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.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
I wasn't talking about Chaos Marine champions, I was talking about his Fantasy champions like Kaaleb Dark. Malal also had a tendency to prefer actively attacking Chaos over others where as Skaven more often than not actively avoided the Wastes and Chaos when given the chance. The only real similarity in Fantasy was the self-destructive nature.

And that self-destructive nature is what I was mainly referring to. How much better to represent the self-destructive nature of Chaos in a God than the Horned Rat?

The Skaven gnawed from underneath civilization, but if they rose up in a town already overrun by Khorne berzerkers, they'd fight them just as much as they would have fought the Empire's Halberdiers.

Depends on the situation. More often than not, they'd wait until the threat was gone before picking over the ruins if they hadn't had the time to try their various plots to weaken the enemy first. Or they'd wait until both forces were exhausted from fighting each other to ambush them both. Skaven uprisings only happened after years of planning and implementation of schemes or as a result of very good opportunities presenting themselves. A Chaos horde showing up where they planned to attack? They'd hide away until the heavy action was done.Them being cowards despite their big talk has always been part of their cartoon villain personality. This is a race that has been gaslighting the entire Empire for thousands of years so that any attacks they do are a complete surprise. The entire reason their activities in the End Times are noteworthy is because it's literally the first time they mass attacked as a race with almost no preparation because the Horned Rat himself showed and said to.

Seraphon really did get the short end of the stick with their update. Like, thank goodness we got the 'coalesced' as part of their lore, but wow.

We need a lot moved to plastic and a lot of old models updated. A wonky pyramid isn't what the Seraphon needed...

But, here's hoping in a couple years we'll have saurus knights riding actually scary velociraptor-like dinosaurs instead of wonky barney-beasts.

The funny thing is that the Saurus Knight kits were just like a few months before the Dark Elf kits came out and those look AMAZING in comparison. Too bad it's double GW's pleasure to mix them up.

drbored wrote:
Seraphon really did get the short end of the stick with their update. Like, thank goodness we got the 'coalesced' as part of their lore, but wow.

We need a lot moved to plastic and a lot of old models updated. A wonky pyramid isn't what the Seraphon needed...

But, here's hoping in a couple years we'll have saurus knights riding actually scary velociraptor-like dinosaurs instead of wonky barney-beasts.

Seraphon are only lucky in that we kept most our range.

But yeah, we're...suffering.

Saurus, Skinks, Slann, Salamanders, Chameleon Skinks and Kroak all date back to 6th edition and are pushing 18 years old. (6th ed Army Book - May/June 2003)
Our next update has gone mostly OOP (the Skink Chiefs and Tehehauin) save a single 'Priest' model, Scar Vet on Cold One and the Saurus Knights. (Lustria supplement - 6th ed - May 2005)
Then our Kroxigor, Razordons, Temple Guard, the Eternity Warden and Stegadon date to the 7th ed release (7th ed army book - February 2009).
And finally 8th ed - our last true update gave up the current Terradons/Ripperdactyls, Carnosaur/Troglodon, Bastiladon and the plastic characters and remaining characters are all leftover from the 8th ed release. (8th ed army book - August 2013)

Fun fact - our Terradons have been updated with EVERY release in Fantasy. I honestly don't know why. 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th all have different Terradons. GW have a Terradon fetish it seems. (My personal favourites are the 6th ed. Terradons - I'm even using one as a mount for an Anvil of Apotheosis Skink Herald character for a friend group's narrative campaign - along with the Underworlds Priest.)

Cold Ones were updated once from 6th ed. to Lustria.

Temple Guard and Kroxigor were updated from 5th ed to 6th and then again in 7th. -2 updates.

Stegadon has one update from 5th's metal version to the plastic. It was one of GW's 'big new plastics' at the time, hyped up more than the Giant was and now it's sadly small.

The Underworlds Warband is the first 'new' Lizardmen we've seen outside of Blood Bowl for 8 years nearly!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
The funny thing is that the Saurus Knight kits were just like a few months before the Dark Elf kits came out and those look AMAZING in comparison. Too bad it's double GW's pleasure to mix them up.

Not quite true.

Our Cold Ones date from the Lustria release during 6th edition Fantasy.

Dark Elf Cold Ones date from their 7th ed release.

There's a 3 year gap between the two.

Sadly, it's always this way with factions that need an update but don't get it.

They suffer for long stretches of time, sometimes getting overlooked for two or three editions until finally their time comes.

When it does come, they get a full range refresh and there is much rejoicing, but UNTIL that happens, it's a lot of 'blah'.

Like, look at the new Soulblight. Nobody was talking about vampires until the vampire lord got leaked. Now, people are more worried that Cursed City is going to sell out in 3 minutes and they won't be able to get their hands on new skeletons and vampire models.

For many of those factions, it's just dribs and drabs not "full refresh".

drbored wrote:

Like, look at the new Soulblight. Nobody was talking about vampires until the vampire lord got leaked. Now, people are more worried that Cursed City is going to sell out in 3 minutes and they won't be able to get their hands on new skeletons and vampire models.

