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.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

They just seem utterly incapable of flight to me. The wings and forearms just don't have any natural flow or rhythm to them.

That, and it's another OTT rules release. Good luck to the community points gurus who have to figure out how to slot in something can eat 3 chaos lords in a turn.

TBF that's a 1 in 216 chance. And they already had to point Nagash, Skarbrand, Archaeon, and Skaarac, so I don't see this as a hurdle they haven't crossed several times already.

I might be missing something but to me the Templar with Skybolt Bow and Arc Hammer looks way better than any configuration of the Celestant.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Aleguzzler gargaunt? Thats an odd name

Please write it the correct way:

The Citadel™ Aleguzzler™ Gargant™.

 Manchu wrote:
GW is getting too much grief over this one. No less a source than J.R.R. Tolkien, in his later years, concluded that "orc" should be properly spelt "ork" for philological reasons. This only came to light in 1993 so turns out GW was ahead of the curve there. They are on solid ground with orruk, too. It's an apparent cognate of uruk, which is Black Speech for orc, not to mention the common stem órok. What's Tolkien got to do with Warhammer Fantasy? Well, he's the only reason we're talking about orcs in the first place. Now, ogors ... I got nothing for ogors ... but in a world of Stormcast Concussors, so be it!

You're completely missing the point as to why GW is getting grief over this. It isn't because of the word they chose to replace Orc, it's because they changed it in the first place. This is a symptom of the CHS saga, where they're renaming everything so they can slap a little ™ after it.

So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

Those blocky armor plates too like something from Power Rangers

I wonder, how those Black Orruks™ will look against Sigmarines, because of the scale creep

Chikout wrote:
So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

GW have always been slack about intellectual property. It tripped them up big time in the Chapter House case.

It costs about £1,000 to get a registered trademark, which GW could easily afford. They probably (correctly) think that no-one else is going to register the names that have chosen just to spite them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Chikout wrote:
So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

GW have always been slack about intellectual property. It tripped them up big time in the Chapter House case.

It costs about £1,000 to get a registered trademark, which GW could easily afford. They probably (correctly) think that no-one else is going to register the names that have chosen just to spite them.

Anyone got UKP1000 handy?

I'll do the paper work!

I think the drake would look substantially better without wings. I wonder how easy it will be to model it like that.

"Roll a dice"?!?

And Roiling Thunderhead and Rain of Stars?

OK!

The rules for it seem very good against infantry but not good against monsters. The cavernous jaws and sweeping tail rule will have no effect against monsters and the breath attacks are best used against big units.

I think the drake is ok looking; however, I have a hard time justifying myself to pay over $100 for one model as a game piece. I would be too scare to transport expensive models to play in games outside of the house in fear of it breaking . I think I will stick to playing smaller "scale" fantasy games

Chikout wrote:
So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

I think the internet forums spread the idea or assume too much that the name changes were meant so that GW can protect its product. I might be in the minority, but I see the name changes for fluff reason. Spelling of names and sound of names change with time. So in the old world, we know them as Elf. In the new age they are now spelled as Aelf. Just like in our world, Aelf changed to Elf in English. I posted this on Warseer:

Fyreslayers - Fyre - fire in Danish and Scots (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fyre#Old_English) / Fyr in Old English (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fyr#Old_English)

Aelf - Elf in Old English was spelled as "Ælf" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%86lf) / another link - http://virtuallinguist.typepad.com/the_virtual_linguist/2012/08/alf_or_%C3%A6lf.html

Duardin - this was a bit harder to find if there was some inspiration for the name. Duardin itself did not seem to have an old language for its use. I decided to try searching for "Duard" and this is what i got - http://www.ourbabynamer.com/meaning-of-Duard.html - based on that site "Duard" is of English origin and means "wealthy guardian." With Dwarf stereotypes of loving gold and Games Workshop Ur-Gold, there might actually be some basis of past languages for GW calling the new age Dwarfs as Duardin...or I am just really stretching my imagination to find some basis for some of the names.

Edit: I just notice you posted in that thread also.

Chikout wrote:
So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

Because a paint company already owns the term "Sigmarite" and "Sigmarine". True story.

CragHack wrote:
Those blocky armor plates too like something from Power Rangers

I wonder, how those Black Orruks™ will look against Sigmarines, because of the scale creep

Black Orcs or a nob mob or whatever with the size, bulk and posture of IoB rat ogres. Hngh. I could go for a couple of those for my pirate Orcs or the 40k Orks I need to whip up into Gorkamorka/Kill Team shape.

PS: Now I need to ebay a ton of rat ogres and Grimgork and Ghazkull heads

 akai wrote:
I think the drake is ok looking; however, I have a hard time justifying myself to pay over $100 for one model as a game piece. I would be too scare to transport expensive models to play in games outside of the house in fear of it breaking . I think I will stick to playing smaller "scale" fantasy games

Chikout wrote:
So I just checked. Orruk is currently available as a trademark in the toys and games sector in the UK. There is a lot of cynicism about gw's decision to change the names of things for the new game which is fair enough, but if this is the reason, why not register them? Stormcast eternals, battletome and age of sigmar are trademarked, nothing else is.

