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.

Typhoons and Corsairs are better but bleh,

Da Butcha wrote:Now, we are seeing Ogre Kingdoms monsters which aren't clearly prehistoric monsters (no prehistoric animals had stone body parts) and which don't seem to have a clear reason for having a strong Chaotic element. Even if I liked the sculpts, which I don't, I still think that they 'weaken the brand'.

That...is a really good point.

IMO the cats are ridiculous. The back legs don't even look like they could support an Ogre, much less charge one into battle. They look like they can barely stand up on the table. And as people have said, I don't see how the Mammox could eat. It's an absurd animal. Yes it's Fantasy, but models usually look better when they are physically plausible. The Scraplauncher & Cannon look fine to me. Nothing jaw-dropping, but nice. And like everyone who ever assembled a metal Scraplauncher, I appreciate the plasticness of it all.

Now that that's out of the way...that Stonehorn made me laugh with joy. That thing is awesome. And it does, IMO, look prehistoric-ish. It's different, but still primitive. Also, it is awesome. Did I mention that it was awesome already?

So give a B for the Launcher/Cannon, maybe a C for the Mammox (or maybe an Incomplete - maybe it looks better from different angles), a D for the kittiecats, an A++ for the Stonehorn, and a crocodile in Spelling.

I also have high hopes for the new Ogre heroes. IMO GW's been knocking the new characters out of the park.

Actually the sabertusk things (what ever they are called) remind me a lot of warg riders. Not the GW ones, that look like they could probably do with a good dinner, but the ones from the film.







Just a coincidence. Maybe?

GW out of ideas? Perish the thought.

Seen as the idea could have been to simply include Rhinox cavelry they seem to have gone to some effort to have come up with a new idea, couldn't think of one then gone with this.

There must have been some reason.

Regarding the stonehorn/thunderwhateverits called (Mammox apparently is not the name of anything in the book according to warseer), it seems like they had a lapse of logic: I.E. they looked at pics of wooly mammoths, elephants, etc. and said "yeah, lets go with that, but with a more monstrous face, you know, without a trunk, etc." not realizing that the trunk is the only way those animals can eat or drink anything...

chaos0xomega wrote:It depends on the basing. IIRC,the FW Rhinox are Bull Rhinox (aside from being total beasts of epic awesomesauce) come on Chariot Bases. I can't really tell what sort of bases these cats come on, but it'll be an issue if its a smaller base.

Those almost certainly look like chariot sized from the pictures from what i can tell.

FearPeteySodes wrote:Those almost certainly look like chariot sized from the pictures from what i can tell.

That's an Ogre-sized rider. Of course that's not a cavalry base!

An on second thought: Without the stupid tusks and without the balancing riders, these thunderhyenas actually have a lot of potential.

Heres a theory the sabertusks (or whatever) represent the "light" (releatively speaking) cavelry and the Rhinox represent ogre heavy cavelry.

If that holds up I think sabertusks should certainly get the fast cavelry special rule.
That might make them worth taking when stood next to their Rhinox friends.

Kanluwen wrote:Might not even be a feline, but maybe a canine of some sort?

If I sculpted those things, I'd be very worried that people think "Is it feline or canine?" is a legitimate question.

(I do think it's a legitimate question BTW.)

It does seem to me that the not-quite feline and not-quite-canine approach to those cav models does seem to make for a decent thunderwolf cav stand in.

And I shudder at the notion of Ogres getting Vanguard moves.

JOHIRA wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Might not even be a feline, but maybe a canine of some sort?

If I sculpted those things, I'd be very worried that people think "Is it feline or canine?" is a legitimate question.

(I do think it's a legitimate question BTW.)

That is not itself a problem, if it is meant to represent an animal that is neither feline nor canine (some sabre-toothed "cats" were actually marsupials). The bigger problem is that it doesn't look good doing it.

