Squatting Watch: Alerts for Discontinued Models

[EccentricCircle]

17 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

I don't mind differentiation, but in Cities, (relatively) stationary artillery simply makes a lot of sense. Your city is stationary, and a target for big beasts, having some cannon/other things to take them down sounds like the most logical thing to do.

Now these cannon/other things could be ridiculously over the top stuff like the Steam tank, volley gun or organ gun, or warp lightning cannons, or rocket batteries, or slingshot pelting flasks of holy water with a priest blessing each shot, but something of that kind seems rather fitting.

Agreed. I think there is a place for cannons, I'm just not sure if that's the direction they are going in, seeing as there are very few of the older artillery models left.

[AverageBoss]

On 8/14/2019 at 3:51 AM, Not-not-kenny said:

Axing the archers, eh? I guess that's one way to make me shift to buying Perry plastics when expanding my freeguild/CoS army. The one thing worrying me rules-wise is with the dragon blades gone there might not be a way to field "knights with lances riding horses" in the new 'tome. 

What about running them as cold one knights? They are also mounted elves with lance and shield. And pretty sure they are sticking around.

[Overread]

7 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

Agreed. I think there is a place for cannons, I'm just not sure if that's the direction they are going in, seeing as there are very few of the older artillery models left.

Thing is we are in a release cycle where GW hasn't got production slots to add stuff for what they've removed. Furthermore they've not got tomes tied to releases; in fact most tomes came with very little in way of a model release. This is because right now the focus is getting the game back together; getting armies equipped with tomes and rules to function. In the past with Old World this was important, but didn't matter so much because GW's attitude was different, but also because they had prior rules that kept working (sort of). And in addition to that most armies were pretty stable things. They got a few new models, a few updated and they kept going. You'd lose a few here and there, but by and large it was gains and updates.

 

AoS shattered all of that like a bull in a china shop and gamers and GW have reeled from that and had to deal with it. It's been a mess that, honestly, GW could have and should have avoided, but they didn't. We can fire blame off and get annoyed by it (and honestly I'm totally there with those players of Bretonnia, Tomb Kings and High Elves and even Wood elves and old dwarves now in the frustration and anger and feeling of betrayal); but in the end things ARE moving forward. We can see loads of potential to update and its clear GW wants to update and expand the game, but right now they just can't do it all inside one year. In fact to try might even be dangerous for them as it would front load them very heavily with a huge amount of investment and flooding the market iwth new models that might not pick up as fast as they might if spread out a bit more. Gamers have limited budgets and GW is already tapping many gamer budgets hard as it is. 

It's very hard to see the direction GW is taking with AoS because we honestly don't know and the way the realms are made GW can take it anyway they want. It's also clear that the direction has changed several times over AoS's lifespan which further makes predictions really hard to guess at. 

[Kramer]

3 hours ago, EccentricCircle said:

I don't know. It feels as though AoS has been moving away from the idea of stationary war machines in general. Apart from the Stormcast ballista I can't think of any new faction which has had artilliary. Kharadrons have guns on their ships, but those function as a mobile platform. All of the other factions are more along the lines of monsters and troops.

 

Good point, but it's just too much of a mainstay in the lore, the old models are a bit small looking compared to the new scale and it's an relatively easy 'easy to build' box to build. It just seems likely to me. But again only time will tell. 

[Fellman]

Me by the get off board artillery like a alliance abillety

[Sleboda]

On 8/4/2019 at 9:16 AM, Kamose said:

The only parts of that description that ultimately matters are "melee weapon" and "on a 25mm base".

I'm not saying your general premise in the rest of the post is off, but this part seems to be to me. This hobby is a 3D model thing. The models and their appearance matter. If your above statement were true, we could all very easily just play with cardboard chits that have a stat or two on them. That's not what we're here for. A dwarf is not an elf is not a human and to treat them all as the same just because the have the same weapon and base size is to ignore the visuals and lore that draws people to one over the other.

[prochuvi]

11 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I'm not saying your general premise in the rest of the post is off, but this part seems to be to me. This hobby is a 3D model thing. The models and their appearance matter. If your above statement were true, we could all very easily just play with cardboard chits that have a stat or two on them. That's not what we're here for. A dwarf is not an elf is not a human and to treat them all as the same just because the have the same weapon and base size is to ignore the visuals and lore that draws people to one over the other.

