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.

epronovost wrote:

I fairly certain many share this opinion though I will have to disagee. I always "disliked" the idea of special character as "just like regular army leader, but with "a fancier sword and helmet". If they are supposed to be exceptionnaly important and powerful you might as well make them look important and powerful so that even an idiot could understand what they are. Of course, this is mostly true for what I would call "faction leader" the "face" of a faction in the cosmic struggle that is supposed to be Age of Sigmar while other special character with a much more classic and subdued appearence might represent a slightly improved or different version of a normal heroic unit. I like the idea of each faction having some sort of "faction leader" that is relevent at the level of gods, demigods and cosmic monsters.

Each to their own.

Though I should say that I don't mind some special characters getting this treatment. What makes me sigh is when *every* special character in a given faction is either massive or if there's some contrived excuse to put them on big monsters.

epronovost wrote:

That I think is the result of expanding the Fantasy universe from a "world size conflict" to Age of Sigmar where the size of the conflict is cosmic between planet's worth of people and countries. The leaders and special heroes of such gigantic theatre of operation are closer to gods than anything else so it should show in their abilities. We went from Tolkien/Weiss style of heroes to Homeric ones. Just take Neferata, she used to be an ancient thing in the world of Fantasy, but since she's still alive in the Age of Sigmar, she is immeasurably older now than she was. She used to be a few thousand years old (and this was a lot), now she is virtually millions of years old. That's a lot of time to acquire an extra-fancy hat.

To be honest, I think this is one of the things that just turns me off the setting. It seems like moving into the whole Dragonball Z thing where half the characters can casually destroy entire planets - and at that point you have to wonder what they even need armies for.

 Niiai wrote:
So, for the case of brainstorming, what are potensial new order and death armies?

...

Were wolves

I'd certainly love to see some nice, infantry-sized werewolf models. As it stands, all the ones I've seen are either 'nicely detailed but massive' or 'small but atrociously detailed/proportioned'.

Though this is GW we're talking about so I imagine the 'were' aspect would be lost on them and we'd instead get werewolves the size and shape of Mountain Giants.


Anyway, much as I'd like to see werewolves, I do have to wonder whether they'd actually have a niche. From a gameplay perspective, it seems like they wouldn't really be much different from Ghoul Kings - regenerating models with lots of claw attacks. I get that the flavour is different and that you could probably mix up the rules a little, but I'm still wondering whether there would be enough difference to actually warrant making a whole new faction.

The other aspect is that, much as I like werewolves, I'm not sure I'd want an army of them. Back in WHFB I'd have loved to see werewolves added to the Vampire Counts book - but as a small part of a big whole. This is something I think GW has missed by trying to split most of the old factions based on keywords (so Ghouls are now separate from Vampires who are separate from Spirits etc.). I'd have loved to have had an army led by a Werewolf Lord and his pack of werewolves but I wouldn't have wanted the entire army to be nothing but werewolves. I'd still have wanted to include other stuff - whether other infantry skeletons/zombies/ghouls or larger stuff like Terrorgheists.

I mean, I'd love werewolves army. It's one classic monster that has been woefully underserved by GW.

Cronch wrote:
I mean, I'd love werewolves army. It's one classic monster that has been woefully underserved by GW.

Out of interest, would you want a fully-werewolf army or would you want to see other stuff like werebears as well?

I wouldn't mind werebears etc, as long as they're not just another brand of chaos. An army of werebears would be just as fine (though I feel werebears are a bit too close to just bears standing on hindlegs in terms of looks?)

Cronch wrote:
I wouldn't mind werebears etc, as long as they're not just another brand of chaos.

I'd certainly hope not.

Cronch wrote:
An army of werebears would be just as fine (though I feel werebears are a bit too close to just bears standing on hindlegs in terms of looks?)

I was more thinking of a were-army, with werewolves, werebears, wererats, werebats etc. filling different roles (and to make it a little less monotone).

However, your point about werebears being difficult to visually differentiate from bears on their hind legs is fair. And now that I think about it, wererats would probably be too close to Skaven and werebats too close to vargheists (or whatever they're called now).

Yeah, maybe just stick with the werewolves.

Or why not a druid/shaman style army? Units that are Ursans (werebears) and all the different types, wolves, bats, birds, etc... WOuld fit as a destruction army (they are all about nature and having nature reclaim the land and fix the magic, etc..)