I loved the Ogre models but hated to have to use the gnoblars. The new army seems to rely on the Ogre trooper more than the old book. Am I correct in this thinking or will I build another O.K. army only to find that you can't be competitive unless you use large blocks of gnoblars?

Y'know, I feel like Eastern Barbarian (the newbie rumor-monger that has been providing us with a lot of this seemingly accurate information) isn't giving us the whole story (or maybe its just wishful thinking on my part). Aside from the fact that he hinted that his source is possibly misinformed or not fully informing him, I checked the TK and OnG books. TK has 31 units, OnG 51 (this does not include mount options for characters). Now, Orcs n Goblins (written by Jeremy Vettock) are kinda inflated due to the fact that its effectively two armies in one, but its still a good measure for the number of units that GW is pushing/using as a standard for the new books.

Now the rumors for the new Ogre book indicate a total of 23 units (24 if Gnoblar Trappers make it into the book). Thats less than half of OnG and only about 2/3 of TK. Now, 2 eigth edition books is not a lot to go on, but a few of the more recent 7th edition books also give us some more insight:

Skaven (also written by Jeremy Vetock) has 35 (33 if you dont count the Screaming Bell/Plague Furnace)
Beastmen has 31 (and they are widely regarded as being pretty lame it seems)
Lizardmen has 27 (28 if you separate the Stegadon and Ancient Stegadon)
Vampire Counts only has 23 (26 if you include the three new White Dwarf units, and about 30 if you include mounts like the Abyssal Terror, Nightmare, Zombie Dragon, etc.).

Again, none of those numbers include the (unique (as in dragons, manticores, etc. not like the ones that can be purchased separately as a special/rare choice)) mount options, which brings the totals up even higher. Its possible that Ogres will get 7 or 8 mount options to bring them up to similar totals I suppose, but its highly unlikely, as they presently have 0 mount options (1 if you count the seemingly non-present Rhinox). From what we've seen there is the possibility that they will be getting 2 or 3 tops, but all of these are present in other parts of the list, so they don't really raise the total, as they are not 'unique'.


As an aside, Vetock was also responsible for the Generals Compendium. This is a guy that is very much about the fluff and an immersive experience. I can't see him giving us so little to work with.


The only thing that could possibly explain this is JJ's involvement (responsible for Dark Angels and Battle Missions, two of the most looked down upon books GW has put out in a long time) and his minimalist, back to basics, KISS (I would call it hum-drum) design philosophy. If he's really involved in the project, then he no doubt had a hand in limiting Vetock's creativity and giving us a more limited/minimalized book in the same vein as Dark Angels. If thats really the case I'm going to be a super-sad panda-ogre, because I'm now going to have to through another entire edition with what can only described as a very tame and very restrained book, while pretty much everyone else is going to be running around with these awesome books filled with all sorts of crazy options and a wide variety of units and varying builds.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but I honestly think I'm cursed. I've played Tau since almost the beginning, and got into Tyranids right after the 4th edition codex came out. Both of those armies latest books are widely regarded as weak (even Tau when it came out received a lot of flack for useless special characters, ethereals, vespids, sniper drone teams, etc.) in content and/or battlefield ability. I was in the process of starting up Chaos Space Marines at the time the new book for them came out (as you can imagine, I kinda put my efforts on hold at that point). Pretty much every army I play seems to get the shaft when it comes time for an update (in comparison to the other factions). I would like to think that its a 'the grass is always greener on the other side' type situation, but I can't see that being the case when such large portions of the community share those sentiments.

I can't imagine physically transporting an OK army after this release. With so many broad tall models it makes a full cavalry army like Bretonnians look like a walk in the park.

GW Y U NO MAKE EASY TO TRANSPORT MODELS?!

I guess they're really trying to flog their monster carry case...

Ogre Kingdoms: less transportable than ever before, watch as your army tears your foam up like a rabid sabretooth on crack. BUY MORE CASES! ONE IS NEVER ENOUGH!

