Clan's Cynic Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) Another daily Almanack. This time on designing the models and redesigning what they could for copyright purposes. Cynicism aside, it's not a bad read. Edited January 3 by Clan's Cynic 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStreicher Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) My impressions after watching the Battle Report: - The Rubber Lance Syndrome hasn't been fixed (again) As a former bretonnia player it is an understatement that this makes me sad. - Normal Knights are incredibly bad (like they were back in 8th) - The Blessing of the Lady is still plainly bad. - Magic is still completely out of whack (I know he rolled well, but the potential is plainly silly) - The frankly stupid challenge rules haven't been changed at all. - Knights not having 2 wounds each feels so wrong after playing AoS - Scoring by killpoints is the worst and it is back - WHY - The TK recursion seems a little strong? - TK still crumbling when the Hierophant dies is the worst. Jesus, it doesn't even make sense lore-wise - The push-back after losing is cool. - I like that the damage is in general dialed down, it makes the fights more thrilling. Raging: Spoiler This gives me 8th Flashbacks. Too little issues, that ruined 8th, have been solved. How long was this in development again? I am downright angry at how this game seems to turn out. All the rage gathered during the insufferable 8th edition resurfacing (funnily enough I remembered all the rules and the hundreds of conversations we had with our club on how to solve such issue, the 3 inofficial tournament packs that tried to make the game playable...I can't express the amount of sadness and rage that's building up) Edited January 3 by JackStreicher 1 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyantheFett Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 11 hours ago, Chikout said: Isn't this true for pretty much every large decision GW makes though? Starting with Tomb Kings Vs Bretonnia is surely a corporate choice both to play on nostalgia and to avoid overlap with AoS. Assuming it's true that Skaven are the 4th edition army for AoS, having them not appear in The Old World seems like another corporate choice rather than a strictly narrative one. I understand this is what they are most likely what they are doing, but for the life of me I can't figure out how this is a good business decision??!?!? Like why keep Skaven and other factions out of The Old World. They have the models, are they afraid to sell more?!?!? Just sell for both games or sell overpriced trays that hold both squares and circle bases. Maybe it would make more sense if they had every faction clearly separated in each game. But with some faction It is not like they can even remove all the old stuff from AoS lol. Like it just seems all so stupid every choice GW has made with this game, and they still will make bank............. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Meanwhile in Ameribux I'm surprised at how reasonable some of the TK prices are. Not the big box, ugh, those skeletons, you couldn't pay me to take them. But $80 for 20 tomb guard is, iirc, the same price per model as when they were last available a decade ago at 10 for $40. Likewise for the sphinx, ushabti, and stalkers/necroknights, not cheap by any stretch but less than I was expecting by a good bit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noserenda Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 I suspect we might see some of the old starters down the line, but the only way Brets and TK succeed is being the only game in town, so they want to give them a little room to get some extra people invested before they release the popular factions like HIgh elves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonhel Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 I have to watch the battle report, but our group had the most fun with 8th edition. We liked it more than 6th and 7th. But I have to watch it myself before I can comment. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) I've watched most of it. The dice were very one sided, with bret player wiffing a lot of 2+ hit and wound rolls and tk player rolling remarkably well overall, not just with magic, so it's honestly hard to get a good sense of balance out of it. But yeah, my biggest takeaway is that one wound, one attack knights of the realm is super disappointing, yeah. Yes they have their lance back, and they did win a couple charges against basic skeletons by enough to make you think they'd have a good chance of rolling through bog infantry units that /aren't/ unbreakable undead, but between the dice and the bad match up and the lackluster stats, it just wasn't a very promising showing for the pride of brettonia. ... I also liked 8e more than 6 or 7. not for the core rules, but for some of the wild stuff that was added to individual factions - the sphinxes for tomb kings, mortis engines for vamp counts, etc. There just seemed to be more of an anything goes high fantasy feel to it, a feel that has persisted into AoS and is the main thing I like about that game. Edited January 3 by Sception 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jator Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/01/03/old-world-almanack-designer-round-table-on-new-graphics-and-miniatures/ Quote Rob: Giorgio actually managed to find a massive tome of Bretonnian