Warhammer - The Old World

[Ejecutor]

43 minutes ago, Stonehorn said:

I mean, what themes? Theres terrain out there to fit every realm. Just paint to fit. What are you looking for, I’m sure I can point you to something. 
 

I’m not personally a huge aos guy, I play CoS, but I’ve played twice in the last year. All of our gaming here is Fantasy/Old World (9 games in, and a tournament coming up two weekends from now) and the odd historical game and has been for decades, so I don’t care about that, but aside from endless spells, GW doesn’t make any special terrain. If GW makes it, you can get a nicer version printed elsewhere. GW terrain mostly isn’t nearly as good as other places. GW’s chinese made terrain is their worst product imo. 
 

and almost every town/city has a 3d printing service if you want printed terrain and don’t have an fdm printer of your own. Frankly, a printer was the best decision I made for terrain, it saved me thousands. My game room has 4 tables, and I have at least a dozen terrain setups. Currently painting a Sphinx and statues for my desert table. 

In my case, it is the aesthetic of the scenery that was released with the 3rd edition. The buildings were funded by the Dawnbringers crusades. Ofc, there are plenty of buildings out there, but for me, it is the little details that point out to the Mortal Realms the ones that make them worth it.

Going into something more specific the Aqualith, the Nexus syphon, the Guardian idol from the new releases, or the Sigmar Statue are the stuff that I am looking for. I also have a decent chunk of the Warcry Ruins. I like the details in the columns (looking like Stormcast hammers) and their modularity. I wouldn't go crazy with those ruins if they wouldn't have come with the Hachette magazine and the fact that I got most of them for free bundled with other stuff I bought.

In terms of non GW stuff I look mainly to STLs, but tends to be to get smaller bits. This is an example of the things I purchase:



I won't use the building as it feels more WHBF/TOW than AoS to me, but there's some bits that fit the new CoS aesthetics and I would likely get them printed, like the shields, torches, sits or the chests and barrels.



In the end my core tends to be GW complimented with 3D print and hand made stuff.

[Marcvs]

2 hours ago, Ejecutor said:

In my case, it is the aesthetic of the scenery that was released with the 3rd edition. The buildings were funded by the Dawnbringers crusades. Ofc, there are plenty of buildings out there, but for me, it is the little details that point out to the Mortal Realms the ones that make them worth it.

I don't know about Dawnbringers specific, but there's quite a lot of stuff with clear references to AoS aesthetics, like this Skyport

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tiredworldstudio/zilvren-skyhold/description

or several of the sets from Dark Fantastic Mills

https://darkfantasticmills.com/

[Ejecutor]

24 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

I don't know about Dawnbringers specific, but there's quite a lot of stuff with clear references to AoS aesthetics, like this Skyport

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tiredworldstudio/zilvren-skyhold/description

or several of the sets from Dark Fantastic Mills

https://darkfantasticmills.com/

Yep. There's stuff like that one, but imo it is a minority. That also helps the fact that ppl buy scenery from GW for AoS.

About Dark Fantastic Mills I bought their Jaggerholm KS as an early bird 😅, and I love their "cogfort", but it is even more expensive than GW material.

RE Dawnbringer cities, this is more or less their look:

I think it has a higher fantasy look compared with most of the offers for human terrain. In the end that's what you pay, but as I mentioned earlier, Hachette collection makes it quite affordable. Pictures 2, 3 and 4 are part of the collection. Each one is sold for 10,99 € (I think 9,99 pounds). It is not a bad price IMO.

[Garrac]

Going to play this thursday my first TOW match against dark elfs. My army consists of: 1 grey seer, 1 nude warlock engineer, 2 clanrats units with 2 warpfire throwers, 1 24 stormvermins unit with doomflayer, gutter runners, globadiers, rat ogres and jezzails. My enemy is brining in an Hydra, 2 artillery pieces and a unti of crossbows so how fed am I...

it's tough to counter enemy monsters and artillery with the current skaven list, WLCs only cause 1 wound and jezzails shooting at 4+ kinda suck. I'll tell you guys on thursday how it went, but it really looks like next timme I should field hellpit abos.

(can't change the list, tho)

Edited February 13 by Garrac

[Ejecutor]

Wow. GW is going all in with nostalgia: Going Full Tilt With a New Twist on the Classic Minigame on Warhammer+ - Warhammer Community (warhammer-community.com)

Full Till free rules and a video on Warhammer TV. It looks super nice. I think they are doing a nice work to promote the game.

