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.

The Forgeworld Keeper is a good design but the hair tentacles are a brittle fragile nightmare.
The new one at least looks like it is possible to transport.

 EnTyme wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah no, armies are not hauling around and building 15+ foot structures right before a battle. Just no. I am generally pretty flexible with justifying things, but 'its part of the baggage train' does not fly here by any means. To say nothing of the loonshrine.

What do you think the armies are fighting over? Dirt? Is it that hard to imagine that those Fyreslayers are on the defensive trying to protect a forge on the edge of their city?

It isn't, at all, which is why I have no issue with 40k style where fortifications are part of the list. But when it is a mandatory part of the allegiance that is saying that there is a forge at every single battle, regardless of being on the defense or attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Personally I've always viewed it that the models we play with represent regiments and armies rather than actual numbers on the table. That way it makes sense that my unit of skaven is going toe to toe with Nagash. Because that 30 rat unit is in fact 300 or more. Of course such assumptions mean that there's variation - a troop unit might represent more than a hero; whilst different armies will be represented differently. One skaven will equal many more than one stormcast. It's a messy and not precise imagination.

Agreed.

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I am sure that Khornate warhorde will wait patiently while those Fyreslayers build a forge. Or those Beastmen launching an ambush. Or countless other armies that simply do not conduct war that way.

Unless the other army got there first and pitched camp so that they could define the battlefield against the approaching crazed Khorne Army. Or perhaps the lord of Khorne eyes the army and wishes to capture the relic forge and thus waits until it is built before launching an attack and hoping to steal it with an overwhelming victory. Perhaps only some of the Khorne army is there and the rest is still marching to join up. Even orks will wait for reinforcements or plot and scheme to ensure the battle goes in their favour.

In general you have to use a bit of imagination

My issue is with very single time a fyreslayers army fights a battle, they have a forge there. The forge must be carried around fully assembled, because if they are ambushed or forced into a battle they did not know was coming it is already there. If they want to launch an ambush, or reach a battle quickly, they never do so at a pace faster than the forge can be brought along. If they deploy though a tunnel to bypass enemy defenses, they make a tunnel large enough to pull the forge through and bring it up before launching the attack.

It is easy to justify that sort of thing for some battles but they have made it so that it is present for every battle, which does not make sense. Hopefully they will negate the problem by including a fluff element where the forge is summoned to the battlefield by magical means. In GWs defense, most of the terrain is like that. As it stands just the loonshrine and FEC throne are not.

EDIT: Geeze I had a nightmare getting the quote boxes to work right.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Personally I've always viewed it that the models we play with represent regiments and armies rather than actual numbers on the table. That way it makes sense that my unit of skaven is going toe to toe with Nagash. Because that 30 rat unit is in fact 300 or more. Of course such assumptions mean that there's variation - a troop unit might represent more than a hero; whilst different armies will be represented differently. One skaven will equal many more than one stormcast. It's a messy and not precise imagination.

Agreed.

I believe GW has said somewhere that what's taking place on the tabletop isn't the entire battle, but is focused on the heart of the conflict where the fighting is the thickest and where the heroes would be attempting to turn the tide of the battle in their favor.

 Ghaz wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Personally I've always viewed it that the models we play with represent regiments and armies rather than actual numbers on the table. That way it makes sense that my unit of skaven is going toe to toe with Nagash. Because that 30 rat unit is in fact 300 or more. Of course such assumptions mean that there's variation - a troop unit might represent more than a hero; whilst different armies will be represented differently. One skaven will equal many more than one stormcast. It's a messy and not precise imagination.

Agreed.

I believe GW has said somewhere that what's taking place on the tabletop isn't the entire battle, but is focused on the heart of the conflict where the fighting is the thickest and where the heroes would be attempting to turn the tide of the battle in their favor.

I subscribe to that as well. Between the two it makes things pretty reasonable in my head.

 Sarouan wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
The enrapturess is bigger than a daemonette. Not by a lot, but she is bigger.

They're actually the same height from base to head (not counting the horns or the harp).

So yes, the KoS from FW is about the same size than the new plastic one. They would be easily compatible.