Yes i agree with you,but i wont delete and trash my lovely units only because gw are jerks.

So i hope can play with people that dont mind if i proxy dwarf warriors as longbeards(years ago,this warrior kit was for longbeards also) and the high elf dragonlord as dark elf black dragon(both are elfs in dragon)

Something as dragonlord as the phoenyx or grifon seem hard visually,or warriors as phoenyx guard per example

[zilberfrid]

12 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I'm not saying your general premise in the rest of the post is off, but this part seems to be to me. This hobby is a 3D model thing. The models and their appearance matter. If your above statement were true, we could all very easily just play with cardboard chits that have a stat or two on them. That's not what we're here for. A dwarf is not an elf is not a human and to treat them all as the same just because the have the same weapon and base size is to ignore the visuals and lore that draws people to one over the other.

Well, there are two things about it.

One, the weapons should look distinct enough from another type to be easily recognisable, so "melee weapon" is a bit light, but "sword and shield, so they're guards with sword and shield" works fine.

GW nixing warscrolls and models left and right should not invalidate those models for play. So dwarves are fine as humans (the keyword matters nothing, and even 10ft tall Stormcast get it), and dark elves are fine as light elves, and stormcast can be reformed into something fitting the army they are allied in.

[Dead Scribe]

I personally don't care as long as the models are not confusing.  If you are using dwarf warriors for human warriors, I don't care.  I also would be happy using chits if it came down to it.

[TheNotebookGM]

12 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I personally don't care as long as the models are not confusing.  If you are using dwarf warriors for human warriors, I don't care.  I also would be happy using chits if it came down to it.

A game with thick, sculpted coins as models (still in units) would be kinda nice, especially if the stats were in a book or cards and not on the models. Could carry an army in a poker set. I'd play that if it had decent rules and a good story (and slightly sloped sides to make them easy to lift off the board).

[Carnith]

I'm fine with people proxying old models into something in the book. Swordmasters gone? Well say hello to my Elven Regiment of Greatswords, or my executioners who don't wear scary masks. There does come a point where it can be an issue. Oh, you have 60 dwarf warriors that you need to do something with? Well these 30 are hammerers, and these 30 are longbeards. Now it can get confusing on what unit is which from a glance.

[dekay]

39 minutes ago, carnith said:

Oh, you have 60 dwarf warriors that you need to do something with? Well these 30 are hammerers, and these 30 are longbeards. Now it can get confusing on what unit is which from a glance.

Unless, of course, you sort those warriors into 30 with axes and 30 with hammers ; )

But, yes, generally, 'this dragonlord is a dreadlord and this one is a sorceress' can get problematic during the game, but 'this dragonlord is a dreadlord and this drakeseer is a sorceress' is totally cool.  As long as general size, function and apparent mobility match, all is well.

Because of that I would honestly prefer old fighty dwarfs to be longbeards and shooty dwarfs be irondrakes than using them as humans, but as long as it's consistent within the army, it should be ok.

[Carnith]

3 minutes ago, dekay said:

Unless, of course, you sort those warriors into 30 with axes and 30 with hammers ; )

But, yes, generally, 'this dragonlord is a dreadlord and this one is a sorceress' can get problematic during the game, but 'this dragonlord is a dreadlord and this drakeseer is a sorceress' is totally cool.  As long as general size, function and apparent mobility match, all is well.

Because of that I would honestly prefer old fighty dwarfs to be longbeards and shooty dwarfs be irondrakes than using them as humans, but as long as it's consistent within the army, it should be ok.

Agreeable, but I'm in favor of mixed race armies in that regard. You want dwarf warriors and use them as freeguild? mix them in with sword and board freeguild. Thunderers as handgunners? Mix em in. Let it be known that the armies of the cities of sigmar fight unified!

[michu]

1 hour ago, carnith said:

Agreeable, but I'm in favor of mixed race armies in that regard. You want dwarf warriors and use them as freeguild? mix them in with sword and board freeguild. Thunderers as handgunners? Mix em in. Let it be known that the armies of the cities of sigmar fight unified!

And that way you can't be accused for modelling for advantage.