Edited February 14 by Ejecutor

[Tonhel]

Haha, yeah, that's cool! 😄

[Twisted Firaun]

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/wh3-soc-update-tzeentch/ 

I know its not directly related to TOW, but I really hope we get an updated model for the Exalted Hero previewed here.

[sandlemad]

I always thought the Total War studio’s stated reasons for not including some things to be a little weak. What they’re saying about tzaangors is pretty misleading, for example.

Yes, the WHFB beastmen range was largely goat-themed but tzaangors never actually had minis and the background had plenty of mentions of WHFB beastmen with other bestial aspects. Same with Blightkings. An End Times kit, true, but one that was perfectly in keeping with a decade or more of how Nurgle elites and champions were depicted in WHFB artwork. They’re not Lumineth or kharadron, you know?

It’s a thin excuse for a narrow aesthetic range and stands out all the more due to TOW having rules representation for things like AoS squig knights.

Edited February 14 by sandlemad

[Colonic]

I don't think what they said about Tzaangor was misleading at all. 

Tzaangors have been a well established part of the lore since the Lost and the Damned book. They've always been regular beastmen who have been marked by the gods, and they shared the same outlook on existence and background as other beastmen. All beastmen had mutations, yes, and tzaangor were no exception but they were very random with some god influences. There were some common traits like having the rune of Tzeentch somewhere on the fur/formed in the horns etc. 

The mentions of different kinds of beastmen in 6th edition and onwards were geographic. You got entire populations of non-goat beastmen in a given region, not that all beastmen could appear in different stableish forms all over the world. The problem with that always was that the miniatures were all goats or goats with mutations.

Meanwhile the Tzaangor of AOS are a subrace crafted by tzeentchian magic, many of them humans who are malformed. They wear finery and crafted goods in a way regular beastmen would not, both their aesthetic and what it reflects about their outlook is unlike the beastmen, or the tzaangor of the old world. 

I really would have disliked avian beastmen from AOS being put into Total War without a significant overhaul. To me what is there now is much closer to lore. 

Edited February 15 by Colonic

[LordSolarMach]

We do kind of know that it's a bit of a post-hoc justification though, thanks to CA posting the concept art (where they all had beaks). The truth is probably "GW told us to lose the beaks", but they're being diplomatic about it.

The real reason is likely GW not wanting for TWW to step on the toes of AoS: Realms of Ruin. 

[Colonic]

Like I say, GW saying "lose the beaks" is actually them just sticking to the lore of the last 30 years. Whether it also separates the franchises and that is a relevant thing or not is up for debate, but I would expect (and am glad) that GW stuck to beastman lore as it was.

 

I like the Tzaangor in AOS but they are not old world beastmen. There weren't whole armies of beaky beastmen in the old world setting barring specific geographic regions but there are tzaangor all over.

 

I guess this sort of thing is the problem with beastmen being pretty fringe and playing second fiddle to warriors of chaos, some of their older lore gets lost.

[Baron Klatz]

41 minutes ago, LordSolarMach said:

The real reason is likely GW not wanting for TWW to step on the toes of AoS: Realms of Ruin. 

With Space Marine 2’s “secret villain” revealed to be Tzeentch it’s likely Tzaangors will show up there too giving even more reason to specialize their IP license.

[JerekKruger]

4 hours ago, Colonic said:

Tzaangors have been a well established part of the lore since the Lost and the Damned book. 

Checks copy of Lost and the Damned. Huh, What's that on page 133, is it a beaked beastman? Why yes it is.

And on page 137 we have a Khorne marked beastman which has a hound's face, something the blurb about khorngors explicitly calls out.

The idea that GW lore is this well established, concrete thing that they've never changed is nonsense. GW have always been very flexible with their lore and very free about changing it. If GW were being truly honest to their oldest lore about beastmen, a very large proportion of them should have one or more mutations (and all Tzaangors should), and about half should be bull hybrids rather than goat hybrids.

But, as mentioned, GW changes they're lore happily, and beastmen essentially became goat only, with the vast majority not being mutated beyond the standard goat/human hybrid. GW could quite happily greenlit CA's beaked design, and if have preferred it if they did. You wouldn't, and that's fine, but please don't tell me (and others) that we're wrong because the unchanging lore doesn't support it, because honestly, the original lore doesn't support current beastmen either.

