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.

leopard wrote:
so essentially zero point taking the larger base monsters if there are Empire players about?

Not really. Its pretty much impossible to one-shot a monster with a cannon. Most seem to do D3+1, while monsters tend to have about 6 wounds, and ridden mosters add to the character's wounds.

pgmason wrote:

leopard wrote:
so essentially zero point taking the larger base monsters if there are Empire players about?

Not really. Its pretty much impossible to one-shot a monster with a cannon. Most seem to do D3+1, while monsters tend to have about 6 wounds, and ridden mosters add to the character's wounds.

The obvious retort is: Have you ever seen an Empire player field less than two cannons? Because as an Empire player myself, I don't believe I have.

Does it still differentiate between rider and monstrous mount and, if so, does a rider's invunerable save translate to its mount?

 BertBert wrote:
Does it still differentiate between rider and monstrous mount and, if so, does a rider's invunerable save translate to its mount?

Monster mounts now add T and W to the rider and so far I have managed to recognized a big problem in this game and that is dragons. They are simply way too strong.
Lord on star dragon or chaos dragon is at the minimum T6 W10 AS2+ WS5+ fly(10) and deals at a minimum 10 S6 AP2 attacks. That is with NO magic items taken.

With fly 10 inches they can pick and choose their fights and are simply too strong to bring down. They do cost around 500 points but that is 500 points that they deny from their opponent and also means they can bring 2 dragons in 2000pts list.

Most armies have no way to deal with this. And cannons will not help you. This is looking troubling.

 kodos wrote:
like nobody thinks you can only be a Harry Potter fan (or like reading the books) if you agree with every single statement of JK and as a true fan never admit that she is "bad" but must defend her.

You'd be surprised how many people think the opposite of that: That by liking something, you automatically agree with everything the author stands for.

This happens with fictional things as well. I've seen people accuse others of excusing mass genocide because they like Darth Vader.

We live in an age where people are incapable of separating things for any reason, and an absence of explicit condemnation implies the opposite: Total support. The "Why aren't you wearing the ribbon?" scene from Seinfeld is a reality these days.

The Doombell no longer ranking up is ironic as I'm pretty certain it was moved from 50 to a 60 wide base specifically to rank up in a 20mm regiment.

We have no clue how the doombell will work so maybe pump the brakes a little

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

pgmason wrote:

leopard wrote:
so essentially zero point taking the larger base monsters if there are Empire players about?

Not really. Its pretty much impossible to one-shot a monster with a cannon. Most seem to do D3+1, while monsters tend to have about 6 wounds, and ridden mosters add to the character's wounds.

The obvious retort is: Have you ever seen an Empire player field less than two cannons? Because as an Empire player myself, I don't believe I have.

I prefer a mix. One cannon, 2 mortars and a hellblaster. (With the hellblaster first on the list to get cut. Not sure I like its misfire potential)

Grail Seeker wrote:
I doubt player populations will end up different than what they were in previous editions.

Empire, and High Elves will be the largest. Bretonnia will eventually die out to one of the smaller armies due to being more niche than the Empire, and It doesn't look like Tomb Kings are going to make up a large amount of the player base either.

Tomb Kings were doomed as soon as they decided it was better to make a centerpiece model for them (even though they already had a freaking nice one with the necrosphinx/necrocat) instead of replacing these horribibles chariot and base skeletons. So pissed, How cool would chariots be with 2023 technology :( ?

And when TK sales fail, GW will, for a second time, conclude that people hate TK, not that people hate skeletons from 1998 (that were worse on the day they came out then the kit they replaced, somehow)

Maybe they’re planning to replace them just haven’t gotten there yet before gauging how successful old world will be received.

Sounds like every army will need a centerpiece model to compete with the big stuff like dragons other armies get. Or cannons.

Curious to see if a dragon charges, kills the entire front rank (and supporting if that’s possible), will the unit stick or bounce.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 kodos wrote:
like nobody thinks you can only be a Harry Potter fan (or like reading the books) if you agree with every single statement of JK and as a true fan never admit that she is "bad" but must defend her.

