Legion Of Azgorh Mega-Thread

[Lobeau]

9 minutes ago, grungolah said:

As ancient as it is, I don't expect it to show up in the upcoming Slaverchosen book either.

Slaverchosen??

[grungolah]

3 minutes ago, Lobeau said:

Slaverchosen??

The Slaves to Darkness, Everchosen tome GW hinted at a couple days ago(?) that appears to consolidate the Chaos Undivided units.  

[Lobeau]

3 minutes ago, grungolah said:

The Slaves to Darkness, Everchosen tome GW hinted at a couple days ago(?) that appears to consolidate the Chaos Undivided units.  

Gotcha, I was thinking that was a name for some Chaos Dwarf book that was announced or something that I hadn't hear about yet. I got all excited lol

[Browncoat89]

4 minutes ago, Lobeau said:

Gotcha, I was thinking that was a name for some Chaos Dwarf book that was announced or something that I hadn't hear about yet. I got all excited lol

Lol it would be very welcomed, but yeah I doubt it.

[Kaleb Daark]

21 minutes ago, Browncoat89 said:

Lol it would be very welcomed, but yeah I doubt it.

most annoying thing was that it was always part of the chaos dwarf army.  In the Tamurkhan Legion of Azgorh army list the hellcannon was in it as a chaos dwarf war machine with the only thing being "refer to the warriors of chaos book for stats" because they didn't want to reproduce the page again.

@RuneBrush  another one to add to the forgeworld pester list... make the hellcannon part of the chaos dwarf faction - if we're going to keep the warscroll  compendium for the time being we might as well have the right stuff in there, even if they don't make the model anymore... cough.. mammoth and most of the monstrous arcanum... cough..

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

5 hours ago, Kaleb Daark said:

most annoying thing was that it was always part of the chaos dwarf army.  In the Tamurkhan Legion of Azgorh army list the hellcannon was in it as a chaos dwarf war machine with the only thing being "refer to the warriors of chaos book for stats" because they didn't want to reproduce the page again.

@RuneBrush  another one to add to the forgeworld pester list... make the hellcannon part of the chaos dwarf faction - if we're going to keep the warscroll  compendium for the time being we might as well have the right stuff in there, even if they don't make the model anymore... cough.. mammoth and most of the monstrous arcanum... cough..

Agreed... Carmine Dragon is part of Monstrous Arcanum and was from the Tamurkhan: Throne of Chaos campaign, so I don't see why the mammoth shouldn't be in there.  It doesn't even have the Tamurkhan keyword.

[Kaleb Daark]

2 hours ago, Black_Fortress_Immortal said:

Agreed... Carmine Dragon is part of Monstrous Arcanum and was from the Tamurkhan: Throne of Chaos campaign, so I don't see why the mammoth shouldn't be in there.  It doesn't even have the Tamurkhan keyword.

Indeed.

And this leads me onto another thing which the writers at the time were lazy about, and has carried over to the detriment i'd say because it all got lost in translation.

AoS is about the models rather than the faction per se.  So, all the warscrolls are model centric with equipment etc as we all know.  If its not on the model its not on the scroll - so no more chaos lord on dragon as there wasn't a model for it unless you converted for instance.

 

Wind that forward and when AoS launched, because the warscroll compendiums were aimed at existing fantasy players who knew for instance the hellcannon was part of the Legion army, or the  great taurus could be taken in the chaos army, there was nothing on the warscrolls to say the substitute warscrolls gain the keyword of the faction they should be in.

Hobgoblins are a prime example,

In Tamurkhan, Throne of Chaos,  Legion of Azgorh army list the hobgoblins were in there but never had models  - up to that point we used regular or middle earth goblins to represent them on the table top.

AoS is launched.

The Compendium is really saying "we have no model for this, so use the nearest equivalent which is the night goblins or goblin wolf rider or whatever from the greenskins"

What it falls short of saying is that all substitute warscrolls have the Legion keyword - because of course I as an existing player already know that to be the case as they were part of the faction from the start, however because it's not made clear, we have the whole debate about substitute warscrolls not being legal etc, not helped when this oversight was ignored in the points costings of ghb.

On this very thread I had a massive face off about substitute scrolls and keywords which actually made me walk away for several months.  

Unfortunately unless you played in the world that was, substitute scrolls are a bit alien .

While you've got me, yes Mammoths - I want them and skin wolves to have marks again!!  that's what made them all the awesome in fantasy battle.

 

Its the one model I really hope doesn't get deleted from the scrolls, I've got two mammoths already and I've been offered a third - I'd love to run three mammoths  in my "slaverchosen"

I will be interested to see if the new revised 2nd edition 'compendium' will still include the skullcracker in it?

 

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

5 hours ago, Kaleb Daark said:

Indeed.

And this leads me onto another thing which the writers at the time were lazy about, and has carried over to the detriment i'd say because it all got lost in translation.

AoS is about the models rather than the faction per se.  So, all the warscrolls are model centric with equipment etc as we all know.  If its not on the model its not on the scroll - so no more chaos lord on dragon as there wasn't a model for it unless you converted for instance.