[JerekKruger]

1 hour ago, LordSolarMach said:

The real reason is likely GW not wanting for TWW to step on the toes of AoS: Realms of Ruin. 

I'd say it's broader: they want to keep the Old World and the Mortal Realms separated. It's the same reason the more up to date factions in AoS were only included as legacy factions in TOW and why older minis are going to be sold on AoS even when they have new versions available in AoS.

[Colonic]

7 hours ago, JerekKruger said:

Checks copy of Lost and the Damned. Huh, What's that on page 133, is it a beaked beastman? Why yes it is.

And on page 137 we have a Khorne marked beastman which has a hound's face, something the blurb about khorngors explicitly calls out.

The idea that GW lore is this well established, concrete thing that they've never changed is nonsense. GW have always been very flexible with their lore and very free about changing it. If GW were being truly honest to their oldest lore about beastmen, a very large proportion of them should have one or more mutations (and all Tzaangors should), and about half should be bull hybrids rather than goat hybrids.

But, as mentioned, GW changes they're lore happily, and beastmen essentially became goat only, with the vast majority not being mutated beyond the standard goat/human hybrid. GW could quite happily greenlit CA's beaked design, and if have preferred it if they did. You wouldn't, and that's fine, but please don't tell me (and others) that we're wrong because the unchanging lore doesn't support it, because honestly, the original lore doesn't support current beastmen either.

Yes there were beaked and dog faced beastmen, mutations given (with more frequency when marked), but far from ubiquitously. No they were not subraces. No you did not get them presenting uniform appearance like AOS Tzaangor. Yes they should all have mutations. Those should be random and chaotic. It was a d1000 table (or d100 if they got a reward) - this is impossible in a TOW game. Almost everything you say is correct*, but "AoS tzaangor fit Total War/the Old World" is not correct and what you say does not support it. You are in fact a classic example of what I mean about people misunderstanding the original presentations of Tzaangor, because you think the existence of beaked beastmen = AoS style Tzaangor. They share little but a name and a patron god. There's as much support for tentacled beastmen, or beastmen with their eyes on stalks. 

So to that regard, yes I will tell you that lore does not support AoS Tzaangors in the Old World, and never has.  I never said Beastman lore was unchanging, in fact its implicit in my post that it did. But just because lore changes that doesn't mean anything is supported. 

What I did say was the concept of a Tzaangor is in the Old World was and is exactly what CA quoted. a marked beastman given mutations that may have a slant towards a god but not a stable race of beaked beastmen , and what came from GW itself I imagine.  Yes, GW could have retconned AoS Tzaangor into the setting (despite their thematic differences). But it would be a retcon IMO.

What there would be room for is having some beastmen in a unit manifest Tzeentch like mutations including beaks, feathers, tzeentch's symbol and so on, but without any uniformity. It is far away from whole units of beaked beastmen adorned in finery like you have in AOS. 

*

Spoiler

The early minis for Beastmen were a right mix of bulls, goats and dogs and turnskin style mutants without one style dominating. Bull heads are last seen in the 1989 catalogue but aren't in the 1990 catalogue. They must have been available though as I got them about that time. Lost and the Damned introduced Gors, Ungors, Brays and Bestigors as the main castes. The scope of beastmen was always much wider than the miniatures represented in the early days for sure, but the importance of horns was established pretty early and the 1990 beastmen miniatures were predominantly goats, with some dog heads marked as khornate. LATD is chock full of goat beastmen imagery as well while not disallowing other manifestations, especially given the existence of turnskins and the like. So by 1990 lore and miniatures are emphasising goats, and it should be remembered that the very concept of beastmen was really only codified in 1990.  The dog heads disappear by 1994 but we are well into 4th edition by that point. Khornegor when we get them are back to being goaty.

 

 

[Beliman]

Just to add to the BoC argument, AoS had the same "WFB Tzaangors" too a few years ago (aka, marked Gors and Bestigors): 

Spoiler

AoS Tzaangors are not marked gors/bestigors, they are diferent in their design (armours/weapons) and background. Imho, CA just pointed out that beaks are not part of the WFB Tzaangors design, they are random mutations that mostly appear in background and a few illustrations. Not even old designs had beaks:
 

Spoiler

 

[Garrac]

Well, first match done! I'm really not very convinced, skavens feel too much nerfed now that they can't shoot anything on combat and their gimmicks have been nerfed too much. Jezzaisl best usage was as pure cannon fodder to avoid the riders from charging my rat ogres. Really, the only good units on the whole game were the weapon teams and gutter runners, they are way sturdier to shooting than what they look like.