[Carnith]

2 minutes ago, michu said:

And that way you can't be accused for modelling for advantage.

Exactly, also I would feel anyone who would do this would give their opponent the benefit of the doubt that is a low lying branch covers the thunderer but a normal handgunner could've been seen, they'd give them the LoS

[zilberfrid]

All Freeguild Forgeworld models have gone to "No longer available" in the US. For my delivery zone, there are still a few things available, but Lietpolt and Mannann's blades are no longer available (not that I was interested in a model without warscroll, incomplete overpriced sets or generals with sucky layout).

 

[Overread]

Forgeworld does put things "sold out" when they are just revamping the mould/out of stock. I've seen things like the Malanthrope go "last chance/sold out" only to be back a while later. It confuses things because it means you can't quite tell if its "gone" or just the mould being remade or the stock run dry. Remembering that moulds for resin are vastly cheaper than those for plastics. 

 

UK side the Gigantic Chaos Spawn, Leitpold the Black and Empire Manann's Blades are all sold out. They could be returning and the latter two might just be being renamed for AoS to fit with Free Cities. It's impossible to know unless anyone has a confirmation message from FW (though in my experience the staff answering questions rarely know the actual fate of stock beyond what the store system tells them). 

[zilberfrid]

And they are gone from last chance to buy, leaving the Slaves set there all by it's lonesome self. Traces removed without communication from GW.

[Sleboda]

On 8/17/2019 at 7:12 PM, Dead Scribe said:

I personally don't care as long as the models are not confusing.  If you are using dwarf warriors for human warriors, I don't care.  I also would be happy using chits if it came down to it.

I find that the more experienced you become, the more the appearance of a model can, unintentionally, work against you when it's the wrong model. 

You see a dwarf and somewhere in the back of your mind, you draw on hundreds of experiences and assign "tough+slow" to it. You see an elf and assign "agile+fast." It's a small thing, but it can throw you off just a smidge, even if you are not deliberately making an assessment. This works even more against those whose memories/learning style are visually based.

For some, it's no big deal. For others, it's an extra layer of complication that is not fair to put on them, even if they are not thinking about it consciously.

[Aelfric]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

I find that the more experienced you become, the more the appearance of a model can, unintentionally, work against you when it's the wrong model. 

You see a dwarf and somewhere in the back of your mind, you draw on hundreds of experiences and assign "tough+slow" to it. You see an elf and assign "agile+fast." It's a small thing, but it can throw you off just a smidge, even if you are not deliberately making an assessment. This works even more against those whose memories/learning style are visually based.

For some, it's no big deal. For others, it's an extra layer of complication that is not fair to put on them, even if they are not thinking about it consciously.

For my part, I will only be using my Aelves to represent other Aelf units, such as GG for Shadow Warriors.  It's too much suspension of disbelief for me to field one race as another - my army wouldn't look right to me.  On the other hand, I would be more relaxed about facing the situation across the battlefield so long as there was consistency between models and warscroll.  Perhaps I might use my Dragon Noble as a mounted Freeguild General (depending on survival in Cities) as both are basically mounted armoured knights, but that is about as far as I would stretch it.

To put it into perspective, I have 30 Marauder Dark Elves from the 80's, all of which are in action pose with raised swords and shields.  They are also modelled with crossbows attached to their backs.   I have considered using them as Darkshards, but decided against because I didn't want my opponent to be confused by it, esp halfway through a game.  This would be especially confusing as my proper Darkshards are obviously firing Crossbows.  So, if I want to field more than 30 Darkshards, I would feel obliged to buy more actual Darkshards, and by obliged I mean to satisfy my own standards.

I agree that the visuals of models plays a big part in tactical play when you're in the midst of battle and the best-laid plans of mice and men are oft to go astray.  

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by Aelfric

[AthelLoren]

On 8/18/2019 at 8:10 AM, carnith said:

Agreeable, but I'm in favor of mixed race armies in that regard. You want dwarf warriors and use them as freeguild? mix them in with sword and board freeguild. Thunderers as handgunners? Mix em in. Let it be known that the armies of the cities of sigmar fight unified!