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or why not a druid/shaman style army? Units that are Ursans (werebears) and all the different types, wolves, bats, birds, etc... WOuld fit as a destruction army (they are all about nature and having nature reclaim the land and fix the magic, etc..)

Personally l prefer the more gothic/horror werewolf theme (so I'd much prefer to see them under the same banner as vampires, zombies etc.), but a druid theme could certainly work.

That said, wouldn't a druid/shaman army be more suited to Order - alongside Sylvaneth and whatever is left of Wood Elves?

 vipoid wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or why not a druid/shaman style army? Units that are Ursans (werebears) and all the different types, wolves, bats, birds, etc... WOuld fit as a destruction army (they are all about nature and having nature reclaim the land and fix the magic, etc..)

Personally l prefer the more gothic/horror werewolf theme (so I'd much prefer to see them under the same banner as vampires, zombies etc.), but a druid theme could certainly work.

That said, wouldn't a druid/shaman army be more suited to Order - alongside Sylvaneth and whatever is left of Wood Elves?

Honestly it could go anyway, as there are lots of lore for shamans with cult like groups, even some that are cannibals, with blood sacrifices, etc..

I would LOVE a vampire army back for AoS (A true vampire army) as well, so if we need to we could just make them part of vampires. Tho with the new goblin models, and Deepkin, etc.. (their new art styles) i think a destruction style shaman esk sstyle army would be right up GW's ally.

I would rather see them in Destruction, we need something, anything to make it not ork-only club (with ogres kinda duct-taped on) and an army all about hunting packs, like fantasy tyranids (but with personality) would be a good starting point.

Cronch wrote:
I would rather see them in Destruction, we need something, anything to make it not ork-only club (with ogres kinda duct-taped on) and an army all about hunting packs, like fantasy tyranids (but with personality) would be a good starting point.

The upcoming Sons of Behemat should be in the Destruction Grand Alliance.

I'd love a were-army in destruction with a focus on humanoids, were creatures and creatures of the forests. I was always sad that Wood Elves never really used anything but eagles and the odd stag and you had to way WAY back to find the wild-cats (as in rouge trader back).

Kurnothi might take that pathway, but then again I'm still of the opinion that Warcry Warbands are NOT predictors for armies.

vipoid wrote:

Cronch wrote:
I mean, I'd love werewolves army. It's one classic monster that has been woefully underserved by GW.

Out of interest, would you want a fully-werewolf army or would you want to see other stuff like werebears as well?

Speaking of werebears...

 Overread wrote:
I'd love a were-army in destruction with a focus on humanoids, were creatures and creatures of the forests. I was always sad that Wood Elves never really used anything but eagles and the odd stag and you had to way WAY back to find the wild-cats (as in rouge trader back).

It wasn't until Araloth that we even saw hunting hawks again, and that was a herald of the fact that they were cutting the "forest spirits" element out of the Wood Elves into Sylvaneth.

Kurnothi might take that pathway, but then again I'm still of the opinion that Warcry Warbands are NOT predictors for armies.

I wouldn't look for anything too 'natural' in Kurnothi(who aren't available in Warcry, btw, but are in Underworlds) when they finally do hit. The intention seems to be adding a non-treant element to the Sylvaneth down the road.

If there is to be were-wolves, why not put them as a new unit in Beast of Chaos. They would fit nicely in company of other beastmen. I wouldn't do the others (except perhapse were-bear or were-tiger) if only because were-rats are basically Skaven, were-crocodile are Seraphon, were-eagle are harpies.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or why not a druid/shaman style army? Units that are Ursans (werebears) and all the different types, wolves, bats, birds, etc... WOuld fit as a destruction army (they are all about nature and having nature reclaim the land and fix the magic, etc..)

I'd put them into Sylvaneth. No need to have multiple nature armies.

 Ghaz wrote:

vipoid wrote:

Cronch wrote:
I mean, I'd love werewolves army. It's one classic monster that has been woefully underserved by GW.

Out of interest, would you want a fully-werewolf army or would you want to see other stuff like werebears as well?

Speaking of werebears...

GW should totally look back to the old dogs of war for inspiration these days. Personally I think the Greco-Roman or Spanish Conquistador style pikemen suit aos better than the empire range.

Also correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t there a ‘beast elves’ faction in Underworlds?

