LAMASU OUT OF MY SIGHT!

Oops, sorry. I misread what you said as "Damn it man, show me that Lammasu model now!"

I like the Lammasu.

How come there's no Liger in Storm of Magic? I think we need to be allowed to make our own Storm of Magic Datasheets.

Necros wrote:How come there's no Liger in Storm of Magic? I think we need to be allowed to make our own Storm of Magic Datasheets.

They need some laft over to put in WD

I like the Truthsayer model.

Man, that Lammasu model is hideous. Raging heroes version is infinitely better.

Breotan wrote:

Surtur wrote:Their magical creatures! I mean why make a lammasu look like this:



when you can do this:

Fixed that for you.

Except GW C&D letter put a stop to that... apparently, GW IP covers that head shape... but that was hashed out in a previous thread

Surtur wrote:Their magical creatures! I mean why make a manticore look like this:

Baaaaaad example. That is one ugly manticore, even GW's thing is better than that.

AvatarForm wrote:
Except GW C&D letter put a stop to that... apparently, GW IP covers that head shape... but that was hashed out in a previous thread

The GW one has always been horrible, I'm not sure why RH used it as a base design.

Wolfun wrote:The GW one has always been horrible, I'm not sure why RH used it as a base design.

What makes you think they did? Have you never seen any pictures of ancient Babylonian statues?

Flashman wrote:Regardless, the £30 asking price is too much for a supplement no matter how funky the book is. GW are losing the plot on many things, but this is one of the things that bugs me the most.

Interestingly, I'm the opposite. I'm more willing and likely to put down the asking price for the book than the models, regardless of if I even ever use the book.

Breotan wrote:What makes you think they did? Have you never seen any pictures of ancient Babylonian statues?

I have. Have you? They don't have the gormless look, or the pointless 'demon'-'bat' wings that this one have. Also, what's up with the squared off beard?
Lammasu were originally 'good' aligned creatures. For some reason, GW have made them ugly and Chaos affiliated.

Surtur wrote:
Or chimera:



for this:

Fixed it for you.

http://banelegions.maelstromgames.co.uk/?tag=bnb-007

Thanks everyone for fixing my post since obviously my intent wasn't to point out that GW took an established name and made zero connection to the original concept. I obviously wanted to show off a bunch of models that are better sculpted and would have muddied my point based on that.

Breotan wrote:

Wolfun wrote:The GW one has always been horrible, I'm not sure why RH used it as a base design.

What makes you think they did? Have you never seen any pictures of ancient Babylonian statues?

It's an interesting point isn't it. Were RH copying that excrescence of a GW sculpt, or where they simply inspired by this:



Clearly GW were in no way derivitive in their original concept at all...

coolyo294 wrote:

Flashman wrote:

Goddard wrote:Damnit man, GET THAT LAMASU OUT OF MY SIGHT!

Oops, sorry. I misread what you said as "Damn it man, show me that Lammasu model now!"

I like the Lammasu.

Looks horrible. Lol

Surtur wrote:Thanks everyone for fixing my post since obviously my intent wasn't to point out that GW took an established name and made zero connection to the original concept. I obviously wanted to show off a bunch of models that are better sculpted and would have muddied my point based on that.

Anytime

See, the thing is, we all got your point, just nobody cares. GW is hardly the first to do this (see Final Fantasy). And I wouldn't say that they made zero connection to the original concept. Manticores, Cokcatrice, and Chimaerae are all 'chimera' creatures, a hodgepodge of animals combined to create a new creature. GW kept true to that in all 3 instances. Really, I don't really think you can successfully make the argument you're attempting to, considering that all three creatures have evolved considerably since their original inception. Research any of them, and you will find that as time went on the descriptions and appearances changed, elements were added and taken away. This is just a natural progression in an evolution that has been underway for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Oh, and that Chimera mini I posted still looks awesome as hell.