THIS! That's my viewpoint on the matter, and am considering modelling a few Aelves into my Freeguild units and vice versa. I think it would be cool to see a human who was initiated into the Shadow Warriors because he had the skills necessary. And that's what any city based on survival is, right? A meritocracy? And why shouldn't Aelves be able to join the local Spearman unit? For me, it's all about the lore, and my city is a city primarily of Humans and Aelves. Not Freeguild, not Swifthawk Agents or Wanderers, but Humans and Aelves.

[Not-not-kenny]

I would also keep to the doctrine of elves-for-elves and humans-for-humans if AoS had literally any rules differences for them besides meaningless keywords and one inch of movement stat. In WHFB I' definitely refrain from using an elf as a adwarf since elves generally don't have T4 I2 and hatred(goblins), ut in AoS they're just a one-wound model with a sword and a shield so who cares as long as you can tell what battlefield role they have? Now it might look like I'm dragging AoS for the limited statline but I'm not (well, maybe a little) I'm fine with the CoS book slimming down the unit selection to streamline the game and just encourage counts-as where the feel and strategy of the army matters more what species they are.

What I'm not fine with is removing the archers kit, that hurts more than when they blew up the Old World.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Not-not-kenny
i write like a drunk badger

[zilberfrid]

19 minutes ago, Not-not-kenny said:

I would also keep to the doctrine of elves-for-elves and humans-for-humans if AoS had literally any rules differences for them besides meaningless keywords and one inch of movement stat. In WHFB I' definitely refrain from using an elf as a adwarf since elves generally don't have T4 I2 and hatred(goblins), ut in AoS they're just a one-wound model with a sword and a shield so who cares as long as you can tell what battlefield role they have? Now it might look like I'm dragging AoS for the limited statline but I'm not (well, maybe a little) I'm fine with the CoS book slimming down the unit selection to streamline the game and just encourage counts-as where the feel and strategy of the army matters more what species they are.

What I'm not fine with is removing the archers kit, that hurts more than when they blew up the Old World.

Yes, Archers looked better than the crossbowmen or guards.

Since there are no human archers any more, inclusion of Shadow Warriors or Sisters of the Watch to keep using the models is warranted. I won't reward GW by buying new sets for removal of models, and the keyword "Aelf" or "Human" isn't used anywhere, so I won't limit my model use for it.

Edited August 25, 2019 by zilberfrid

[VBS]

The CoS squatting will only encourage using count-as. And it's all good as it may fit better a personal narrative (ex: an all-elf army instead of mixing humans/elves/dwarves) and making use of already bought models. The narrowing amount of warscrolls will mostly give a single option (or two) per type of unit (assumption), so  will rarely be confusing...

For example, if there is only one "heavy cavalry" warscroll option (such as Cold One Knights), it doesn't matter if you use Dragon Princes, Empire Knights or whatever models, the rules will be quite evident. Assuming they don't duplicate unit types (the squatting seems to go in that direction though). Unit stats/rules are too generic between races in AoS too think model representation for a similar role might feel off or visually bizarre (as @Not-not-kenny well pointed out).

[zilberfrid]

7 minutes ago, VBS said:

The CoS squatting will only encourage using count-as. And it's all good as it may fit better a personal narrative (ex: an all-elf army instead of mixing humans/elves/dwarves) and making use of already bought models. The narrowing amount of warscrolls will mostly give a single option (or two) per type of unit (assumption), so  will rarely be confusing...

For example, if there is only one "heavy cavalry" warscroll option (such as Cold One Knights), it doesn't matter if you use Dragon Princes, Empire Knights or whatever models, the rules will be quite evident. Assuming they don't duplicate unit types (the squatting seems to go in that direction though). Unit stats/rules are too generic between races in AoS too think model representation for a similar role might feel off or visually bizarre (as @Not-not-kenny well pointed out).

Though I do hope there will be at least one option for cold one knights next to Demigryphs.

I suspect the core of an army will be either an expanded Darkling Covens or Freeguild. They give mostly the same options with a different flavour. My optimal Darkling Covens would be Scourge Privateers, plus Shadowblades, plus the current Darkling Covens. This would give just about the same amount of heroes and units to Freeguild. Serpentis would then be a minor Dark Elf faction that is also included (or can be allied) in one Freeguild city.

Edited August 25, 2019 by zilberfrid