You're thinking of Saketh's Wild Hunt? They're Kurnothi - fae folk, but not specifically elven. It's a lion, a few satyrs and a centaur.

Werewolves in Warhammer are a Chaos thing--Skin Wolves. They actually had FW minis, and a number of unit options in Total War. Doubt that will change.

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or why not a druid/shaman style army? Units that are Ursans (werebears) and all the different types, wolves, bats, birds, etc... WOuld fit as a destruction army (they are all about nature and having nature reclaim the land and fix the magic, etc..)

I'd put them into Sylvaneth. No need to have multiple nature armies.

But thats not the same thing at all....

 joewarhost wrote:
You're thinking of Saketh's Wild Hunt? They're Kurnothi - fae folk, but not specifically elven. It's a lion, a few satyrs and a centaur.

Skaeth's Wild Hunt is an unknown quantity. All we know at this point is that they're called the Kurnothi and they're aligned with the Sylvaneth, since Alarielle has Kurnoth's spear.

 joewarhost wrote:
You're thinking of Saketh's Wild Hunt? They're Kurnothi - fae folk, but not specifically elven. It's a lion, a few satyrs and a centaur.

That’s the one, yes. I know very little of them but I like the look of them. Even if they couldn’t be fleshed out into a stand alone faction they would make an interesting way to expand the Sylvaneth. I think there’s enough order factions atm anyway...

1) Greco-Roman style.order humans from Azyr, to.give the stormcast cultural context.

2)Destruction humans

3)Fimir!

4)Serpentmen of slaanesh (along with Slaanesh humans)

5)If no serpent men ofbslaanesh proper, I would still love to see a take on chaos lizardmen. The don't necessarily have to be fallen members of the seraphon, though it.would be pretty.cool if they were.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or why not a druid/shaman style army? Units that are Ursans (werebears) and all the different types, wolves, bats, birds, etc... WOuld fit as a destruction army (they are all about nature and having nature reclaim the land and fix the magic, etc..)

I'd put them into Sylvaneth. No need to have multiple nature armies.

But thats not the same thing at all....

An army of people who turn into beasts of various kinds and an army of elf trees aren't similar? I know Sylvaneth aren't meant to be elves any more but that doesn't fly when they're lead by someone who is mainly elven.

Problem is that Alarielle isn't an elf.

She's a goddess. The Sylvaneth are made in the image she chose to make them, with only the Tree-Revenants taking a form similar to the "guardians of old"(read: Elves).

 Kanluwen wrote:
Problem is that Alarielle isn't an elf.

She's a goddess. The Sylvaneth are made in the image she chose to make them, with only the Tree-Revenants taking a form similar to the "guardians of old"(read: Elves).

She's an ELF goddess though. Look at her, she's very clearly more elf than tree person. You could tell me she's an elf with a magic prosthetic and magic flying and I wouldn't question it for a second. Tree people are ruled by an elf for some reason.

Read the lore and find out.

It's explained fairly well.

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Or why not a druid/shaman style army? Units that are Ursans (werebears) and all the different types, wolves, bats, birds, etc... WOuld fit as a destruction army (they are all about nature and having nature reclaim the land and fix the magic, etc..)

I'd put them into Sylvaneth. No need to have multiple nature armies.

But thats not the same thing at all....

An army of people who turn into beasts of various kinds and an army of elf trees aren't similar? I know Sylvaneth aren't meant to be elves any more but that doesn't fly when they're lead by someone who is mainly elven.

But they are not tree's tho..... do you know shaman/were lore at all? A shaman is not a tree at all, but a someone that can control spirits and channel their essence into them to use their power and turning into that spirit. The mostly control animals, but also demons, other people, etc... There is no ents or elves.

pm713 wrote:
Tree people are ruled by an elf for some reason.

Because most tree people used to be elves or were a product of elven magic? It makes sense to me.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Read the lore and find out.

It's explained fairly well.

Yeah, they flesh things out and fully explain that whole bit in the fluff.

epronovost wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Tree people are ruled by an elf for some reason.

Because most tree people used to be elves or were a product of elven magic? It makes sense to me.

Ehhh...not really.

The Tree Revenants are literally the only ones where that might be the case, with some wiggle room thanks to Alarielle having used potential "soulstuff" from Slaanesh.
Dryads("the Forest Folk"), Treelords, and the like are sentient entities that existed independent of Alarielle.