You'd be surprised how many people think the opposite of that: That by liking something, you automatically agree with everything the author stands for.

This happens with fictional things as well. I've seen people accuse others of excusing mass genocide because they like Darth Vader.

We live in an age where people are incapable of separating things for any reason, and an absence of explicit condemnation implies the opposite: Total support. The "Why aren't you wearing the ribbon?" scene from Seinfeld is a reality these days.

and no I am not sure if people honestly going for Imperium being the good guys in 40k or liking those factions not having a serious problem

I mean I can see why, but as long as the art is not an hidden expression of certain views, it should not be a problem of liking the art but not the artist

leopard wrote:
so essentially zero point taking the larger base monsters if there are Empire players about?

Lower damage and you can't snipe off the character from the monster or the monster from under the character. Cannons aren't 1 shotting big things anymore.

It's not a particular hardship to bring 6 cannon tho.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
It's not a particular hardship to bring 6 cannon tho.

If it takes 6 cannons to kill a dragon, that's a good thing. The problem was 1 shotting 500+ points with a single 80/100 point cannon a turn.

Leaving aside the rock-paper-scissors of it, but I feel GW might intervene if "6 cannons" becomes vaguely meta.

I'm pretty sure GW will take notice if sales of things like sphinxes, Tomb guard, necropolis knights/sepulchral guard are really high, yet strangely none of their customers seem to be buying skeleton infantry despite that being a core element of the army. Those metrics would be an indicator that investing into a resculpt of basic infantry kits would be highly justified at that point.

They'd have to sell Skeleton Infantry first to actually get those metrics.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm pretty sure GW will take notice if sales of things like sphinxes, Tomb guard, necropolis knights/sepulchral guard are really high, yet strangely none of their customers seem to be buying skeleton infantry despite that being a core element of the army. Those metrics would be an indicator that investing into a resculpt of basic infantry kits would be highly justified at that point.

they got this metrics 2003 and 2011 but somehow they need to get them again in 2024
and I guess the conclusion will be the same as was made in 2003, that it is not worth making new core models for the next release in 2011 as those who want to good stuff need to buy the old stuff for a legal army anyway
and before the 2024 release, the conclusion was that is is not worth making new stuff for units that are bundled with a shiny new dragon, while Bretonnia needs a new unit which main purpose is to upgrade the old knights with bits

and if the dragon does not sell, the conclusion is that people don't want shiny new Khemri models

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The "Why aren't you wearing the ribbon?" scene from Seinfeld is a reality these days.

Exalt just for making me remember that scene! Hilarious piece of social commentary.

Back on topic.

If people want to play Tomb Kings, I suggest buying Warlord's Skeletons. They are gorgeous, and will look perfect next to the rest of the GW TK range.

 stonehorse wrote:

If people want to play Tomb Kings, I suggest buying Warlord's Skeletons. They are gorgeous, and will look perfect next to the rest of the GW TK range.

I need to stock up on some more. I'm done to my last 90 or so and its such a good kit! I would happily build a 1000 more if I had more time to paint them!

 Mallo wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

If people want to play Tomb Kings, I suggest buying Warlord's Skeletons. They are gorgeous, and will look perfect next to the rest of the GW TK range.

I need to stock up on some more. I'm done to my last 90 or so and its such a good kit! I would happily build a 1000 more if I had more time to paint them!

I always felt the separate feet on those kits was a bad move. Wargames Atlantic or Oathmark might be better options for those who want something less fiddly.

 McDougall Designs wrote:

 Mallo wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

If people want to play Tomb Kings, I suggest buying Warlord's Skeletons. They are gorgeous, and will look perfect next to the rest of the GW TK range.

I need to stock up on some more. I'm done to my last 90 or so and its such a good kit! I would happily build a 1000 more if I had more time to paint them!

I always felt the separate feet on those kits was a bad move. Wargames Atlantic or Oathmark might be better options for those who want something less fiddly.

