Age of Sigmar News & Rumours ~ Please See New Thread

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.

**Lance845**

mdauben wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
More winged animals on the ground.

This thing is, all those examples are quadruped animals. They use their wings as front legs, that's why they stick up the way they do. Look at Smaug, the dragon from The Hobbit, he's the same way. The Stormcast dragon is a hexaped however, he's got four actual legs to stand on, he doesn't need his wings to function as legs when he's on the ground. His wings should logically fold upward like a bird's do, when he's on the ground.

There are no 6 limbed winged animals in real life.

To say those extra set of limbs should be doing anything is nonsense. It's a fictional set up on a fictional animal that frankly lacks the muscle groups needed to have those wings be powerful enough to carry it's body. Which is mostly the problem with any 6 limbed winged dragon like animal. A birds wings work because of all the muscles that attach to it's chest. Which is why birds all have such large powerful chests. Wings attached to their back don't have the large muscle groups needed to get actual lift without DRASTICALLY larger wings. Like... preposterously large.

The complaint that it is holding it's wings oddly is a silly complaint for something that shouldn't have functional wings to begin with.

**Chikout**

Maybe the gravity in the mortal realms is less. That would explain the scale creep.

**highlord tamburlaine**

Last I checked, don't insects have six legs and wings?

Not that these dragons are modeled on insects or anything...

After finishing up my Kingdom Death Dragon King though, sadly these Star Drakes are going to have a tough act to follow in my home.

I'm hoping for a price under 80 US, but that's probably a bit too dreamy, isn't it?

**Azreal13**

He probably conflated "animals" with "vertebrates."

Besides, Arthropoda is a special case, in many cases they're using completely different mechanisms of locomotion and respiration, spiders, for instance, use a sort of hydraulic system to extend and retract their legs.

But, I return to my earlier point, whether it's mechanically sound or no, we're all conditioned to understand what looks right, and if an entirely made up animal doesn't look like it would work, that's the core of it.

One is allowed to like it, but one can't use the "made up so it doesn't matter" defence.

**NinthMusketeer**

Insect wings are modified pieces of carapace as opposed to vertebrate wings, which are modified limbs. But I think insaniak really hit the nail on the head; models will tend to look better with natural or semi-natural structure. The wings look weird because of that (as well as the folding bit someone else mentioned, imo). I don't mind the wings too much though, what bugs me more about that image is the identical posing of the body, particularly the front legs. Some poses do better than others in multiples; for me this isn't one of them. Definitely something I would only use one of because of that (or heavy convert another).

As for the rider I am betting Vandus gets an upgraded mount (since he and his dracoth just got murdered by Archaon), while the other is a generic character

**Ghaz**

Azreal13 wrote:
One is allowed to like it, but one can't use the "made up so it doesn't matter" defence.

If that were true then no one would be allowed to like it. You're contradicting yourself.

**insaniak**

Azreal13 wrote:
One is allowed to like it, but one can't use the "made up so it doesn't matter" defence.

Sure they can. To a lot of people, it really doesn't matter.

To me, it looks a little wrong, but I still like the model overall. To others, it will look wrong enough that they won't like the model... or they'll think 'It's a dragon!' and that's good enough.

To that latter group, the fact that it's a made up animal means anything goes. I don't agree with that idea personally, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

**Azreal13**

Ghaz wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
One is allowed to like it, but one can't use the "made up so it doesn't matter" defence.

If that were true then no one would be allowed to like it. You're contradicting yourself.

Huh?

A: "I like it "

B: "I don't think it looks right, so I'm not sure I do."

A: "Well, it's entirely made up, so it doesn't matter whether you think it looks right or not because it's irrelevant,"

"I like it" is fine, "your reasons for not liking it are invalid because it's fictional" is not.

**Talys**

insaniak wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
One is allowed to like it, but one can't use the "made up so it doesn't matter" defence.

Sure they can. To a lot of people, it really doesn't matter.

To me, it looks a little wrong, but I still like the model overall. To others, it will look wrong enough that they won't like the model... or they'll think 'It's a dragon!' and that's good enough.