The plastic KOS is about the same size as FW, and easily the tallest of the plastic greater daemons discounting the LOC's wings. Perhaps statuesque would be a more apt description. The new model isn't what I was expecting but will serve as a good base for conversion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dan2026 wrote:
The Forgeworld Keeper is a good design but the hair tentacles are a brittle fragile nightmare.
The new one at least looks like it is possible to transport.

Which is why I left them off mine and converted them into horns instead.

My only problem with Terrain Pieces is that they cost no points so they are basically mandatory rules for your army and unlike everything else (Subfactions, Alliance habilities, etc...) it forces you to make an extra purchase even if you don't want it or don't like it.

They should cost points to make them an actual choice just like Endless Spells. Or put them in a package with the Codex and sell them together.

Would people bother getting them if they weren't free? I'm not sure how often 40k army specific terrain gets used on the table, seeing as how it costs point. Tau tidewalls? Probably. The Chaos Stargate and Eldar portal? I dunno.

Compared to past AoS terrain, I actually like the Forge. Though, I feel like it's odd in an army dedicated to Grimnir, since Grugni is the smith god. I get that they forge runes and put them in their skin, but still. I hope Dispossessed will get something (I'm not counting on it)

 dan2026 wrote:
The Forgeworld Keeper is a good design but the hair tentacles are a brittle fragile nightmare.
The new one at least looks like it is possible to transport.

I have a 4" pluck-foam tray that I use for Herself. I used the plucked foam stacks to build a kind-of... cradle? I guess, for Her to lay on, face-down.

It works pretty well for me.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Is there any information as to how poseable the new KoS is?

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
The Forgeworld Keeper is a good design but the hair tentacles are a brittle fragile nightmare.
The new one at least looks like it is possible to transport.

I have a 4" pluck-foam tray that I use for Herself. I used the plucked foam stacks to build a kind-of... cradle? I guess, for Her to lay on, face-down.

It works pretty well for me.

I used to transport whole armies in a Monolith box (ironically not the Monolith that came in the box, though). When I made my Daemon Princess, she ended up taking up half of the box because I had to cut a custom tray for her.

I have a reasonably good feeling about the new Keeper, but only because I don't plan to use the tail. It might easily be the part that gets in the way the most. The claws give the model some width, but at least the sword seems to be held at such an angle that it doesn't contribute much to its depth. That's be nice for a change considering the trouble I had transporting some of GW's modern, large kits.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Is there any information as to how poseable the new KoS is?

None but the pictures provided from GW, as far as I know.

And to me it looks like you get to swap out the head or add a shield. If there's a named Keeper in the box there might be more varied additional parts that give the model a different silhouette, but for now it's best to assume that the Keeper we saw is all we're going to get in terms of pose.

GaroRobe wrote:
Would people bother getting them if they weren't free? I'm not sure how often 40k army specific terrain gets used on the table, seeing as how it costs point. Tau tidewalls? Probably. The Chaos Stargate and Eldar portal? I dunno.

Compared to past AoS terrain, I actually like the Forge. Though, I feel like it's odd in an army dedicated to Grimnir, since Grugni is the smith god. I get that they forge runes and put them in their skin, but still. I hope Dispossessed will get something (I'm not counting on it)

I dont know about the Chaos gate but the Eldar portal is a total waste of points. It's just decoration.

Weird as I find them at least AoS's scenery has a point.

 Overread wrote:
Personally I've always viewed it that the models we play with represent regiments and armies rather than actual numbers on the table. That way it makes sense that my unit of skaven is going toe to toe with Nagash. Because that 30 rat unit is in fact 300 or more. Of course such assumptions mean that there's variation - a troop unit might represent more than a hero; whilst different armies will be represented differently. One skaven will equal many more than one stormcast. It's a messy and not precise imagination.

That's how I viewed it with Warhammer Fantasy, since it never made much sense that, say, Karl Franz or Nagash would turn up for a battle with a hundred or so guys. And it didn't make sense that 20 guys would have to precisely wheel and couldn't see something behind them. So it made sense that each unit was actually many hundreds of soldiers. Though I'm not sure how that works with the heroes. Does the karl Franz model represent just Karl Franz, but he's so amazing that he can slaughter hundreds of men a turn? Or does it represent him and an honor guard (all also riding griffons)? I don't know. As you say, it is not precise.