They really are not as bad as they are made out to be online. The trick with the feet it to slide them into the slots rather than jamming them in. I've built quite a number of them and never had a single one break and they are no more fiddly than trying to build say the chap in necromunda with the cigar.

I recently built the AoS Trugg model, and that was fiddly. The arcane yoke on his back has to be jammed on to the model as a funny angle making it really easy to get plastic weld over everything but the right spot as you try to lower it down.

I'd build warlord games skeletons all day over having to build that thing again.

The oathmark ones are superb, I just find I like the warlord games ones for fantasy a little more simple. Wargames atlantic make lovely models but their skeletons are just too big to mix with others and I'd already done a load of other skeletons by the time they appeared. Shame as their other kits are fantastic.

The WGA skeletons are slightly smaller than the TK skeletons, dunno why you're saying they're too big. The Oathmark Skeletons are also only slightly smaller - the parts are interchangeable and they look fine side by side.

 Platuan4th wrote:
They'd have to sell Skeleton Infantry first to actually get those metrics.

...do you really not expect them to put those on sake? There's definitely a second wave of releases coming for Brets and TK... there's previewed kits (mostly returning old kits) that aren't on sale yet.

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm pretty sure GW will take notice if sales of things like sphinxes, Tomb guard, necropolis knights/sepulchral guard are really high, yet strangely none of their customers seem to be buying skeleton infantry despite that being a core element of the army. Those metrics would be an indicator that investing into a resculpt of basic infantry kits would be highly justified at that point.

they got this metrics 2003 and 2011 but somehow they need to get them again in 2024

Data capture capabilities in 2003 were nowhere near what they were in 2011, and nowhere near what they are in 2024. There's levels of detail in metrics and data analysis that GW could not achieve back then that they can today. GW has grown their own direct sales channels pretty dramatically from where they were 10-20 years ago, which will provide them with a lot more data than they had about sales performance of specific SKUs. I'm the past they were heavily reliant on manufacturing data to get a complete picture of performance, but that's heavily skewed because it tells you how many boxes retailers ordered, but not necessarily how many they actually sold.

Besides that, the kit was pretty good in 2003, and serviceable in 2011. In 2024 the kit is an affront to God and there's a dozen other options out there that look better and cost half as much. Whatever data they had 10-20 years ago is irrelevant in the context today.

Plus, seems people are more than willing to buy them given that the TK box set is sold out everywhere.

 GaroRobe wrote:

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

We do need mummys though.. but more egyptian-mytho monsters are welcome, imagine painting an armored sarcosochus...

Armored sarcophagus you say? (I guess it’s more Iron Maideny but still)

Ah, no, sarcosuchus is an extinct armored crocodillian....

chaos0xomega wrote:
The WGA skeletons are slightly smaller than the TK skeletons, dunno why you're saying they're too big. The Oathmark Skeletons are also only slightly smaller - the parts are interchangeable and they look fine side by side.

 Platuan4th wrote:
They'd have to sell Skeleton Infantry first to actually get those metrics.

...do you really not expect them to put those on sake? There's definitely a second wave of releases coming for Brets and TK... there's previewed kits (mostly returning old kits) that aren't on sale yet.

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm pretty sure GW will take notice if sales of things like sphinxes, Tomb guard, necropolis knights/sepulchral guard are really high, yet strangely none of their customers seem to be buying skeleton infantry despite that being a core element of the army. Those metrics would be an indicator that investing into a resculpt of basic infantry kits would be highly justified at that point.

they got this metrics 2003 and 2011 but somehow they need to get them again in 2024

Data capture capabilities in 2003 were nowhere near what they were in 2011, and nowhere near what they are in 2024. There's levels of detail in metrics and data analysis that GW could not achieve back then that they can today. GW has grown their own direct sales channels pretty dramatically from where they were 10-20 years ago, which will provide them with a lot more data than they had about sales performance of specific SKUs. I'm the past they were heavily reliant on manufacturing data to get a complete picture of performance, but that's heavily skewed because it tells you how many boxes retailers ordered, but not necessarily how many they actually sold.