To that latter group, the fact that it's a made up animal means anything goes. I don't agree with that idea personally, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

For me, it's more like... "Huh... looks cool... LIKE!" There is a great suspension of reality in any of these models or games anyhow. I mean, none of it passes tests of common sense, basic physics, or simple logic, so why stop at a parallel to a "real" animal to like it or not

If I were to hyperanalyze it, there are characteristics of real creatures in the animal kingdom that make me think of characteristics like aggressiveness, toughness, speed, nimbleness or strength. So, just like a car design, some shapes turn out more pleasing than others, and become more believable as a fictional (heroic) monster. But most of that is subconscious, and when I look at a fantasy model, resemblance (or lack thereof) to any real creature doesn't give or deduct any points at all in my book.

**Haechi**

I wonder how it will look like WITHOUT wings and if it will be easy to fix with greenstuff. Cause a freaking giant armored lizard would go very well with the cavalry.

Cavalry which btw has the legs casted on the Dracoth's sides, and that blows. I wanted to put them on thunderwolves.

**Mymearan**

Thanks to Bart Kersteter on FB. From the Start Collecting box we can see the new names for Night Goblins and confirm they aren't going anywhere:

**Haechi**

Too bad it looks like it will be a repacking release only.

**Grimtuff**

"Moonclan"? I think Runescape would like a word GW...

**Kid_Kyoto**

Orruks

They really went there

**Chikout**

This will definitely not just be a repackaging release. We have very reliable rumours saying there will be a monster, a cavalry unit, an on foot unit and some clam packs. Given that regular orcs, black orcs, spider goblins and now night goblins have all been seen on round bases, it seems likely that the new stuff will be savage in nature. About two weeks to go until we see pics.

**RazorEdge**

Repacks of older Models means new Campaign Book.

**Mymearan**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Orruks

They really went there

We have know this since the game was released.

**Warhams-77**

New miniatures with a new Ork look would be PART of the O&G range - like Savage Orks or Black Orks - but not replacing it entirely. GW have shown with the Seraphon that they are willing to repaint their studio army to create a different look. The aforementioned rumored kits (by Darnok)? Yes, most likely coming and maybe even replacing some basic ones like the Ork Boyz.

But the entire range will not be replaced with different looking greenskins. They are not changing every sprue for every kit containing Orks, are they? It would be a ridiculous amount of work, this is not happening. I think waiting for a complete change of the Ork look can only lead to disappointment.

The silence of SP about this specific topic also made me doubt a massive overhaul. Especially as he correctly rumored a significant Stormcast release and more Khorne instead. But he has not mentioned new, updated Greenskins so far...

**Haechi**

Warhams-77 wrote:
New miniatures with a new Ork look would be PART of the O&G range - like Savage Orks or Black Orks - but not replacing it entirely. GW have shown with the Seraphon that they are willing to repaint their studio army to create a different look. The aforementioned rumored kits (by Darnok)? Yes, most likely coming and maybe even replacing some basic ones like the Ork Boyz.

But the entire range will not be replaced with different looking greenskins. They are not changing every sprue for every kit containing Orks, are they? It would be a ridiculous amount of work, this is not happening. I think waiting for a complete change of the Ork look can only lead to disappointment.

The silence of SP about this specific topic also made me doubt a massive overhaul. Especially as he correctly rumored a significant Stormcast release and more Khorne instead. But he has not mentioned new, updated Greenskins so far...

I wouldn't count on Ork boyz since the old ones are in the Start Collecting box.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stardrake (1 model) 120 euros / £85 / $140 / AU$ a still bloody Unicorn horn cut during a full moon / NZ$ same as the Aussies, but must be sprinkled with the tears of the innocents

Next week hints talk about uniting against the Gorechosen

**Necros**

Haechi wrote:
I wonder how it will look like WITHOUT wings and if it will be easy to fix with greenstuff. Cause a freaking giant armored lizard would go very well with the cavalry.

Cavalry which btw has the legs casted on the Dracoth's sides, and that blows. I wanted to put them on thunderwolves.