I think the internet forums spread the idea or assume too much that the name changes were meant so that GW can protect its product. I might be in the minority, but I see the name changes for fluff reason. Spelling of names and sound of names change with time. So in the old world, we know them as Elf. In the new age they are now spelled as Aelf. Just like in our world, Aelf changed to Elf in English. I posted this on Warseer:

Fyreslayers - Fyre - fire in Danish and Scots (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fyre#Old_English) / Fyr in Old English (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fyr#Old_English)

Aelf - Elf in Old English was spelled as "Ælf" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%86lf) / another link - http://virtuallinguist.typepad.com/the_virtual_linguist/2012/08/alf_or_%C3%A6lf.html

Duardin - this was a bit harder to find if there was some inspiration for the name. Duardin itself did not seem to have an old language for its use. I decided to try searching for "Duard" and this is what i got - http://www.ourbabynamer.com/meaning-of-Duard.html - based on that site "Duard" is of English origin and means "wealthy guardian." With Dwarf stereotypes of loving gold and Games Workshop Ur-Gold, there might actually be some basis of past languages for GW calling the new age Dwarfs as Duardin...or I am just really stretching my imagination to find some basis for some of the names.

Edit: I just notice you posted in that thread also.

GW is using many old english / old saxon words in AoS.

The last picture shown (with the reddish wings) makes it look a lot better, but if the armour is an integral part of the sculpt no way would I buy one.

Well, I wouldn't buy one anyway. 120 euro? You're havin' a larf.

It is a strange position to be in, when you can regard your Forgeworld vehicles and planes as good value compared to a plastic GW kit!

 Charles Rampant wrote:
It is a strange position to be in, when you can regard your Forgeworld vehicles and planes as good value compared to a plastic GW kit!

It's a position I believe you will soon get used to...

The wings are odd/off-putting due to the half dozen extra finger bones, and the armor is ugly and poorly thought out. But what's really getting me is the front legs - the joints are backwards. The thing has knees where its elbows should be, and the front limb knee pads just accentuate it.

It's literally like you asked a child to draw his first ever dragon based on memory of seeing one in a cartoon once.

Further supporting my theory that GW has suffered some very serious brain drain in their creative department. For every good looking model they've put out in the past few years, there have been several ugly kids toys with amateurishly bad design decisions (executed with great technical skill on the molding side, credit where credit's due).

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Screw the Stormcast stuff. I want Tzeentch news!!

+1!

Something has to be cooking somewhere...

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
The wings are odd/off-putting due to the half dozen extra finger bones, and the armor is ugly and poorly thought out. But what's really getting me is the front legs - the joints are backwards. The thing has knees where its elbows should be, and the front limb knee pads just accentuate it.

I don't mind the wings or armor, but now that you brought up the knees/elbow thing, I can't unsee it! The "fold" on the front left leg is getting me, too. I can't make sense of exactly what I'm looking at. I'm working on a SE army, but for $140 the centerpiece model really should be perfect.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Screw the Stormcast stuff. I want Tzeentch news!!

+1!

Something has to be cooking somewhere...

Cant wait for the Changebound Changesecrators

Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Chad Warden wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Screw the Stormcast stuff. I want Tzeentch news!!

+1!

Something has to be cooking somewhere...

Cant wait for the Changebound Changesecrators

Tzeentch Arcanites.

 akai wrote:
I might be in the minority, but I see the name changes for fluff reason.

I quite agree. Seems to me that renaming things is part of the overhaul of Fantasy, along with re-boxing kits and writing new rules. Seeing those orcs advertised as orruks, for example, may seem "off" to us but that is just because we have already got used to "orc" (courtesy of Professor Tolkien). Giving something a distinctive name is pretty clearly a means of strengthening the brand identity. This is probably also why GW is leaning in so hard with Stormcast; kind of like how SM are de facto mascots for 40k. This very likely explains why Stormcast are getting this release now, rather than GW moving on to say, Aelfs.

 Ghaz wrote:
Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Are they?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Are they?

From the angle we're seeing it at (which admittedly is not the best) then yes, it does appear to be correct and its legs have more in common with those found on the likes of equines and felines instead of reptiles.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Are they?

From the angle we're seeing it at (which admittedly is not the best) then yes, it does appear to be correct and its legs have more in common with those found on the likes of equines and felines instead of reptiles.

I'd be tempted to say that but the joint looks to be just a bit too high on the front legs to be that way. However, without a clear shot, I can't tell for sure.

 Ghaz wrote:
Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Lion? Don't think so. As someone who has owned a pet reptile, I'd have to disagree with you on that.



**Edit: My brother and I have just had a discussion about the neck armour and concluded that:

If you spend most of the time flying and slamming into your prey from above, you're not really going to need to lower your head that often, but you're also going to try and keep any injuries to the neck to a minimum. A lizard's underbelly is pretty squishy and vulnerable.

A lizard has to back away a bit to get at prey that is closer to it than the range of movement its neck will allow for. To me, that pose says it's just landed and is about to zap some foes and swipe at someone else nearby.

I'm getting used to its positions. Its standing up to roar/spit lightning. And I don't see the backward elbows/knees AT ALL, simply because those are his wrists.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Its legs are more like a lion's than an alligator's. Its still anatomically correct in that regard.

Lion? Don't think so. As someone who has owned a pet reptile, I'd have to disagree with you on that.

Spoiler:

**Edit: My brother and I have just had a discussion about the neck armour and concluded that:

If you spend most of the time flying and slamming into your prey from above, you're not really going to need to lower your head that often, but you're also going to try and keep any injuries to the neck to a minimum. A lizard's underbelly is pretty squishy and vulnerable.

A lizard has to back away a bit to get at prey that is closer to it than the range of movement its neck will allow for. To me, that pose says it's just landed and is about to zap some foes and swipe at someone else nearby.

So if you're mostly above your prey you theorised looking down isn't common? Are you sure about that?