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.

Warhams-77 wrote:
Snip lots of big pictures

Not terribly exited about the armored pope-mobile in the center but those flagellant looking figures in the background catch my eye. Does this mean there will be more to the forces of Sigmar than just more and more Sigmarines?

 mdauben wrote:

Warhams-77 wrote:
Snip lots of big pictures

Not terribly exited about the armored pope-mobile in the center but those flagellant looking figures in the background catch my eye. Does this mean there will be more to the forces of Sigmar than just more and more Sigmarines?

All of the Empire models in that pic are part of the current range. There is nothing stopping you from mixing and matching stuff in armies.

 Grimtuff wrote:
All of the Empire models in that pic are part of the current range. There is nothing stopping you from mixing and matching stuff in armies.

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I haven't kept up with the Empire releases, as they don't look like the Flagellants I was familiar with. As far as mixing and matching stuff in my armies, I know I could do that but I chose not to. If I do decide to play an army in AoS it will be a "pure" army made up of "new" figures only. More power to those who want to do otherwise, but its not for me.

jaceimba wrote:
Lot of pics from the new book on lady atia's twitter

I can imagine how the term "Ur-Gold" came to be at GW:

>GW Exec: "THERE'S A NON-COPYRIGHTED WORD HERE! "GOLD"! FIX THIS AT ONCE"
>Development-Slave: "We can't copyright gold sir"
>GW Exec: "CHANGE ITS NAME TO SOMETHING ELSE THEN"
>"Development: "Er....gold?"
>GW Exec: "PERFECT! CALL THE LEGAL TEAM! COPYRIGHT THIS AT ONCE!"

 Harriticus wrote:

jaceimba wrote:
Lot of pics from the new book on lady atia's twitter

I can imagine how the term "Ur-Gold" came to be at GW:

>GW Exec: "THERE'S A NON-COPYRIGHTED WORD HERE! "GOLD"! FIX THIS AT ONCE"
>Development-Slave: "We can't copyright gold sir"
>GW Exec: "CHANGE ITS NAME TO SOMETHING ELSE THEN"
>"Development: "Er....gold?"
>GW Exec: "PERFECT! CALL THE LEGAL TEAM! COPYRIGHT THIS AT ONCE!"

Hahah, exalted!

I only regret that I have but one exalt to give.

Called it on those fireslayers, btw!

Slayers with beards and hair of fire is a laughably poor idea.

Yet, fire breathing, flying lizards are the stuff of pure logic?????

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Slayers with beards and hair of fire is a laughably poor idea.

You're looking for reason and logic in a fantasy setting? Good luck with that.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Slayers with beards and hair of fire is a laughably poor idea.

You're looking for reason and logic in a fantasy setting? Good luck with that.

And when did I say I was looking for reason and logic? I just said it was a poor idea.

Well done on conjuring up an imaginary statement from me. 10/10. Bravo Sir.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Slayers with beards and hair of fire is a laughably poor idea.

You're looking for reason and logic in a fantasy setting? Good luck with that.

I actually think the fire haired slayers would be awesome. If we were worried about logic, the fantasy genre as a whole would consist of knights in armour on horses rescuing maidens from evil men in castles (no dragons, they're not logical) and probably getting slain by the evil mans soldiers before getting anywhere near it.

You're welcome.

*sings*
This beard is ON FIREEEEEE

RoninXiC wrote:
*sings*
This beard is ON FYREEEEEE

Fixed that for you

Ah god damnit that was too obvious :(

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Slayers with beards and hair of fire is a laughably poor idea.

What are you on about slayers have always been ginger
..

Some of the new scenery is supposedly limited edition

I'm looking forward to the fire dwarves.

GW has been putting some interesting 'effects' on models recently (End times undead wispy ghost effects, those AoS Gates, SM Missiles leaving the tube etc for example). Although I'm still struggling with idea of dwarves with steeds, a flaming dwarf on a big fecking lizard with flowing flame effects could be very cool!

TrapdoorResident wrote:Yet, fire breathing, flying lizards are the stuff of pure logic?????

Who said anything about that?

angelofvengeance wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Slayers with beards and hair of fire is a laughably poor idea.

You're looking for reason and logic in a fantasy setting? Good luck with that.