Well soulblights had got lots of heavy rumours before. And cursed city isn't limited amount box set so at worst you have to wait for more boxes be produced. But it won't be sold out and then gone for good(this been stated by GW itself)

DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
The funny thing is that the Saurus Knight kits were just like a few months before the Dark Elf kits came out and those look AMAZING in comparison. Too bad it's double GW's pleasure to mix them up.

Not quite true.

Our Cold Ones date from the Lustria release during 6th edition Fantasy.

Dark Elf Cold Ones date from their 7th ed release.

There's a 3 year gap between the two.

I remember them being closer together for some reason. Which is why it came as such a surprise at how derpy the Saurus Knight mounts are. Could be a Mandella affect.

What I am really curious about is if they'll keep the double turn. Really no other mechanic for AOS is as polarizing as the double turn.

I reconnected with some of the AOS people in my area so if there's a new edition I may try to rally the community since it's been scattered by 40k yet again which has taken over yet another FLGS. Has to be a new edition though.

 Charistoph wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
The funny thing is that the Saurus Knight kits were just like a few months before the Dark Elf kits came out and those look AMAZING in comparison. Too bad it's double GW's pleasure to mix them up.

Not quite true.

Our Cold Ones date from the Lustria release during 6th edition Fantasy.

Dark Elf Cold Ones date from their 7th ed release.

There's a 3 year gap between the two.

I remember them being closer together for some reason. Which is why it came as such a surprise at how derpy the Saurus Knight mounts are. Could be a Mandella affect.

To be honest, the plastic Saurus Cavalry look worse than the Chunky Moo Cow Cold Ones too.

They’re very blocky. And what is going on with those forelimbs?

Wayniac wrote:
What I am really curious about is if they'll keep the double turn. Really no other mechanic for AOS is as polarizing as the double turn.

I reconnected with some of the AOS people in my area so if there's a new edition I may try to rally the community since it's been scattered by 40k yet again which has taken over yet another FLGS. Has to be a new edition though.

I'd love for it to shift to being more optional, rather than something that must be used. Missions that don't use it, missions that do.

It's just kind of a mess. Thankfully, with the ugoigo of AoS assaults, alpha strikes aren't as much of an issue as they are in 40k at the very least.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
The funny thing is that the Saurus Knight kits were just like a few months before the Dark Elf kits came out and those look AMAZING in comparison. Too bad it's double GW's pleasure to mix them up.

Not quite true.

Our Cold Ones date from the Lustria release during 6th edition Fantasy.

Dark Elf Cold Ones date from their 7th ed release.

There's a 3 year gap between the two.

I remember them being closer together for some reason. Which is why it came as such a surprise at how derpy the Saurus Knight mounts are. Could be a Mandella affect.

To be honest, the plastic Saurus Cavalry look worse than the Chunky Moo Cow Cold Ones too.

They’re very blocky. And what is going on with those forelimbs?

The issue is 100% with the mounts rather than the riders.

Hells, you could even argue that the heads are ok...the bodies however....the forelimbs in particular.

MY old Lizard army had a number of units of Cold Ones. By far my favourite were the old Cow One Riders...mounted on Dark Elf Cold Ones. It involves clipping and pinning...and the old Cow One Riders are a lot further forward than their plastic coutnerparts.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I hope we get a god of the Lizardmen of somekind, the fact that we don't have a main center piece character for the lizardmen is a shame. Like a Serpent creature god would be awesome.

Well looks like you got your centerpiece in Kroak. Now how does he relate to Kragnos? Odd to feature Seraphon in Belakor as faction but have Kroak in Kragnos.

 Popsghostly wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I hope we get a god of the Lizardmen of somekind, the fact that we don't have a main center piece character for the lizardmen is a shame. Like a Serpent creature god would be awesome.

Well looks like you got your centerpiece in Kroak. Now how does he relate to Kragnos? Odd to feature Seraphon in Belakor as faction but have Kroak in Kragnos.

Kroak has a part in the Seraphon portion of Belakor's story, but looks like that was a build up to his major part in Kragnos.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Popsghostly wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I hope we get a god of the Lizardmen of somekind, the fact that we don't have a main center piece character for the lizardmen is a shame. Like a Serpent creature god would be awesome.

Well looks like you got your centerpiece in Kroak. Now how does he relate to Kragnos? Odd to feature Seraphon in Belakor as faction but have Kroak in Kragnos.

Kroak has a part in the Seraphon portion of Belakor's story, but looks like that was a build up to his major part in Kragnos.

I mean, the video for Kroak does have Morathi straight up approaching him and respectfully (well, as respectful as an Elf gets) asking for his assistance.

The Seraphon element in Be'lakor seems relatively minor - it seems that the WD Flashpoint is there to fill in the gaps and flesh it out a bit.

Supposed 3.0 leaks from somoene who has seen the book (via someone he knows who is a playtester). Not sure of this guy's cred but apparently he leaked LRL and Sons and was correct:

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crVCn364tXk

Summary:

I doubt they'll remove battalions "from matched play", but maybe they'll not be Organized Play legal.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I doubt they'll remove battalions "from matched play", but maybe they'll not be Organized Play legal.