Hmm.. I think I like that idea a lot. I'm sure it could be done but you might end up having to carve and resculpt a lot

As far as what looks real or not, that's not the issue for me it's all about the position how they're pointed down, but I'm sure it will look much better in person. I remember seeing a documentary on the Discovery channel (I think) about how there's no possible way in physics that an angel's wings would be able to make an almost 200 pound guy fly, unless they were like 2-3x as big as he was or something like that, and human back bones and muscles wouldn't be able to support that weight very well either. For me I could care less about if it would be real, it's a fantasy game after all. All that maters to me is how awesome the model looks. I don't even care about game stats, I build my armies based on looks (and that's prolly why I lose 9 times outta 10

)

**Mymearan**

Haechi wrote:
Warhams-77 wrote:
New miniatures with a new Ork look would be PART of the O&G range - like Savage Orks or Black Orks - but not replacing it entirely. GW have shown with the Seraphon that they are willing to repaint their studio army to create a different look. The aforementioned rumored kits (by Darnok)? Yes, most likely coming and maybe even replacing some basic ones like the Ork Boyz.

But the entire range will not be replaced with different looking greenskins. They are not changing every sprue for every kit containing Orks, are they? It would be a ridiculous amount of work, this is not happening. I think waiting for a complete change of the Ork look can only lead to disappointment.

The silence of SP about this specific topic also made me doubt a massive overhaul. Especially as he correctly rumored a significant Stormcast release and more Khorne instead. But he has not mentioned new, updated Greenskins so far...

I wouldn't count on Ork boyz since the old ones are in the Start Collecting box.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stardrake (1 model) 120 euros / £85 / $140 / AU$ a still bloody Unicorn horn cut during a full moon / NZ$ same as the Aussies, but must be sprinkled with the tears of the innocents

Next week hints talk about uniting against the Gorechosen

Same as the old Imperial Knight then.

**Wulfson_40K**

From Warseer:

Archibald_TK wrote:
Here is your weekly WD peek, sprinkled with the nonsensical rambling that you all love/hate/make you gouge your eyes!

So regarding the Star Drake, let me first say that if you have an opinion on the model whatever it may be, then the WD probably won't change it at all. As far as I can see, all pics are done from the same angle we've seen so far. So no top/side/rear view of the model, or even from the left shoulder. Two scrolls inside: Lord-Celestant on Stardrake and Drakesworn Templar. (EDIT- both are Stardrakes but with a different rider)

Stardrake (1 model) 120€ / £85 / $140 / AU$ a fresh and bloody Unicorn horn cut during a full moon / NZ$ same as the Aussies, but must be sprinkled with the tears of the innocents

Next week hints talk about uniting against the Gorechosen, whatever that may be.

And... that's all there is to it. There's not much in this week WD of note besides a pretty cool looking flyer conversion based on an Imperial Knight carapace.

**H.B.M.C.**

Mymearan wrote:
Thanks to Bart Kersteter on FB. From the Start Collecting box we can see the new names for Night Goblins and confirm they aren't going anywhere

Except now they're Moon™Clan™ Grots™!

**Haechi**

Necros wrote:
I don't even care about game stats, I build my armies based on looks (and that's prolly why I lose 9 times outta 10 )

MY FRIEND <3

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

That Dragon would've looked so much better if it didn't have that much armour on its chest and if they had gone the Reign of Fire style for the dragon's arms and wings.

It's a real damn shame.

**Chikout**

Here is another picture from Twitter.

**skarsol**

The wings kinda look like they're tacked on as an afterthought in that pic.

**Funbug No.1**

The star drake looks cumbersome, which is not necessarily a bad thing, in my view, since this design aesthetic matches the rest of the stormcast range, in which, it seems to me, however ornate, nothing is refined and everything goes 'bang!'

Well, they're not elves, so I think it works. But when I first saw the new Bloodthirsters, I thought Wow! Same for the new Archaon, same again for Skarbrand, and the Magmadroth. I can't say the star drake's had the same effect. It's just a bigger Dracoth. With wings.

**Alpharius**

Does the Star Drake have a breath weapon attack too?

**angelofvengeance**

Alpharius wrote:
Does the Star Drake have a breath weapon attack too?

The glowing effect from his mouth would suggest that he does...