I was thinking the sabertooth kitty-bear-oxs might look a little better if:

a) You file down the ridiculous tusks, so that they are small enough the creature could lift its own head.

b) If the saddle isn't attached (hopefully) you could just slide the rider down the kitty-bear-ox and imagine that beneath the sadddle/Ogre the beast has a proper, nay a firm, sculpted, ass.

The stonehorn needs some work too - but I don't see what you could do easily when half of its face is sculpted to look like stone for some reason. The mammoth thing just might be beyond saving.

chaos0xomega wrote:Now the rumors for the new Ogre book indicate a total of 23 units (24 if Gnoblar Trappers make it into the book). Thats less than half of OnG and only about 2/3 of TK. Now, 2 eigth edition books is not a lot to go on, but a few of the more recent 7th edition books also give us some more insight:

Skaven (also written by Jeremy Vetock) has 35 (33 if you dont count the Screaming Bell/Plague Furnace)
Beastmen has 31 (and they are widely regarded as being pretty lame it seems)
Lizardmen has 27 (28 if you separate the Stegadon and Ancient Stegadon)
Vampire Counts only has 23 (26 if you include the three new White Dwarf units, and about 30 if you include mounts like the Abyssal Terror, Nightmare, Zombie Dragon, etc.).

Again, none of those numbers include the (unique (as in dragons, manticores, etc. not like the ones that can be purchased separately as a special/rare choice)) mount options, which brings the totals up even higher. Its possible that Ogres will get 7 or 8 mount options to bring them up to similar totals I suppose, but its highly unlikely, as they presently have 0 mount options (1 if you count the seemingly non-present Rhinox). From what we've seen there is the possibility that they will be getting 2 or 3 tops, but all of these are present in other parts of the list, so they don't really raise the total, as they are not 'unique'.

As an aside, Vetock was also responsible for the Generals Compendium. This is a guy that is very much about the fluff and an immersive experience. I can't see him giving us so little to work with.

The only thing that could possibly explain this is JJ's involvement (responsible for Dark Angels and Battle Missions, two of the most looked down upon books GW has put out in a long time) and his minimalist, back to basics, KISS (I would call it hum-drum) design philosophy. If he's really involved in the project, then he no doubt had a hand in limiting Vetock's creativity and giving us a more limited/minimalized book in the same vein as Dark Angels. If thats really the case I'm going to be a super-sad panda-ogre, because I'm now going to have to through another entire edition with what can only described as a very tame and very restrained book, while pretty much everyone else is going to be running around with these awesome books filled with all sorts of crazy options and a wide variety of units and varying builds.

If the Ogres are getting a 23ish+ unit count in the new book, then its a sign of an upward trend, as the soon to be outdated book only has 15-16 counting Lords/Heroes if my memory serves correct (I don't have the book in front of me). Respectively, every army has a theme and basic playstyle and I think comparing unit counts isn't a good measurement of how well a book might or might not be written. Some armies have more core/special/rare units then others because there is only so far you can take a theme before you run into redundancy or bloat (or bloat runs into you, in the case of this codex).

In regards to the blandization of codexes, aside from a reduction in magic items in the recent Army books (which is fine in my opinion, as there is an incredibly diverse and useful magic item selection in the main rulebook) that much rightfully maligned design philosophy never really hit the Fantasy books as far as I'm aware (aside from the splitting of the Chaos books). I also remember an interview with Alessio Cavatore in which he stated that he didn't want any of the codex authors blamed because he was the driving force behind "streamlining" the army lists, to make army list building a much quicker affair and to make it more accessible to newbies, so I think blaming Jervis is ill informed, especially with all of the mostly diverse(or attempt at diverse) codex/army books that have come out under his watch. I think the dev team is well and truly over that bland design mindset. I wouldn't put it past them to think reverting back to it is a good decision though.