I mean that's basically the same thing...

Wayniac wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I doubt they'll remove battalions "from matched play", but maybe they'll not be Organized Play legal.

I mean that's basically the same thing...

It's not though? Organized Play is separate from Matched Play, because you can do narrative or open play tournaments too.

Matched Play exists because some people don't understand how to play things without points or how to self-moderate and need their hands held.

If they remove Warscroll Battalions from the books and add "generic battalions" though...then what the hell is the point?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I doubt they'll remove battalions "from matched play", but maybe they'll not be Organized Play legal.

I mean that's basically the same thing...

It's not though? Organized Play is separate from Matched Play, because you can do narrative or open play tournaments too.

Matched Play exists because some people don't understand how to play things without points or how to self-moderate and need their hands held.

If they remove Warscroll Battalions from the books and add "generic battalions" though...then what the hell is the point?

Yes but you know as well as I do that if something is "tournament standard" it becomes standard for everything. Even if Organized is different, as soon as tournaments say "no battalions" then "no battalions" becomes a default rule for any game using Matched Play; sure you may have the rare thing that says okay sure but all across the game the assumption is going to be battalions are not allowed.

I do find it a little odd that they'd do that, but let's face it most battalions are either unplayable garbage or stupidly OP.

Which, again, goes to "what the hell is the point?" if they're adding generic ones into the core book while invalidating the ones from the army books.

Additionally, that's why I said that organized play is a distinct entity. Someone whining that "you can't use that in matched play!" while it's specifically applicable to "organized play"? They won't have a daggone leg to stand on, RAW. And I will revel in their tears from that if it is the case. I'm absolutely sick and tired of "bUt ToUrNaMeNtS!!11!1" being used to set the standard for pick-up games. If I wanted to play in a damn tournament, I'll play in a damn tournament.

I'd also argue that unless they are going to redo the classifications for most armies; then the battlebook ones will be too basic. There's only 4 generic slots in AoS. Leader, troop, monster and artillery.

With a lot of armies often lacking anything in artillery and a good few having monster leaders if they've got any monsters of their own.

Eg Slaanesh only has Leaders and Troops. There are no monsters (outside of leaders) and no artillery to speak of.



Of troops there's just regular and battleline so that's 5 different classifications of which 2 are only present for some armies.





That said GW new editions are often a case of "what's the point" in so much as many times they just shake things up because they can rather than because its needed.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which, again, goes to "what the hell is the point?" if they're adding generic ones into the core book while invalidating the ones from the army books.

To make you buy new books, of course lol

 Overread wrote:
I'd also argue that unless they are going to redo the classifications for most armies; then the battlebook ones will be too basic. There's only 4 generic slots in AoS. Leader, troop, monster and artillery.

Do you mean the generic ones from the core rulebook? Because that's supposedly where the "leader plus battleline" stuff is going in.

The battlebook ones are highly specific.

Honestly, I think it'd be cool if they used the classifications as they do in the GHB for the open play force generator. They won't, of course, but it would add some more variety.

Those are:

Horde = Unit of up to 20 models w/Wound of 1 and Save of 6+ or '-'

Regular = Unit of up to 10 models w/Wound of 1 and save of 3/4/5+

Elite = Unit of up to 5 models w/Wounds of 2-3

Guard = Unit of up to 3 models w/Wounds of 4-5

Linebreaker = Unit of 1 non-HERO model w/Wounds of 6-9

Gargantuan = Unit of 1 non-HERO model w/Wounds of 10+

Champion = HERO that is not a MONSTER

Conqueror = Any HERO

I assume they'd ignore the "up to X models" part since that would be based on the points. But wishful thinking anyway.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I'd also argue that unless they are going to redo the classifications for most armies; then the battlebook ones will be too basic. There's only 4 generic slots in AoS. Leader, troop, monster and artillery.

Do you mean the generic ones from the core rulebook? Because that's supposedly where the "leader plus battleline" stuff is going in.

The battlebook ones are highly specific.

Yeah I meant the core book ones - at least according ot the rumour


I agree the battletome ones are very specific. Though I'd argue many have a few waste ones. GW likes ot throw "this one costs 5K just in min unit costs" and " this one allies two random armies together". So sometimes not only are some weaker and some stronger; but often as not one or two are almost useless for most games .

Either way even IF they invalidate all battalions and only have the book ones, how long before they start adding them back to battletomes, thereby ruining the game's balance yet again by changing design paradigms midway through?

I would have thought if they were taking them out then the new DoK and Slaanesh tomes wouldn't have had them in

 Overread wrote:
I would have thought if they were taking them out then the new DoK and Slaanesh tomes wouldn't have had them in

Well the current rumor seems to indicate that they just won't have Pitched Battle profiles. So they won't be "gone" technically just not valid for Matched Play. Which will make them not exist, but not by design.

Honestly the only thing I want to move out of "matched play" is the doubleturn or turn priority as they like to brand it as