 

Wind that forward and when AoS launched, because the warscroll compendiums were aimed at existing fantasy players who knew for instance the hellcannon was part of the Legion army, or the  great taurus could be taken in the chaos army, there was nothing on the warscrolls to say the substitute warscrolls gain the keyword of the faction they should be in.

Hobgoblins are a prime example,

In Tamurkhan, Throne of Chaos,  Legion of Azgorh army list the hobgoblins were in there but never had models  - up to that point we used regular or middle earth goblins to represent them on the table top.

AoS is launched.

The Compendium is really saying "we have no model for this, so use the nearest equivalent which is the night goblins or goblin wolf rider or whatever from the greenskins"

What it falls short of saying is that all substitute warscrolls have the Legion keyword - because of course I as an existing player already know that to be the case as they were part of the faction from the start, however because it's not made clear, we have the whole debate about substitute warscrolls not being legal etc, not helped when this oversight was ignored in the points costings of ghb.

On this very thread I had a massive face off about substitute scrolls and keywords which actually made me walk away for several months.  

Unfortunately unless you played in the world that was, substitute scrolls are a bit alien .

While you've got me, yes Mammoths - I want them and skin wolves to have marks again!!  that's what made them all the awesome in fantasy battle.

 

Its the one model I really hope doesn't get deleted from the scrolls, I've got two mammoths already and I've been offered a third - I'd love to run three mammoths  in my "slaverchosen"

I will be interested to see if the new revised 2nd edition 'compendium' will still include the skullcracker in it?

 

There BETTER be rules for the Skullcracker and Chaos Siege Giant.  It's no easy task to obtain and prepare them, and it'd be a shame if we couldn't use them.

[TeddyMadeMeDoIt]

1000points lists

Leaders

Taur'ruk - Cunning Deceiver, Chaos Talisman

Demonsmith

Slambo -Ally

Units

3 Bull Centaur Renders

10 Fireglaves 

10 Fireglaves 

 Warmachines 

Magma Cannon 

Magma Cannon 

 

Not having played Chaos Dwarfs in AoS before I'm not sure being the only blocks of warriors I have how the Fireglaves are going to fair, don't want them getting I to combat but it's only the BCs I've got running about to distract.  How'd people normally get on with this?

[kenshin620]

On 5/19/2018 at 3:38 AM, Kaleb Daark said:

 

AoS is about the models rather than the faction per se.  So, all the warscrolls are model centric with equipment etc as we all know.  If its not on the model its not on the scroll - so no more chaos lord on dragon as there wasn't a model for it unless you converted for instance.

 

 

Well one unfortunate reason for the entire "no model = no rule" was the bizarre lawsuit involving third party models.

 

Not sure how many people remember this but back in 5th edition 40k, the tyranid codex has a number of unit entries that GW had yet to make models of  (most notably their "drop pod" and a number of special characters that proved to be quite popular like the Doom of Malan'tai ). That itself was actually not uncommon, for example the IG/AM codex also had such entries such as penal legionnaires or many WFB armies having special characters.

 

However then you had some third parties making their own versions of said tyranid (and other models of course) models to fill in the gap that gw was lax on fixing. GW of course got mad and tried to sue. I believe the main offender was called chapterhouse or something? and unlike other 3rd parties, they blatantly said "eldar", "tryanid", "necron" which got them in hot water. So while it looked like gw was going to have an easy win, IIRC the judge said something about "well GW you dont actually have a miniature for [insert unit here] so I think the other company can own it" (note I'm NOT a lawyer nor did I read too much into the case, it was like what 4-6 years ago? so I may be wrong on some things)

 

Rather than admit they done goofed and would have to do a lot of legal shuffling, GW more or less threw a passive aggressive hissy fit and aid "fine, ALL our units MUST have a model immediately for consumption!" Once that unofficial but basically official rule came into being, you quickly saw a huge shift in future army books and codecies.

Tyranids lost their SC (which sort of came back with generic monsters) and drop pods for an entire edition (later they got made), many books ripped out SC that also lacked models (necrons got lucky with all of their SC, dark eldar not so much and immediately lost more than half of their models, grey knights lost their special character that involved ghost terminators, IG immediately lost any FW only models to avoid confusion).

Plus it doesn't help that now GW is all plastic so they can no longer push out relatively inexpensive (cost wise for GW) metal models to fill in the missing stuff, especially since finecast resin is still notoriously unreliable. So any time they make a new kit, they have to spend a pretty penny making a plastic mold, and FW is a little too busy mostly making things for Horus Heresy.

 

 

So yea, TLDR: GW only makes rules for models they can sell right now to avoid legal headaches, much to the dismay of gamers and modelers.

[Kaleb Daark]

1 hour ago, kenshin620 said:

Well one unfortunate reason for the entire "no model = no rule" was the bizarre lawsuit involving third party models.

....

 

So yea, TLDR: GW only makes rules for models they can sell right now to avoid legal headaches, much to the dismay of gamers and modelers.

