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.

Haha, oh well, hopefully they'll keep this fluff in mind when Death gets some more love next year.

Still a nifty rule and reason to make a conversion undead pirate army (or just a fancy ship marker for the effect).

 Ghaz wrote:
The Wraith Fleet...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/09/21/the-armies-of-firestorm-the-wraith-fleet-sep21gw-homepage-post-4/

Hahaha!

Not gonna lie, I was expecting more. But then again, I'm a greedy man who will be sated once he gets the book.

Were people seriously expecting new models? There was never any reason to expect it to be more than an allegiance ability.

Hype trains go off the rails sometimes, it happens.

Looking forward to FireStorm all the same, though. Hopefully they write some novels to include this stuff.

I could see people thinking that some of the unrevealed rumor engine posts could potentially fit the theme of "Vampirate", but I'm not surprised that this was just an allegiance ability (at least for now). Seems like an odd time to announce a major product line release. I wouldn't expect anything big like that until after the first of the year.

Yeap not disappointed here because I expected nothing.

People actually thought GW were releasing vampire pirates? Honestly if they did that I would be annoyed to be frank, I would prefer a more "serious" death release after waiting so long for one.

If it occurred afterwards? I would welcome it with open arms.

GW has added a category in the online store for 'Firestorm Season of War' if you want to see what models each of the NINE factions can take.

So they have a tenuous grasp on what is associated with pirates.
Might as well call them vampire Vikings, since they don't have fire arms or cannons associated with them

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
So they have a tenuous grasp on what is associated with pirates.
Might as well call them vampire Vikings, since they don't have fire arms or cannons associated with them

Not sure if sarcasm...

Pirates do exist outside the Disney movies, you know!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
So they have a tenuous grasp on what is associated with pirates.
Might as well call them vampire Vikings, since they don't have fire arms or cannons associated with them

Not sure if sarcasm...

Pirates do exist outside the Disney movies, you know!

Nah, pretty sure it was Captain Jack Sparrow teamed up with Captain Hook who captured Julius Caesar and held him for ransom. No way a fine tactician like Julius Caesar gets captured unless the pirates had firearms and cannons.

 Ghaz wrote:
GW has added a category in the online store for 'Firestorm Season of War' if you want to see what models each of the NINE factions can take.

So it looks like:

Fist of the Everchosen: Everything save 'herds and Skaven.

Stoneklaw's Gutstompas: Giants and all varieties of greenskin.

Hallowheart: Humans, Fyreslayers, Dispossessed, Swiftcutter, and Eldritch Council

Living City: Stormcast, Freeguild, Wanderers, Sylvaneth, Dispossessed

Greywater Fastness: Humans, Ironweld, Wanderers

Pirates are more often associated with the 16/1700s+,
Not that they didn't exist earlier without black powder, but most associate piracy with a certain time frame.
This coupled with the old Lustria campaign that actually included undead pirates that used Fire arms etc. that and also AoS world has black powder, so it's fair to assess that yeah they could have made rules similar to what they did a long time ago, with out needing new models.

Can take free people handgunners, give them undead special rule, done

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
Pirates are more often associated with the 16/1700s+,
Not that they didn't exist earlier without black powder, but most associate piracy with a certain time frame.
This coupled with the old Lustria campaign that actually included undead pirates that used Fire arms etc. that and also AoS world has black powder, so it's fair to assess that yeah they could have made rules similar to what they did a long time ago, with out needing new models.

Can take free people handgunners, give them undead special rule, done

Yeah, it's a very loose use of the title pirate with these guys. I kept looking for any type of nautical theme that made them pirates.

I would call these guys more undead raiders.

In order to make these fiendish pirates more relatable to the GW target audience the new vampire models will be carrying miniature scale replicas of silicon molds and laptops with Pirate Bay logos.

Their allegiance ability has them disembarking onto the battlefield from spectral ships , sounds pretty pirate to me. What's funny though is how people say GW is hostile to conversions, then they release rules that are perfect for converted armies and that's bad too.

The rule fits a pirate aesthetic, if you aren't creative enough to make your army do so as well that's on you. Honestly I think it begs for converted spectral ships used as Mortis Engines or Coven Thrones, a Captain Morgan style wight king, necromancer as a ship's surgeon... and that's off the top of my head.

Edit: Undead parrot bat swarms!

Those boxed sets look pretty cool....if only I had time to paint up a force for a large skirmish game. I like the Anvilguard one the best.

Are all the forces going to be getting a boxed set, or just the Great Cities?

Fist of the Everchosen being a faction would be a perfect excuse to finally put out some new AOS sized generic Chaos Warriors.

 Gamgee wrote:
Yeap not disappointed here because I expected nothing.

I expected disappointment. I got what I expected. Now I'm not sure what I should feel.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
So they have a tenuous grasp on what is associated with pirates.
Might as well call them vampire Vikings, since they don't have fire arms or cannons associated with them

Not sure if sarcasm...

Pirates do exist outside the Disney movies, you know!

Yeah. Somali pirates. I want zombies with AKs and RPGs.