concept art, background, heraldry, and everything that the old Warhammer Design team had put together years ago. Giorgio: It was essentially a style guide from the old studio. It had been put together at the end of a project, and they had collected all of their assets – box art and packaging, transfers, copies of concept art, everything – into paper form and then rationalised it all. It’s effectively the legacy of that particular period. Obviously the Army Book from 8th edition, rumoured to be finnished and forgotten before the End Times. At least they salvage some material and put it to good use. @Clan's Cynic Alas, skaven not being among the supported factions means they won't re-release Island of Blood again. But the Battle for the Skull Pass miniatures still look good too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flippy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 42 minutes ago, JackStreicher said: Scoring by killpoints is the worst and it is back - WHY Why is that a bad thing? I like this approach more than the current alternative; it makes the game more about the models and less about some abstract and arbitrary victory conditions. In AoS the faction „power” is now tied more to available battle tactics than to models and their point value - an awful design choice, if you ask me. 3 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonhel Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Flippy said: Why is that a bad thing? I like this approach more than the current alternative; it makes the game more about the models and less about some abstract and arbitrary victory conditions. In AoS the faction „power” is now tied more to available battle tactics than to models and their point value - an awful design choice, if you ask me. Lol, yeah, maybe my Chaos Lord can again be a fearsome foe instead of hiding behind his retinue as it is now. 😉 Edit: I am really not a fan of those foot knights. Ugly. All the other new stuff is good, but those foot knights. It's a shame they wasted a plastic slot for it. Edited January 3 by Tonhel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flippy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 18 minutes ago, Tonhel said: Lol, yeah, maybe my Chaos Lord can again be a fearsome foe instead of hiding behind his retinue as it is now. 😉 It's not just about hiding. Your AoS Chaos Lord is now effectively a token used to score VP via some arbitrary movements and actions ("run from one quarter to another to take and hold an objective"), which inevitably shifts the focus from the units themselves to these predefined actions. Maybe there is some value in this, but I feel that right now the battle tactics cart is before the horse and I would welcome the old "killpoints" approach. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitsumy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 lol yes, im agree totally on killing being nedded to win, actual aos system is totally silly, where most of time u dont even need to fight, only have to argue with ur oponnent what would happen in several turns to see the winner. since we dont hardly need to do any fight to win a WAR. im ok with objetives being there etc, but 50-75% of the game points should be done by killing, not standing on a objetive, running, being outside ur deployment, standing in a table side etc etc doing nothing. but. that step up change is infuriating, how in the hell are my saurus armyes supossed to fight now??? being the lowest initiative units in game and closse to slowest, they will fight always last ( like we always did) but now we wont be able to fight back since whole front row will be dead always...... sure lizardmen as global could be even better now, since magic seems as strong as always. shoting seems better and monster seems way better. using skinks. dinosaurs and frog can be great but... i really like to use my slow saurus units. and they seems totally useles with previewd rules 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStreicher Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 1 hour ago, Flippy said: Why is that a bad thing? I like this approach more than the current alternative; it makes the game more about the models and less about some abstract and arbitrary victory conditions. In AoS the faction „power” is now tied more to available battle tactics than to models and their point value - an awful design choice, if you ask me. It makes the whole game revolve around army balance, which GW can’t handle at all. Some kind of a mission system would do A LOT to move away from that. A whole tree of issues concerning listbuilding arises as well. It’s the hell of 8th all over again. Edited January 3 by JackStreicher 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Skarsnik Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 The frequency of the "Tomb Kings are pure evil" propaganda cropping up in these articles is starting to seem a little weird. The bone dragon has way too much going on visually, I don't think I even noticed there was a magic vulture coalescing out of a mysterious torrent of brown substance until they called it out in the article. The teal and crimson scheme they have on the army looks really good with the white bones though. Bretonnia stuff all looks good imo, glad they finally painted the second half of that box of foot knights 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStreicher Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Just now, Jefferson Skarsnik said: The bone dragon I actually fell in love with the model during the Battle Report. The new Knight and the BD are ace! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Skarsnik Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Tbf I have seen some angles where it looks cool, it might just be a hard one to get a golden angle for a photo idk. I can imagine people doing some good work with the kit with converting bits of it to change the look of the "rider" area Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brotherhood of Necros Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Even the dragons are being positioned as inherently evil creatures, from the way today‘s article was written. 🤨 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flippy Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 11 minutes ago, JackStreicher said: It makes the whole game revolve around army balance, which GW can’t handle at all. Now they "balance" armies by granting easy tactics to under-performers. Which means you are left to play with weak or over-costed units but you get some free points to artificially increase the win rate. Atrocious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan's Cynic Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 6 minutes ago, The Brotherhood of Necros said: Even the dragons are being positioned as inherently evil creatures, from the way today‘s article was written. 🤨 That tracks with Elves having a lot of them. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStreicher Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Flippy said: Now they "balance" armies by granting easy tactics to under-performers. Which means you are left to play with weak or over-costed units but you get some free points to artificially increase the win rate. Atrocious. It’s not that simple. Due to tactics you have two balancing factors. If scenarios weren’t neglectable this edition those would be a third. Meaning army building revolves around a goal which can shift. Looking forward to the first redirector MSU spam list to ruin the game. Btw I never said they should add objectives or battle tactics. There are better, more appropriate ways to get at least additional score points. Edited January 3 by JackStreicher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommissarRotke Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 19 hours ago, Whitefang said: Do they want to give people the impression that the victory of Chaos is inevitable? I'm just not sure how this is meaningfully different? the designers did specify "once we had the IDEA of what the Empire was and what Archaon was" which sounds like at some point GW wanted to keep Chaos winning in the back pocket. but like so much of the WHF writing implies Chaos is so overpowered their victory is inevitable. having that vibe over multiple campaigns and editions is going to make people think this was always the plan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSalabean Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 So in the article they state the liche priests are at fault for the way the tomb kings gained immortality and not waking to their verdant lands. Am I wrong for thinking it was mostly Nagash who ruined the lands and initiated the resurrections when he took over, and gained revenge for being kicked out? I may be wrong though. Additionally I feel like these articles focus a lot more on Bretonnians and little on the tomb kings? I would like to see more about their design process and inspiration, I believe they have alot more depth to them than they make out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrac Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 it's kind of tiring to see these warcom "interview with devs" articles and then the devs only get their names dropped, whitout any surnames. Give me the entire names of the artists so I can follow their work, goddamnit! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noserenda Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Perhaps the reason the Bretonnians are so heavily focused is someone thinks they can angle them into the "Space marine headspace" and reap the sales, it is a bit odd now you mention it how little we really have about the Tomb kings relatively. And yeah, the Liche priests are responsible for how things shook out somewhat, why mummies are different to skellies for example, and their ranks did include Nagash for a long while, but the Nekherans returning to unlife is all Nagash ultimately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSalabean Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 26 minutes ago, Noserenda said: Perhaps the reason the Bretonnians are so heavily focused is someone thinks they can angle them into the "Space marine headspace" and reap the sales, it is a bit odd now you mention it how little we really have about the Tomb kings relatively. And yeah, the Liche priests are responsible for how things shook out somewhat, why mummies are different to skellies for example, and their ranks did include Nagash for a long while, but the Nekherans returning to unlife is all Nagash ultimately. Just wait for games workshop's next game set 100 years before the old world in which half the bretonians turn traitor, 'Warhammer: The Duke of Dukedoms'. Dan Abnett is already writing away on the first of the next 63 warhammer novels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.