Yes it was Chapterhouse, but that was more to do with them producing models and upgrades for GW stuff and labelling it as such rather than renaming or whatever, but yes, you're right.

The thing with the GW attitude was though, and this is under Kirby's watch, was that they were happy to let people sit for ages before they got their backside into gear.  Beastmen for example, two years after the army book came out the Cygor came out.  by that time, people had converted giants and all sorts so everyone was catered for by the time the model dropped.  Then they wondered why they didn't sell like the anticipated hotcakes.

Its very different now under the Age of Rowntree, and better for it in that respect.

[kenshin620]

29 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

Beastmen for example, two years after the army book came out the Cygor came out.  by that time, people had converted giants and all sorts so everyone was catered for by the time the model dropped.  Then they wondered why they didn't sell like the anticipated hotcakes.

Well that and beastmen players probably didn't trust gw after the minotaur fiasco!

[Kaleb Daark]

1 hour ago, kenshin620 said:

Well that and beastmen players probably didn't trust gw after the minotaur fiasco!

I didn't know about that, do tell

[kenshin620]

34 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

I didn't know about that, do tell

When the beastmen were first updated to 7th edition, they got the minotaur plastic kit.

A LOT of people hated the models. It was hard to find anyone who did (later on supporters of the models blamed the horrible paintjob and lighting which I think was a reasonable argument). I mean the classic models do have a silly look, but you could blame those looks on just the pure age of the old metals. I think the new blood bowl minotaur is the best looking.

 

Well back onto the topic of the chaos stunties!

[Kaleb Daark]

Yup i hated those models. And i totally agree that the blood bowl one is my idea of a proper minotaur.

 

so back ro stunties, yes, @RuneBrush  has been tasked with a pester list to ask the forgeworld people at the age of signar open day.

Ive read that the aos team has been bolstered at forgeworld so im keeping my fingers crossed for great things.  

Ok... just something...

[NemoVonUtopia]

I have painted the robes and hats on my daemonsmiths white to give high contrast with their black beards and dark metal and I was going to use it for the bits of cloth for the artilery crew. I then realized that it would be rather stupid for the crew because they are around oil and coal. Do y'all think I should try to paint the crew's apron dirty white or pick a more sensible colour? The different colours can be explained by caste but I don't know how it would affect the visual cohesion of my army.

[Lobeau]

3 hours ago, NemoVonUtopia said:

I have painted the robes and hats on my daemonsmiths white to give high contrast with their black beards and dark metal and I was going to use it for the bits of cloth for the artilery crew. I then realized that it would be rather stupid for the crew because they are around oil and coal. Do y'all think I should try to paint the crew's apron dirty white or pick a more sensible colour? The different colours can be explained by caste but I don't know how it would affect the visual cohesion of my army.

If you want to stick with the white theme then go for it, just dirty it up a lot and use a few coats of nuln oil to really sell the dirty working conditions. With my army I used blue as the rank and file all over dominant color for the infantry, and then have greens tied into the daemonsmith and Draz and Taur'ruks, and then additional red armor lining to make the command officers standout even more. So while its cool to have a unifying color, it also makes sense to have something to differentiate the classes.

[NemoVonUtopia]

I am looking forwards to the new summoning system. Assuming we get an update for 2nd edition we will probably be able to have free fireborn each game.

[FERRUMITE]

3 minutes ago, NemoVonUtopia said:

I am looking forwards to the new summoning system. Assuming we get an update for 2nd edition we will probably be able to have free fireborn each game.

IF we get an update...God I wish FW would at least say they had plans for LoA, that way I could stop getting my hopes up.

[NemoVonUtopia]

3 minutes ago, FERRUMITE said:

IF we get an update...God I wish FW would at least say they had plans for LoA, that way I could stop getting my hopes up.

At least we have gotten an update before so I am cautiously hopeful that it won't take too long to get another one especially with such major changes.

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

I'd love to see us get an allegiance and k'daai "free" summoning...

I'm glad to see that we can guarantee a 6 for our run rolls for the Ironsworn, to help advance the front line more reliably and establish our artillery mid-field 1st turn.

[Kaleb Daark]

2 hours ago, NemoVonUtopia said:

At least we have gotten an update before so I am cautiously hopeful that it won't take too long to get another one especially with such major changes.

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

5 hours ago, Kaleb Daark said:

We had substantial balancing changes going into GHB2017 though.  I think we're going to get similar treatment.

[Kaleb Daark]

true, but still a far cry from what we're all screaming out for.

Just saying.

[Lobeau]

1 hour ago, Kaleb Daark said:

true, but still a far cry from what we're all screaming out for.

Just saying.

True, we would all love to have so much more added to the LoA, but at least the army was playable over the last year and hopefully will at the very least get the same treatment with AoS 2.0. Naturally we all want a real LoA book, more options, new units, forgeworld conversion kits and so much more. Hopefully with more forgeworld staff moving to AoS projects we'll get some much needed love!