In general it really feels like skaven lack a lot of punch and characters to give LD with those huge nerfs. U can put chieftains, but that money is better spent on warlock engineers to be able to bring globadiers. Meanwhile, I generally felt like lacking enough firepower to damage T5+ monsters like the hydra here.

Will try again with a more melee focused army (whitout jezzails) but I generally feel like I won't bring skavens to any tournament and will probably stick to OPR Regiments.

[Jamopower]

Almost everything in the game has been nerfed, so I wouldn't give up to soon.  Especially compared to the 8th edition.

[Garrac]

2 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Almost everything in the game has been nerfed, so I wouldn't give up to soon.  Especially compared to the 8th edition.

i don't know, I do feel like with the legacy list the only things able to do same wounds on monsters are gutter runners and jezzails, and the latter suck ass now without the +1 to hit big targets.

I also feel like theyve lost a lot of flavour now that I can't shoot into combat.

Will try in the future again because, as a specialist game, i guess there's not that much pressure on "playing meta", but the armylist on the rats feels too much nerfed down on the line.

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, Garrac said:

i don't know, I do feel like with the legacy list the only things able to do same wounds on monsters are gutter runners and jezzails, and the latter suck ass now without the +1 to hit big targets.

I also feel like theyve lost a lot of flavour now that I can't shoot into combat.

Will try in the future again because, as a specialist game, i guess there's not that much pressure on "playing meta", but the armylist on the rats feels too much nerfed down on the line.

If we are looking at shooting, I’d say the same thing poison on gutter runners and high strength on jezzails, gives them the option to kill monster quit easy, something our cannon will struggle currently sadly.

still I don’t think that those are the only units.

we have a monster of our own which can be a menace.

and them theres the artefact.

the blade that even Nagash fears.

a few attacks from that thing…. And that monster won’t be coming back to soon

[Garrac]

52 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

If we are looking at shooting, I’d say the same thing poison on gutter runners and high strength on jezzails, gives them the option to kill monster quit easy, something our cannon will struggle currently sadly.

still I don’t think that those are the only units.

we have a monster of our own which can be a menace.

and them theres the artefact.

the blade that even Nagash fears.

a few attacks from that thing…. And that monster won’t be coming back to soon

The blade actually gets very expensive, and like the brass orb, it's a one hit wonder: it's a high risk investment that can easily not give anything (and also, again, as units the monsters can just ignore them and you wont do as much damage against infantry)

Jezzails are highly useless now that for the most profitable turns youll shoot at 5+. Couldnt hit nothing with them...

Hellpit abo is actually great, but the lack of more AP and just T5 (and also, hydra so flaming attacks) make her lack on this situation, can't imagine how it owuld fare against other monsters

Maybe Im being too much of a drama queen tho, I guess Id have to check with an aditional clanrats unit (i only brought 2, but it was at 1500 points) and the hell pit.

 

Edited February 16 by Garrac

[Twisted Firaun]

21 hours ago, LordSolarMach said:

We do kind of know that it's a bit of a post-hoc justification though, thanks to CA posting the concept art (where they all had beaks). The truth is probably "GW told us to lose the beaks", but they're being diplomatic about it.

The real reason is likely GW not wanting for TWW to step on the toes of AoS: Realms of Ruin. 

Where does one find the concept art for the new DLC? seriously when all four updates are done CA better release an updated art book.... Also I kind want these tzaangors to show up as a heavy-elite version of the unit in AOS, they're gorgeous.

[LordSolarMach]

1 hour ago, Twisted Firaun said:

Where does one find the concept art for the new DLC? 

It usually gets spread across various people's ArtStation accounts. (Creative Assembly's itself, but a lot of the people who work(ed) for them also will have stuff.)

[Jamopower]

Most monsters luckily have quite bad armour save, so they are not that difficult to kill. It’s only the dragons and such that are very hard, and I don’t think Skaven (or other Legacy lists) are in particularly different situation to any other army out there in dealing with them. Hordes of expendable troops with high leadership (remember that your general spreads ld10) should at least be quite good on making them work on getting their points back.

[Skreech Verminking]

I’ve finally gotten my bases and to finally busy the myth that has roamed the earth,

yes the new ardboyz/brutes can fit onto 30mm bases.

it’s just takes some time to find the right postition for everybody