Gdubs had a pretty extensive network of their own stores back then too, so they still would have had pretty similar data to what they do now in terms of extrapolating from their own stores what might be happening at independent stores. I can't find a 2003 report, but the 2008 report I found on Google said by that stage they had 61% sales through their own channels (direct or hobby centres) and only 39% through independents. So the % of trade sales now was actually higher then than it is now.

Besides that, the kit was pretty good in 2003, and serviceable in 2011. In 2024 the kit is an affront to God and there's a dozen other options out there that look better and cost half as much. Whatever data they had 10-20 years ago is irrelevant in the context today.

Even in 2003 I remember thinking the TK skeletons were a bit crap. I liked the shields and Egyptian style details, but the underlying skeletons reminded me of the the 5th edition skeletons which themselves were a bit crap too.

Plus, seems people are more than willing to buy them given that the TK box set is sold out everywhere.

Or, they under produced

Here in Oz, at independent online discounters I saw Bretonnians sell out in a matter of maybe 10 or 20 minutes, the TK still had a few sets available the next day (EDIT: actually I found at least one discounter still listing the TK set as being on sale). The official GW store, the TK are still for sale but the Brets are gone.

And it's not like Bretonnians were ever a terribly popular army (except maybe when they were in the starter set so every man and his dog had 24 archers and 12 knights, which back in the day was a decent army).

I kind of like TK as an idea but not the outdated models. They're one of the factions that I had a campaign going with in Total War.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Besides that, the kit was pretty good in 2003, and serviceable in 2011. In 2024 the kit is an affront to God and there's a dozen other options out there that look better and cost half as much. Whatever data they had 10-20 years ago is irrelevant in the context today.

the kit was acceptable in 2003 and people just argued that because a new army GW cannot take the risk to make all new kits but have to use existing ones with upgrade sprues
despite other armies got the core range re-fresh

in 2011, the main complain about the release was that you get almost 20 year old sculpts that you need to buy as core and no matter how good the new elite looks the bad skeletons make it a bad release
some of the Content Creators that are still around re-uploaded their old reviews from 2011

their data from 2011 might be useless, but what makes you think that because Khemri models got no new core in 2011 based on 2003 sales data and no re-work of the core during 8th edition based on the 2011 data, that if we just buy enough non-core models the outcome will be different now?

GW might make new Khemri core models, but with a new army book release not on the fly because everything else sold well
and doubt we see a new book release for them soon

It's weird because GW is a company that used to think nobody liked Sisters of Battle because nobody bought the 20 year old metal model army. But then this is also the same company that updated that range, and a whole load of other ranges in both 40k and AOS in the past 3 years, to be much more modern.

I think contemporary GW is very aware of the need to update stuff, but main studio and specialist games studio love to have slapfights with each other so I'm sure there was behind the scenes corpo drama going on.

 kodos wrote:
the kit was acceptable in 2003 and people just argued that because a new army GW cannot take the risk to make all new kits but have to use existing ones with upgrade sprues
despite other armies got the core range re-fresh

That was back when GW's production capacity was 8 new sprues for 40k and 8 new sprues for WHFB per year. Not kits, sprues. Split between two new codexes and two new army books.

TK got the normal allocation of 4 new sprues: chariots, cavalry, horses, command. With two of those pulling double duty across multiple kits.

The Tyranid refresh around the same time was also 4 sprues: 1 sprue of Genestealers and 3 sprues of Carnifex.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Maybe they’re planning to replace them just haven’t gotten there yet before gauging how successful old world will be received.

Sounds like every army will need a centerpiece model to compete with the big stuff like dragons other armies get. Or cannons.

Curious to see if a dragon charges, kills the entire front rank (and supporting if that’s possible), will the unit stick or bounce.

I must admit regardless of how well the sculpt is done doing the "superduper originul" choice of giving a dragon as the Tomb kings centerpiece is capslock downgrading my initial preference of Tomb kings to a low.

I think I'll wait for Chaos dwarfs first afterall and then see what do.