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
Pirates are more often associated with the 16/1700s+,
Not that they didn't exist earlier without black powder, but most associate piracy with a certain time frame.
This coupled with the old Lustria campaign that actually included undead pirates that used Fire arms etc. that and also AoS world has black powder, so it's fair to assess that yeah they could have made rules similar to what they did a long time ago, with out needing new models.

Can take free people handgunners, give them undead special rule, done

Exactly. The image of undead pirates in Warhammer is fairly well explored. If they're going to deviate from it because Age of Sigmar, they should back it up with new models for a new (sub-)faction. If they don't, we get to where we are now. Boos, hisses, accusations of lazy work on GW's part.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Their allegiance ability has them disembarking onto the battlefield from spectral ships , sounds pretty pirate to me. What's funny though is how people say GW is hostile to conversions, then they release rules that are perfect for converted armies and that's bad too.

The rule fits a pirate aesthetic, if you aren't creative enough to make your army do so as well that's on you. Honestly I think it begs for converted spectral ships used as Mortis Engines or Coven Thrones, a Captain Morgan style wight king, necromancer as a ship's surgeon... and that's off the top of my head.

Edit: Undead parrot bat swarms!

Wow, they get to outflank. Super associated with piracy and spectral ships. Couldn't represent anything else!

But seriously, here's a question. What stopped anyone from just doing pirate theme undead before? Certainly not the availability of models since we're exactly where we were before, without a single new undead model for the entire duration of Age of Sigmar.

So according to you GW is not hostile to conversions because you can convert your models to look like pirates. Why then do we need any new rules at all? Shouldn't the joy of converting existing models to pirates be enough for people?

Yeah, I'm not buying it. GW removes options from existing units because of some brain dead strategy they're running. For this alone, it would have been unwise to expect, even hope for them to go out of their way to hand out real rules for undead pirates. But to claim that what we did get is actually perfect? Now that's something else...

There was never any hint or indication that this would be coming with new models, your disappointment is entirely self-inflicted. It's not a problem on GWs part that you need skeletons with guns, something Warhammer has never had, to make your pirate vision. GW is providing new allegiance abilities and all you can do is whine about how it isn't a new army, which is pretty dam ridiculous.

Stoneklaw's Gutstompas

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/09/22/the-armies-of-firestorm-stoneklaws-gustompas-sep22gw-homepage-post-4/

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There was never any hint or indication that this would be coming with new models, your disappointment is entirely self-inflicted. It's not a problem on GWs part that you need skeletons with guns, something Warhammer has never had, to make your pirate vision. GW is providing new allegiance abilities and all you can do is whine about how it isn't a new army, which is pretty dam ridiculous.

Do you read what I write? Did you not notice that I repeatedly expressed just how little I expect of GW and that I am therefore not disappointed?

Any prior absence of handguns on skeletons is one thing, but they did have crossbow zombies and a big cannon for Storm of Chaos Sartosan pirates. So yeah, it's not my pirate vision. It's GW's.

But go ahead and dismiss criticism as whining.

 Ghaz wrote:
Stoneklaw's Gutstompas

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/09/22/the-armies-of-firestorm-stoneklaws-gustompas-sep22gw-homepage-post-4/

I like how they continued the saga of the Path to Glory character on this one. Makes me want to convert a boss with two skull spikes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There was never any hint or indication that this would be coming with new models, your disappointment is entirely self-inflicted. It's not a problem on GWs part that you need skeletons with guns, something Warhammer has never had, to make your pirate vision. GW is providing new allegiance abilities and all you can do is whine about how it isn't a new army, which is pretty dam ridiculous.

Do you read what I write? Did you not notice that I repeatedly expressed just how little I expect of GW and that I am therefore not disappointed?

Any prior absence of handguns on skeletons is one thing, but they did have crossbow zombies and a big cannon for Storm of Chaos Sartosan pirates. So yeah, it's not my pirate vision. It's GW's.

But go ahead and dismiss criticism as whining.

'Criticism' that their allegiance ability isn't a new army instead. No, that's whining.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
[ 'Criticism' that their allegiance ability isn't a new army instead. No, that's whining.

A variant army list, not a new army. GW used to do these sorts of things (and have therefore shown they're capable of it) and now they don't. The criticism is entirely about the quality of their publication. Which is lacking. A lot. For no good reason.

The models that GW have been churning out have been great

The new games/variations have been great

Their communication has been great, daily friendly updates/etc

This is my favorite time to be a warhammer player in the ten+ years I have been!

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
[ 'Criticism' that their allegiance ability isn't a new army instead. No, that's whining.

A variant army list, not a new army. GW used to do these sorts of things (and have therefore shown they're capable of it) and now they don't. The criticism is entirely about the quality of their publication. Which is lacking. A lot. For no good reason.

Go whip up nine of those then, with full compliments of command traits, artifacts, and points for any new units. Also make sure they are balanced with existing content. And when you get back in six months we'll be ready to whine that they aren't new battletomes.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
[ 'Criticism' that their allegiance ability isn't a new army instead. No, that's whining.