I'm not sure what role Alessio played, but I recall Jervis was the one that pushed the design philosophy for 40k which resulted in Dark Angels and a couple other books that came after that. There were Standard Bearer articles written on the subject where he championed it, and JJ was appointed head of the design studio prior to the switch. If Alessio was the driving force, then JJ was his pawn and is just as guilty, if not moreso because he had the power to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

As for number of units yes, its an upward trend. Ogres currently have 17 units, 18 if you include the WD Rhinox Rider rules. I'm not really familiar with the old Tomb Kings books, but I seem to recall that O&G received a good bit more than that for new stuff, and I think Tomb Kings did as well (I counted 6 units that I'm 99% certain are new, and that didn't include the Lords and Heroes choices of which I'm fairly certain they got a bunch of new special characters if nothing else). Still, it seems to me that its a pretty big difference between Ogres and everything else out there (Vampire Counts excluded, although again, between mounts and the white dwarf units they definitely come up to par with the other armies released since 7th).

Assuming that really is all we're getting (again, I very much doubt it), then I blame it on anti-gnoblar bias on the part of the design team. Not exploring the gnoblar-ogre relationship further is a mistake IMO, especially given all the units they had available in the White Dwarf Gnoblar list. Perhaps it is a bit of a knockoff of the Orc n Goblin relationship, but I don't mind it.

I loved Gnoblars, and found their inclusion to be a way to add just a hint of dark humor to the rather dark ogres. Seeing a small swarm of the ogre's eternal victims on the field always made me giggle.

I always saw alot of potential in the all gnoblar list presented in the WD, especially with a few hero choices or magic items. I am glad that there isn't a hero for them in this new book (or at least, i hope there isn't.) as I prefer the idea of them being downtrodden masses who manage to get their revenge in only small, mean ways.

Certainly Flingers, Manbiters, Lucky Gits, and Boglars (especially Toad Gnoblars) were worthy of another look for inclusion. I agree that there should not be any sort of Gnoblar hero present in the list, but I always kinda liked the idea that Ogre armies were pretty much just Ogres looking for some food (rather than a fight), with the gnoblars tagging along for protection and to make themselves feel important, and in the process bringing the heavier machinery of war that truly made it an army rather than just a shambling horde. IMO, the Ironblaster should have been another Gnoblar contraption, rather than an Ogre one,etc.

Kroothawk wrote:SPECIAL: 6+ options is typical trend (SK: 6, BM: 6, OG: 10, TK: 8)
- Leadbelchers
- Yhetees
- Maneaters
- Sabertusk Riders
- Sabertusks packs
- Gorger
-- Gnoblar Trappers are rumoured to not be in the new book (maybe an upgrade for Fighters?) - got that second bit right by the sound of it.

That's cool that they can be taken in packs (I assume without riders)!

The only bummer, is no rules for rhinox cavalry? I find that hard to believe... unless they don't want to steal the thunder of their sabertusk riders. But I have an idea for all of you dismayed by the lack of a rhinox cavalry model, if the rules are there (or WD ones still valid, etc). Simply buy the sabertusks to use in packs, save the riders, and put 'em on that metal rhinox from the scraplauncher posted a page or so ago . Expensive, but cheaper than FW certainly...

RiTides wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:SPECIAL: 6+ options is typical trend (SK: 6, BM: 6, OG: 10, TK: 8)
- Leadbelchers
- Yhetees
- Maneaters
- Sabertusk Riders
- Sabertusks packs
- Gorger
-- Gnoblar Trappers are rumoured to not be in the new book (maybe an upgrade for Fighters?) - got that second bit right by the sound of it.

That's cool that they can be taken in packs (I assume without riders)!

The only bummer, is no rules for rhinox cavalry? I find that hard to believe... unless they don't want to steal the thunder of their sabertusk riders. But I have an idea for all of you dismayed by the lack of a rhinox cavalry model, if the rules are there (or WD ones still valid, etc). Simply buy the sabertusks to use in packs, save the riders, and put 'em on that metal rhinox from the scraplauncher posted a page or so ago . Expensive, but cheaper than FW certainly...

