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.
2022/11/15 23:47:45
Subject: AOS N&R (X-Mas Battleforce Boxes pg 108, Dawnbringer Preview pg 109, Chaos MTO pg 109)
NinthMusketeer wrote: SCE could really use some consolidation, they aren't Marines-level bad but its getting there.
Alternative thought - other AoS armies need bulking out so everyone can catch up with the stormcast and spread the game out with more subgroupings, specialists and all.
You say that, but I have trouble believing Slaves to Darkness have no need for 75+ warscrolls, to say nothing of more specialized armies. 75 Idoneth warscrolls? 75 Nighthaunt warscrolls? 75 Fyreslayer warscrolls? I can count on one hand the number of armies for which that number of units would be beneficial more than detrimental, all of them being several related theme-armies mashed together into a single faction.
Goose LeChance wrote: It's their own fault really, AOS is so shallow they had to split all the WHFB armies up and turn single units into their own faction.
Can you explain this viewpoint? I don't think I understand what you're trying to convey.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: Saurus warriors and knights are some of the oldest and worst core units left in the range, we're talking pre-CAD, up to 1mm mold lines, gak part alignement, etc. They're not fit to be sold.
Yeah, saurus and especially saurus knights just don't look good on the table.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/19 23:32:56
Goose LeChance wrote: It's their own fault really, AOS is so shallow they had to split all the WHFB armies up and turn single units into their own faction.
Can you explain this viewpoint? I don't think I understand what you're trying to convey.
AOS had no content, models or lore and some genius thought making an entire army of dwarf slayers would be more interesting than a proper dwarf army.
With all due respect that isn't an explanation, or even true.
2022/11/20 00:59:32
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
Seraphon (which have gotten functionally skipped (in terms of models) every edition so far)
Beasts (have a character model to replace the character models you've already got, alternately, a terrain piece.
He-man Skeletons, which turned into a one and done project
Fish elves, for the same reason
Witch elves, which had a promising start with the harpies and medusas, then somehow turned into character, character, character. (And i can't figure out why, with 3 editions of AoS, they've had so many iterations of basically nothing)
Orcs without goblins, which have the new guys, the last push for savage orc plastic kits, and a couple bad renditions of black orcs, but don't really congeal into a functional army.
Giants
the crazy vampires with the weird plastic mutant orcs passing as ghouls. Where it took years and years just to get a vampire character that wasn't ripped off the back of a zombie dragon.
Fire dwarves
Special mention for Malekith's brand of elfs, which three editions in and it hasn't even materialized yet!
and Cities of Sigmar, which have _lost_ stuff every iteration, and will probably be binned completely and replaced by the Dawnbringer army (or at least that was my impression from latest Dawnbringer preview, where they started using 'Dawnbringer Crusade' and 'Cities of Sigmar' interchangeably).
Some of the others (fallout dwarves, skaven, sylvaneth) still need work, but don't feel actively incomplete and neglected anymore
Age of Sigmar has improved a lot, but somehow they still really let some factions rot and over-updated others (especially light elfs and sigmarines)
And clearly with beasts and gloomspite, this isn't changing anytime soon.
I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.
2022/11/20 11:28:12
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
Voss wrote: You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.
So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.
This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.
OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.
Hm, I disagree on FRC but only somewhat. I feel like they did a great job creating a lot of options from a narrow number of kits and allowing unridden terries/dragons did a lot to flesh out non-character options. But at the same time I see your point.
As for OBR, totally agree. There are tactical and thematic niches unfilled there.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.
So what would count as an incomplete army by your standard, if a faction consisting of 1 box of infantry, 1 box of monstrous infantry and 1 monster doesn't cut it? A box of literally just legs on bases?
Covering what makes the army incomplete instead of listing model releases and aethetic preferences.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/20 11:33:46
2022/11/20 20:38:16
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.
So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.
This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.
You decreed none of them were incomplete. With italics.
If that wasn't your intent, maybe change your posting style.
Nope. Not something I did.
And again, I never expressed any disagreement with the points made; only that they were outside the topic I was asking about.
Voss wrote: You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.
So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.
This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.
Goose LeChance wrote: And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies
Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.
FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.
OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.
Hm, I disagree on FRC but only somewhat. I feel like they did a great job creating a lot of options from a narrow number of kits and allowing unridden terries/dragons did a lot to flesh out non-character options. But at the same time I see your point.
As for OBR, totally agree. There are tactical and thematic niches unfilled there.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.