But for Age of Sigmar, since they aren't ranked up and move around individually, I pictured it as being more of a 1:1 ratio. And that these were more like specific missions undertaken by a select group, possibly in the context of a full battle taking place around them or nearby.

Albino if you play TW Warhammer then - yeah Karl Franz is just so epic good he is mincing enemies and taking on armies!

this was once also in the rules that one regiment represents hundreds and not just 16 (scaling was ~ 1:20)

but this was removed later as the game grew larger
and as soon as the individual model gets more and more important, the scaling doesn't work any more as you don't get the feeling of it on the table

So for AoS the game feels more like a 1:1 and even if the rules would say something different the whole gameplay will never feel like commanding an army with thousands of soldiers.

 Overread wrote:
Albino if you play TW Warhammer then - yeah Karl Franz is just so epic good he is mincing enemies and taking on armies!

In the fluff that is how it works with characters too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GaroRobe wrote:
Would people bother getting them if they weren't free? I'm not sure how often 40k army specific terrain gets used on the table, seeing as how it costs point. Tau tidewalls? Probably. The Chaos Stargate and Eldar portal? I dunno.

Depends on the point cost, but I can say for sure I would pay points to bring the terrain for the armies I have. Now if it were something like 60 points per gnawhole probably not, but to my understanding some 40k terrain runs into the issue of just not being any good. AoS terrain is generally pretty useful, I can't think of an army that would not consider paying points for it. I would certainly buy extras with some armies if I had the option to pay points for thrm.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

GaroRobe wrote:
Would people bother getting them if they weren't free? I'm not sure how often 40k army specific terrain gets used on the table, seeing as how it costs point. Tau tidewalls? Probably. The Chaos Stargate and Eldar portal? I dunno.

Depends on the point cost, but I can say for sure I would pay points to bring the terrain for the armies I have. Now if it were something like 60 points per gnawhole probably not, but to my understanding some 40k terrain runs into the issue of just not being any good. AoS terrain is generally pretty useful, I can't think of an army that would not consider paying points for it. I would certainly buy extras with some armies if I had the option to pay points for thrm.

In 6th and 7th ed 40k I was the only one who used fully enclosed fortifications, and you had to have a lot of love for those the way they were for whatever reason designed to be death traps to badly armored troops who would die inside their bunker quicker than outside, while being perfectly safe for troops that had no need of the extra protection of the bunker whatsoever. I didn't believe it possible, but this kind of backward design got worse when Knights got their garage and you paid points to actively make your army worse when you wouldn't even take the thing if it was free.

As such I'm inclined to believe that the use of terrain is firmly tied to its rules and points only deciding how much of a benefit it is, rather than whether it's worthwhile or not (unless of course it's stupidly overpriced, which in an age where GW adjusts points costs shouldn't last too long).

I'm not a fan of free stuff because even if everyone gets something for free, some things will inevitably be better than others and those will unfairly benefit more.

It's been pointed out before that this free faction terrain approach makes GW more money than when they have you pay points, as is currently the case in 40k. I wonder if GW is actively trying to figure out which method is the most profitable by trying one approach in AoS and the other in 40k, or if they think the difference in popularity let's them get away with taking a more reasonable approach in 40k while having to offer more incentives to prop up AoS sales.

I would love to see Duradin next week with Slaanesh released (or at least up for pre-order) for Easter.

It would be a fitting time for the 'rebirth' of a God.

 Souleater wrote:
I would love to see Duradin next week with Slaanesh released (or at least up for pre-order) for Easter.

It would be a fitting time for the 'rebirth' of a God.

I for sure hope we will not have to wait June (!) for the Slaanesh release...

Well Easter is 21st April this year.

It would be great if GW can release out two Battletomes a month for AoS. If they could do that and keep it up for most of the year they'd pretty much clear the Battletome Backlog of factions without and with old ones

So much arguing over army terrain pieces. If you don't like them, don't use them; simple. If you still want their effect, work it out with your opponent that you will use a poker chip to mark the location of what would be your terrain piece for game purposes. If you are playing a tournament that demands you bring the terrain piece or you don't get the effect, tough. If your opponents in casual play demand wysiwyg, find someone else to play, or conform. There are lots of game systems that I don't care for, so I don't play them.