A variant army list, not a new army. GW used to do these sorts of things (and have therefore shown they're capable of it) and now they don't. The criticism is entirely about the quality of their publication. Which is lacking. A lot. For no good reason.

Go whip up nine of those then, with full compliments of command traits, artifacts, and points for any new units. Also make sure they are balanced with existing content. And when you get back in six months we'll be ready to whine that they aren't new battletomes.

Sure. Get GW to hire me and put me in charge of the Age of Sigmar team and I'll be happy to oblige and suffer your whining six months after.

I guess that means you've run out of anything solid to say on the matter? Let's leave it at that, then.

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
[ 'Criticism' that their allegiance ability isn't a new army instead. No, that's whining.

A variant army list, not a new army. GW used to do these sorts of things (and have therefore shown they're capable of it) and now they don't. The criticism is entirely about the quality of their publication. Which is lacking. A lot. For no good reason.

Go whip up nine of those then, with full compliments of command traits, artifacts, and points for any new units. Also make sure they are balanced with existing content. And when you get back in six months we'll be ready to whine that they aren't new battletomes.

Sure. Get GW to hire me and put me in charge of the Age of Sigmar team and I'll be happy to oblige and suffer your whining six months after.

I guess that means you've run out of anything solid to say on the matter? Let's leave it at that, then.

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear you have nothing but bark with no bite. So sorry GW didn't bend over backwards to accommodate your every desire.

Edit: fwiw, to explicitly state things; the creative process takes time and effort, it's not something drawn up in an afternoon. Saying they should have included army lists is asking for extra effort. Effort that is currently being spent on future battletomes, ironically the exact sort of content that Geifer is asking for.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
[ 'Criticism' that their allegiance ability isn't a new army instead. No, that's whining.

A variant army list, not a new army. GW used to do these sorts of things (and have therefore shown they're capable of it) and now they don't. The criticism is entirely about the quality of their publication. Which is lacking. A lot. For no good reason.

Go whip up nine of those then, with full compliments of command traits, artifacts, and points for any new units. Also make sure they are balanced with existing content. And when you get back in six months we'll be ready to whine that they aren't new battletomes.

Sure. Get GW to hire me and put me in charge of the Age of Sigmar team and I'll be happy to oblige and suffer your whining six months after.

I guess that means you've run out of anything solid to say on the matter? Let's leave it at that, then.

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear you have nothing but bark with no bite. So sorry GW didn't bend over backwards to accommodate your every desire.

Edit: fwiw, to explicitly state things; the creative process takes time and effort, it's not something drawn up in an afternoon. Saying they should have included army lists is asking for extra effort. Effort that is currently being spent on future battletomes, ironically the exact sort of content that Geifer is asking for.

I'll just stick with your fwiw because this is something that's actually worth discussing.

Yes, the creative process takes time and effort and there are only so many things the studio can work on at a time. No one doubts that. In fact, that's entirely the criticism. GW did not go to the effort and settled on the lowest amount of content possible to present a new theme for an established army (or Grand Alliance, if you prefer).

You state with great confidence that the effort saved on this book is directed towards new battletomes. While I don't doubt that GW is working on these, as battletomes and codices are their chosen format for army books, I question whether they couldn't have (re-)distributed any effort to this campaign book. Or any other campaign book. I'm questioning the format in which GW releases things.

You make it out like GW's way of managing Age of Sigmar is the only way it could possibly work. Or at least you come across like that. One either accepts what GW does and is thankful for what one does get, or one had better shut up.

The way I see it GW limits itself by its "no model, no rules" policy. You know what would cut down on GW's time and effort? Just writing an army list and leaving model creation to the players. Currently, the rules designers are held back by how many models the sculptors can produce. And if it's not on the miniature production schedule, like the entirety of the Death Grand Alliance (yeah, Ghouls got reshuffled into Flesheater Courts - truly exciting using the same old models with new names), us Death fans get to sit through Order release after Order release and wonder why we even bother.

You asked for nine sets of variant lists, and you know what? If you insist that GW is doing right by us with their current approach, you'll no doubt acknowledge the Order and Chaos skew we've seen so far. It may be justified because Sigmarines need to be rolled out, or because GW planned out the narrative to start with Order and Chaos, or what have you, but you'll notice that it leaves behind Death and Destruction players. So why couldn't we meet halfway? Order and Chaos have loads of models and army lists and new content can be as simple as allegiance bonuses if you want to encourage thematic alliances, as in exactly what we're getting. It's all these Grand Alliances need. At the same time Death and Destruction get actual variant lists with a handful of new warscrolls and the rest made up of select, thematically fitting warscrolls that already exist. All in the name of giving actual incentives to hang in there and wait for the real battletomes by giving us something to do and boost model sales in the process. That's two variant lists in a campaign book. I think that should be manageable for poor, overworked GW.

By the way, GW acknowledges that the principle is sound since they use it to supplement battletomes with allegiance bonuses in the General's handbook. So it's not an outlandish thought. It's just that doctrine gets in the way of GW delivering a better product than they are.