So what would count as an incomplete army by your standard, if a faction consisting of 1 box of infantry, 1 box of monstrous infantry and 1 monster doesn't cut it? A box of literally just legs on bases?
Covering what makes the army incomplete instead of listing model releases and aethetic preferences.
You just look for trouble often, its amazing how many times you end up in negative exchanges. Here is a hint- it probably isn't everyone else in the wrong.
Meanwhile, Voss really hit the nail on the head and could have gone deeper. AoS is in a bad place. Its sad because the wolf riders are great models, but the armies themselves are so messed up they don't fit at all with the army they've been put in (GSG).
It is funny, because I explicitly stated that I am not expressing any disagreement. So I would really like to see some evidence of where I said he was wrong.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/11/20 21:15:08
2022/11/21 18:06:25
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
To each their own, I really like the look of them. I wish they were coming as a part of a Gotmob battletome (Destruction could certainly use some more armies) but I am much happier seeing the unit in GSG than not at all. Fingers crossed for a character build in there!
2022/11/23 21:29:01
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
My best estimate is the kit was ready, they figured they could release it now, and down the line there will be a Battletome: Gitmobs that they more readily fit into. There's also Grotbag Scuttlers presumably in the pipeline, so it's possible they get rolled into that.
Though TBH I'd like to see a return of the regular Orcs & Goblins as a faction. We have Orc specialists and Goblin specialists, but no norm that they actually deviate from. It would make sense too; the specialists have their strengths while the normals make up for it by being Orcs & Gobbos working together.
2022/11/24 02:34:21
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
I don't know about flanderized; that's when one trait overtakes the entire picture. That's what happened to Khorne, with honor and even strategy buried under bloodkillbloodblood all the time. Fyreslayers aren't actually like Dwarf slayers at all, bar one hero option. They have an entirely new culture written for them. Beastclaw Raiders also had a whole new background to serve as their central theme with the Everwinter. Even the likes of Bonesplitterz or Clan Pestilens have had their narrative elements expanded upon, not diluted. It is the opposite of flanderization.
2022/11/24 20:49:23
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: Because, again, Gloomspite are not the only faction in the book. Spiderfang are their own thing and there is no issue if they want to expand and look at other goblin types.
Which is an indication of GW's laziness and lack of creative depth when it comes to the range. Would you have the same opinion of the release if it was a winged/avian themed elf that was added to the Idoneth battletome? You know seagulls eat crabs, so bird-elves fit with fish-elves if I use that logic. Why expand the resources to create a new product that only shares superficial similarities to the existing range when something with closer ties would garner a better reception (potentially).
It could also be argued that a single kit does not constitute or justify a faction. Unless there are additional kits to be revealed, you cannot field a Snarlfang only army, which I would consider a basic requirement of being a faction. At least with Spiderfang, it is possible to field a complete army composed of just that faction regardless of tabletop viability.
Lumineth have different looking elves that hardly look same. Slaves to darkness ditto. Why gobbos should look all same? Guess you just want gits to be one dimensional joke army...so remove spiders, trolls and squigp as well? If not you have no logic in your arqument.
Dok also shouldn't have snakes and witches in same book. Khorne shouldn't have humans and daemons(same for other books). Std remove chaos warriors and cultists to own books. Ogors beastclaw and gutbusters separate. Gargants mancrushers and mega's to their own. Sylvaneth dryads and spirits to own. Etc etc.
You really want to split books to 1 dimensional mini-factions...
You ignorance and twisting of statements is almost legendary at this point. Must still be bitter about Sons being released when you insisted it would never happen before GSG. To clarify for you,, I never stated that all goblins should look the same, only that the new models are being shoehorned into the GSG book purely because they are goblins and not because they share a cohesive look with the army. Given the expenditures of resources to create the new models, I would have preferred something that better fit the moonclan aestetic.
While I don't necessarily agree, I don't really disagree either. I definitely get what you're saying though, it's a reasonable opinion.
2022/12/09 16:00:41
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
From the start Gutrippaz should have been ~150 pts with their shields giving a flat -1 to hit them all the time. I'd have even given 10+ sized units an Idoneth-esque 'have to shoot me if I'm closest' ability.
Looks suitably silly and fun. They're going to be the first Underworlds warband I've purchased in about 2 seasons, I think.
Oh dam, that is potent. Giving fight-on-death at the start of the combat phase can be a VERY powerful buff for a GSG player who exploits it correctly. And is still pretty dam nice even in a less than ideal situation.