More likely it's because GW has been trying to make it so that FW and GW proper have a very clear distinction. The Rhinox Riders likely were considered and then tossed because they are such 'big' models and would be impractical in many cases to produce in plastic or resin for GW.

Kanluwen wrote:

RiTides wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:SPECIAL: 6+ options is typical trend (SK: 6, BM: 6, OG: 10, TK: 8)
- Leadbelchers
- Yhetees
- Maneaters
- Sabertusk Riders
- Sabertusks packs
- Gorger
-- Gnoblar Trappers are rumoured to not be in the new book (maybe an upgrade for Fighters?) - got that second bit right by the sound of it.

That's cool that they can be taken in packs (I assume without riders)!

The only bummer, is no rules for rhinox cavalry? I find that hard to believe... unless they don't want to steal the thunder of their sabertusk riders. But I have an idea for all of you dismayed by the lack of a rhinox cavalry model, if the rules are there (or WD ones still valid, etc). Simply buy the sabertusks to use in packs, save the riders, and put 'em on that metal rhinox from the scraplauncher posted a page or so ago . Expensive, but cheaper than FW certainly...

More likely it's because GW has been trying to make it so that FW and GW proper have a very clear distinction. The Rhinox Riders likely were considered and then tossed because they are such 'big' models and would be impractical in many cases to produce in plastic or resin for GW.

Considering that
1. GW is producing rhinoxes in plastic for the Scraplauncher kit
2. The new cat cav are apparently mounted on chariot bases (and thus just as big as FW bull rhinoxen)
3. The new Stonehorn and Thundertusks are even larger
4. GW hasn't been trying to make a clear distinction between FW and GW by any means (Look at the number of FW kits that have become Citadel plastics)

I see no reason for them to not produce Rhinox Riders.

BTW, I think I missed the sabertusk packs in my previous count.

chaos0xomega wrote:Certainly Flingers, Manbiters, Lucky Gits, and Boglars (especially Toad Gnoblars) were worthy of another look for inclusion. I agree that there should not be any sort of Gnoblar hero present in the list, but I always kinda liked the idea that Ogre armies were pretty much just Ogres looking for some food (rather than a fight), with the gnoblars tagging along for protection and to make themselves feel important, and in the process bringing the heavier machinery of war that truly made it an army rather than just a shambling horde. IMO, the Ironblaster should have been another Gnoblar contraption, rather than an Ogre one,etc.

The game is called Warhammer Fantasy Battles. I know what you're trying to say but the way WHFB works, especially if you take the whole formation thing into account, it's a game about battles, not skirmishes. And as far as I know, that's what makes it so interesting for so many people.
The only way they could've solved this would be by giving Ogres more of those units that don't have to stay in formation. (Forgot what they're called. It's "Plänkler" in German)

Also, while the Gnoblar list was funny and counts-as units are always fun to make/use most army books come with a pre-determined idea for the setting. The Toad Gnoblars, while something you should certainly be able to find in some swampier regions of the old world, don't really fit with the whole "frozen north" thing they have going on here.

And while I don't mind if I won't have to field large blocks of Gnoblars, I have a few models I was hoping to use as trappers.

With the other bits companies outhere I think they could pick up and do some generic fantasy rhinoceros heads to go on cats... that would be interesting.

NAVARRO wrote:With the other bits companies outhere I think they could pick up and do some generic fantasy rhinoceros heads to go on cats... that would be interesting.

Indeed, it would probably be easy money.

...That Stone horn is beautiful, in an ugly, ogre-y way...Another thing for me to buy on the pretense that I will sell it when it gets painted...


_Tim?

I just don't understand the desire to put saddles on predators. Wolves and cats just aren't designed to carry things (other than maybe gnoblars) the way horses, cattle, and elephants are. I think GW would have been much better off making the Rhinox mount or using some form of bison type critter instead.

Will there be any scope to take Ogre units as mercenaries in other armies?

I was thinking that if one uber-pro converter could get their hands on one of the giant mammoth thingies, maybe they could make this: