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.

 warboss wrote:
I didn't even realize they supersized the giants in AoS though I should have suspected given the past decade. So it the mega-gargant the baneblade kit of their fantasy universe?

It's the Questoris Knight equivalent - complete with only one leg pose!

Yup, the Gargant army even works the same way as Knights overall... big giants with a character option, and then the 'little' giants that are the previous Fantasy plastic kit still. Seems to have similar balance issues and everything.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I didn't even realize they supersized the giants in AoS though I should have suspected given the past decade. So it the mega-gargant the baneblade kit of their fantasy universe?

It's the Questoris Knight equivalent - complete with only one leg pose!

At least they all come in one box and all the parts are interchangable.

It's a great looking model for sure but I'm a bit biased in that I've been a fan of "giant" models for a while now. I wonder how it would look next to the normal giant (sized) variants from ASOIAF as they have similar proportions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Damocles wrote:It's the Questoris Knight equivalent - complete with only one leg pose!

Prometheum5 wrote:Yup, the Gargant army even works the same way as Knights overall... big giants with a character option, and then the 'little' giants that are the previous Fantasy plastic kit still. Seems to have similar balance issues and everything.

Yeah, I got out of regular 40k play about the time the original plastic Knight kit came out so I haven't really kept up with the variants. The big/little giants comparison sounds apt with the smaller gargants being the armigers of sorts (albeit maybe bigger?).

When they introduced Knights to 40k they were mercenarys that lots of factions could use, and the game was so poorly balanced, its was a common quick fix to any list you wanted to play.

When they released the mega gargant I feared it would be the same thing for AoS, but I dont recall hearing it was a problem even if the "mercenay big guy" was a recurring theme.

Love AoS giants, I should probably get another mega gargant now that you mention it.

And we have the handbook, sand and bone and various new spearheads. Although no gitz or barrow one yet.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/ck4pqjsu/sunday-preview-change-comes-to-the-mortal-realms-and-the-brayherds-raid-the-old-world/

Also looks like Idoneth are getting their proper reveal next week.

Any idea on pricing for these? In the padt these types of smaller spearhead/combat patrols have typically been at a lower price point than the full deal.

Well unless they stealth increase, they should be the same as the current ones. So £87.50/$145

That Bonereapers Spearhead is exactly what I want out of OB. I'm REAL tempted to grab a couple.

I'm extremely tempted by that one as well. But i have no damn room right now.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Any idea on pricing for these? In the padt these types of smaller spearhead/combat patrols have typically been at a lower price point than the full deal.

Prices from TGA no changes from before

No stealth increase, neat. Also the Middle-Earth stuff all seems reasonable. Good order day.

And the first proper reveal of the Idoneth begins. As well as the new Spearhead.

I don't like the motion on the Ikons. It looks like they're sweeping their blades down, but the water is spinning the opposite way

So shouldn't they be spinning that way too?

They're caught in the moment of just finishing the upswing, which is why the water is flowing that way.

love that new model, but i don't know why the weapon choices needed to be different units. it's not like Idoneth is suffering for choice when it comes to characters, already

GW doesn't know what to do with alternate weapons right now in AoS

On the one hand they clearly want to simplify the warscroll as much as possible (even to the point where they've just outright cut half the info it could hold and placed it in random other places in the book/online/in another book). So having just one weapon profile no matter what options the model has is one way to do it.

The other is they want more heroes and model units; to generate sales and to create interest.

And of course its way more interesting to have a new unit that does different things over the same unit with the same things and just a different weapon.



So yeah make them two different units even though the only difference is the head and weapon. It's a big divide from the Old World era where GW would even have entirely different model sculpts for the same unit with a different weapon (and I'm not even touching that multiple heroes could have different mounts under the same hero profile as a choice)


Honestly I don't mind this choice as much because it means we do see weapon variety and it is meaningful.

I dislike it more when GW goes the path of "same profile no matter the weapon" because it makes the kit feel bland.

A shame how the fish are fixed. A variety of different ones to switch around in the water would've been nice.

 Overread wrote:
The other is they want more heroes and model units; to generate sales and to create interest.

I mean, it'd be nice if some of these releases got a unit box rather than a character, especially for those that didn't mostly migrate from the Old World...

 Overread wrote:
GW doesn't know what to do with alternate weapons right now in AoS

On the one hand they clearly want to simplify the warscroll as much as possible (even to the point where they've just outright cut half the info it could hold and placed it in random other places in the book/online/in another book). So having just one weapon profile no matter what options the model has is one way to do it.

The other is they want more heroes and model units; to generate sales and to create interest.

And of course its way more interesting to have a new unit that does different things over the same unit with the same things and just a different weapon.



So yeah make them two different units even though the only difference is the head and weapon. It's a big divide from the Old World era where GW would even have entirely different model sculpts for the same unit with a different weapon (and I'm not even touching that multiple heroes could have different mounts under the same hero profile as a choice)


Honestly I don't mind this choice as much because it means we do see weapon variety and it is meaningful.

I dislike it more when GW goes the path of "same profile no matter the weapon" because it makes the kit feel bland.

I expect this is going to swing back the opposite direction in ~2 years, even if it just becomes each unit getting multiple datasheets representing different weapon loadouts.

Perhaps but honestly given how GW was pushing "power levels" for ages and then just gave up and thrust them down our throats last edition for 40K - I get a feeling that the hands of the core AoS and 40K teams are VERY different to the specialist games in terms of the staff creating the rules.

And that includes the managers on top and their direction as well.



I think that AoS in particular would need an entirely new focus to start bringing those things back. (perhaps even a team who realise the double-turn is very silly...)

The double turn is fine and creates an element of tension and depth in the game not found in many others

chaos0xomega wrote:
The double turn is fine and creates an element of tension and depth in the game not found in many others

agreed, it is another layer of tactical depth. My son who is a much better player than I am is teaching me how to prepare for it when I get doubled, when to plan to increase odds of achieving it, and most importantly when to choose to hand it to the opponent.

 Overread wrote:
(perhaps even a team who realise the double-turn is very silly...)

given that most people advocate for IGoUGo to be gone, random turns is a core element of the game now that sets it apart from others

Right, because, "I go, I go," is sooo much better...

Water effects look quite fragile. I wish GW would stop with that.

 BorderCountess wrote:
Right, because, "I go, I go," is sooo much better...

Not to get dragged into this argument yet again, but i will say i've had more fun in terms of tactics having to multi-plan how turns could possibly go because of the double turn than i have in a lot of other game systems.

 BorderCountess wrote:
Right, because, "I go, I go," is sooo much better...

enough people are asking for it or defending it, so at least for those it must be better.
But in general, be careful what you wish for.....

It’s kinda funny but basically every single interleaved turn system I know of (where you move a unit then opfor moves a unit and so on) has some way of defying that structures making two or more units act at once and no-one seems to complain about those messing up their whole game.

Perhaps there’s a happy medium in there? Instead of the entire army acting at once, have “detachments” or “contingents” that act together and can be spurred on to act twice in a row before swapping back to one of the enemy army chunks.

It simply comes down to the impact of it and how long it takes

Like the longer a "go" takes, the worse it feels to break the strict IGoUGo sequence, and the bigger the impact is, the more controversial it is.

If a game with alternate activation uses an option for double activation and this decides if you win or lose, it is much more controversial than anything that has a minor impact on the game.

Same way, if games uses turn sequences an those only take 10 minutes, it doesn't feel that bad if the opponent is doing nothing compared to a turn taking 60 minutes.

In addition the more models/units are on the table, the more time is consumed by player interaction (hence why fast playing grand tactical games have usually a strict IGoUGo were the active player can do as much as possible without being interrupted to speed things up)

The problem most people have is that the impact of the double turn is too big, and the turn itself takes too long.
Both problems aren't directly related to IGoUGo or its removal.
Change the system to alternating phases, it would be still IGoUGo without the time problem, or chang it to random phases and having a double phase would be much less controversial

Yet if a single unit has the possibility to cripple an opponets force enough to win a game, changing to unit activation with the possibility of doubles won't change much (or if the single activation takes 30 minutes)

Whatever the system is, it need to be balanced between time per "go" and impact of said "go" for a good gaming experience.