[Edit] OK, I see it now... puffanatics, three units of snufflers, spiker, loonboss, looncourt... all buffing a unit of stabbas. 5 attacks each, rr wounds of 1, deal a MW on wounds of 6, and fight when they die in the combat phase! It's a bunch of hoops but it makes them perform as well as... plague monks do... just for showing up with a priest at their back...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/09 16:39:35
2022/12/09 23:02:52
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
So in other news, just finished the Drekki Flynt novel and a few chapters dealing with Grotbag Scuttlers directly went into details that could be describing future units. COULD be, this is very circumstantial and definitely needs to be taken with a reasonably large degree of salt.
"Kaptin Blackheart" is a grot pirate admiral with definite 'faction lead named character' vibes. His ship, on the other hand, seems far too large to be a miniature (it is pulled by two Maw Crushas which roost below decks, to give an idea). However it had some interesting elements that could just be the author or could be something more:
-Inflated gas-squig used for lift
-Catapults firing squigs and/or bundles of snotlings. Very much still alive in both cases.
-A wide range of scrappy aethetic construction and weapons. A lot of wood, a lot of arrows, a lot of guns.
There was, and gosh I hope this ends up as a mini one day, a flying machine which worked by a central spine of grot 'rowers' working an integral pump mechanism that flaps gigantic wings on the ships' sides.
Units of doom-diver-esque elite grots who fly in, land, and pull swords rather than the decidedly more... terminal tactics of actual doom divers. Definitely had 'flying infantry kit' vibes.
Another 'elite' unit involving large guns, maybe a jezzail sort of thing? Was hard to tell from the brief description.
Generic grotbag skyships had too much variety to all be miniatures, so it is impossible to say which could be.
2022/12/15 23:57:22
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
Meh they seem made up or lacking important context to me. Either way it paints a picture I feel is inaccurate. No major flaws but a lot of little things, particularly there just isn't anything really crazy in there. The sort of 'no way that's true!' thing that GW inevitability pulls on us several times a year (in a good way).
2022/12/19 18:55:32
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
There are four major subfactions, the green is one of them while the pale flesh white is another. Then there's a burnt (literally) sunburn-orange, and a bluish grey.
I like this new mini, it is nice to have a regular GK available outside the big box and he looks great to magnetize on top of their terrain piece.
2022/12/20 15:36:00
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
IDK allegiance makes it so enemies can only shoot the closest target, so this change will do nothing for them most of the time.
Anyways, I am happy with a rules update since I am not a fan of the current season's rules, but I am disappointed by the precedent it sets of a new GHB every 6 months. I'll have to see the quality of the update to really judge though.
2022/12/23 21:07:44
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, BoC and GG preview pg 111)
Shadow Walker wrote: I like him except the chin part of his mask (which can be easily removed or maybe there are two masks in the kit to choose from?).
Agreed. I was looking at my recently purchased Gloomspite kits and searching for a more impressive hat/head to give him.
Same here, chin bit is weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: Also, this model and the new Ghoul King are glaring omissions from that rumor list.
GK I give a pass on because it isn't a normal release. But a new GSG hero is pretty big to miss, and there's no way that guy could be confused with Gitmob to be the rumored 'Gotmob Hero'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/12/24 18:17:12
2022/12/28 22:28:10
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, 2023 Sneakpeak pg 119)
Skinks would be riding Horned Ones. But dam do lizzy cav need new sculpts, anything would be better than the things they have now.
At any rate this list only covers armies that don't have 3rd ed books yet, it isn't particularly revealing beyond letting us know which quarter they will be in and that they will all be done by Q3 2023. Not counting SGL here, since they are very much a 3rd-ed book in a 2nd-ed cover.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/12/29 03:38:24
2022/12/30 20:21:03
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, 2023 Sneakpeak pg 119)
5-point changes on 200+ cost units just leave me scratching my head. Some actually are decent rounding-offs; like a 205 going to 200 or the like, but so many just leave me asking why. Being 240 instead of 245 will not have a measurable impact on the meta.
2023/01/05 18:06:32
Subject: AOS N&R (Battletome Roadmap, 2023 Sneakpeak pg 119)
Man every time I look at those new chosen, they are just so dam cool. I already have more than I need, too... but none are the badass new plastic ones...
I'm not happy with those prices, but not outraged either. Not even disappointed, it's just what to expect nowadays. Really though it could be knocked down 15% considering the discounters tons of people will use.
The prices for single foot heroes are still absurd. Exalted hero is easily converted from a Chosen or Chaos Warrior with a few spare bits from other kits. He looks cool, but not nearly THAT cool.