Who said anything about that, either? But yeah, a little internal reason and logic helps in a fantasy setting. I'm sick to the back teeth of the "it's fantasy, anything goes!" argument because it's a lazy-arse handwave by thoughtless people, ignorant of the kind of thought and effort that can go into creating a consistent, structured setting and story, whether it has dragons and magic in it or not. If logic and reason mean nothing in fantasy, then hell, forget eagles, why didn't Frodo just click his heels, spin on the spot three times and call out "watchu talkin' about, Willis?" to get to Mount Doom? Why didn't Ned Stark leap up from the chopping block and say "Woops! Hahaha! The thing you didn't realise, of course, is that my neck is akshullee made entirely out of titanium." Why don't GW have paperslayers or dandelionslayers or jellyncustardslayers, rather than fireslayers?

Dwarves in particular have always been somewhat magical, somewhat superhuman creatures, since the days of norse myth, but still relateable, still somewhat human. Yes, you can have a race of dwarfs burned black by the flame that somehow issues from their faces instead of hair. You might even be able to work it into your setting's history, somehow. But that doesn't mean it's not a bad idea that makes your dwarfs even less human, less relateable, and yeah, even lacks sense. (How does the dwarf interact with anything if it's got flames constantly spouting out of it's head? How does it eat? Can it sit at a wooden table? How does it kiss it's sweetheart? What happens if it goes for a dip? How does it shave, if the old slayer oath is still around? What happens if it gets an itchy chin? Even dragons can hold it in until the right time.)

Fireslayers are another example of that flanderisation of Warhammer. GW, terrified of having something they know they can't legally own (or bully people away from), takes a strange, magical race and rather than make it deeper or better (better designed, better quality, better price), makes it... stranger. They're pushing this superficial effect in the hope of making teenagers think "this guy's on fire, that's so khewl and badass and metal!", while others think "pfft, really?"

I see people still cannot distinguish between "bad" and "I don't like it".

Dwarves turning into avatars of fire and stone may not be the most original idea ever, but it's hardly something objectively bad, given it opens up some very interesting visual opportunities in a highly visual medium that miniature wargaming is.

At least the fiyre dwarves are distinctly refered to as the Red Slayers, so they'll be 2 different dwarves, the fiyre dwarves and the duradin (or whatever).

Honestly only some of the dwarves being firey makes it a bit cooler and more acceptable to me. Plus it isn't like fire dwarves are a AoS only thing, in the End Times a Slayer became the Incarnate of Fire and no one really complained back then (instead iirc, they rejoiced as it meant the dwarves were noticed).
And then the slayer died and an elf took the job, just to hurt dwarven pride,

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/17/warhammer-beginners-guide-games-workshop-age-of-sigmar

from today's Guardian !

Weird that the guardian are covering it?!

barnacle111 wrote:
Weird that the guardian are covering it?!

Why?

Hell, most newspapers have daily coverage of all sorts of silly activities, like two teams of 11 people trying to kick a ball into one of two nets.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/17/warhammer-beginners-guide-games-workshop-age-of-sigmar

from today's Guardian !

Really surprised that article mentions Beyond the Gates of Antares, seeing how much of a catastrophe it's KS was...

Wonderwolf wrote:

barnacle111 wrote:
Weird that the guardian are covering it?!

Why?

Hell, most newspapers have daily coverage of all sorts of silly activities, like two teams of 11 people trying to kick a ball into one of two nets.

Yeah because that's the same.

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
For those concerned about Gork & Mork...



Also- expect some interesting variations of Blood Warriors..

It looks like a child's coloring book....

Yeah, no it doesn't.

Well those drawings are bad. Like really really bad. Like a child's coloring book.

nudibranch wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/17/warhammer-beginners-guide-games-workshop-age-of-sigmar

from today's Guardian !

Really surprised that article mentions Beyond the Gates of Antares, seeing how much of a catastrophe it's KS was...

It'll because of who Rick Priestley is, so even though the KS didn't go off, his name still carries a bit of weight.

Those drawing have also been around for a long time. I think the 3rd ed. Imperial Guard book had them? Anyway, they are designed to show off proposed colour schemes in an understandable way. They're not designed to be pretty pictures, just illustrative tools.