 Geifer wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

GaroRobe wrote:
Would people bother getting them if they weren't free? I'm not sure how often 40k army specific terrain gets used on the table, seeing as how it costs point. Tau tidewalls? Probably. The Chaos Stargate and Eldar portal? I dunno.

Depends on the point cost, but I can say for sure I would pay points to bring the terrain for the armies I have. Now if it were something like 60 points per gnawhole probably not, but to my understanding some 40k terrain runs into the issue of just not being any good. AoS terrain is generally pretty useful, I can't think of an army that would not consider paying points for it. I would certainly buy extras with some armies if I had the option to pay points for thrm.

In 6th and 7th ed 40k I was the only one who used fully enclosed fortifications, and you had to have a lot of love for those the way they were for whatever reason designed to be death traps to badly armored troops who would die inside their bunker quicker than outside, while being perfectly safe for troops that had no need of the extra protection of the bunker whatsoever. I didn't believe it possible, but this kind of backward design got worse when Knights got their garage and you paid points to actively make your army worse when you wouldn't even take the thing if it was free.

As such I'm inclined to believe that the use of terrain is firmly tied to its rules and points only deciding how much of a benefit it is, rather than whether it's worthwhile or not (unless of course it's stupidly overpriced, which in an age where GW adjusts points costs shouldn't last too long).

I'm not a fan of free stuff because even if everyone gets something for free, some things will inevitably be better than others and those will unfairly benefit more.

It's been pointed out before that this free faction terrain approach makes GW more money than when they have you pay points, as is currently the case in 40k. I wonder if GW is actively trying to figure out which method is the most profitable by trying one approach in AoS and the other in 40k, or if they think the difference in popularity let's them get away with taking a more reasonable approach in 40k while having to offer more incentives to prop up AoS sales.

Considering AoS is now at #2 on the ICV2 chart, right below 40k, I doubt it needs much propping up anymore.

Aye but GW has to maintain that position not just reach it once. Maintaining it is where the hard part comes - its why they are pushing for all Battletomes; why they are pushing new mechanic ideas to give it identity in a market flooded with other games.

I think it is undeniable that GW sells more terrain by making it mandatory. But the quality of the game draws in more players, who buy entire armies. If mandatory terrain irks people enough it could result in less sales overall, though obviously that is impossible to prove definitively.

The problem on the 40k side seems to always be the terrain not being useful, something GW has avoided with AoS by providing some well designed rules that provide a solid benefit. But making it free is essentially making it mandatory, and is giving armies with it a free buff over armies without. If all the terrain pieces were given a (reasonable) point cost people would still use them, and perhaps even buy multiples.

On the flip side if people felt the terrain pieces weren't worth their points, they'd never buy them. Making them free pretty much makes them compulsory since you can't get much more optimal than free point cost for free benefits.

Some sales would happen purely for display purposes even if they had no warscroll at all. If they had a points cost that was too high there would still be sales for the above reason, and to players who want it for fun/fluff/collection purposes. Almost certainly a minority but a not-insignificant amount of sales would be present even if the point cost made it terrible. I know the Eldar and Ork terrain pieces are considered hot garbage in gameplay terms but still sell some amount.

With terrain it is also relatively safe to lean on the low side of points, because terrain cannot really be 'spammed' in a conventional sense since it only acts in a support role (though there are some with a bit of exception). They could throw a 40 point tag on each piece of terrain, or 60 if it throws out MWs, see what people take, and balance from there.

With the history of trying concepts in Fantasy first I wouldn't be surprised to see the mostly terrible 40k terrain switched to a free if warlords detachment is battleforged system.

There's no way they haven't noticed that points free and beneficial terrain is bought by every AoS player with access while outside of display board/neutral populating tables terrain purchases you don't see the Racial terrain kits anywhere near as often in 40k.

I don't think free terrain is going anywhere, but hey, I can hope

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think free terrain is going anywhere, but hey, I can hope

Yeah your approach would be preferable but the proof is in the auto sale status they've achieved in AoS.

I purchased a couple of Citadel Woods for the trees for stuff for my Sylvaneth, but then traced the base into a dozen neoprene pieces for the actual Wyldwoods. Sylvaneth are definitely on the extreme side for army terrain though.

A lot of people talk about terrain not fitting ambush scenarios but all the matched play battleplans are specifically for pitched battles. In other words battles where fyreslayers would have time to build a forge.