Wraith
-
Posts
157 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Wraith
-
-
8 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:
Same thought here.
I mean clan verminus is a give.
that clan looks fantastic and isn’t really in need of an update at all.
if we go though to clan pestilence.
i could see gw deciding to just do nothing there, which I hope won’t be the case.
and for the other clans, i don’t think they can really ignore those.
clan skryre and moulder in dire need of an update as well as eshin.
(the masterclan is fine)
This is much more interesting speculation than all that boring talk about the Bohemian Hussites of Sigmar.
(Will CoS adopt Bohemian Rhapsody as their new anthem? "Is this the real world...or is it just fantasy..."
...).
I am hopeful that all finecast and metal minis will be updated for Skaven. Also new models to replace the 1990's plastic ninja monkeys.
I never did buy the ninja monkeys. With all the other older models I might do the square base thing.
Anyway, if they do replace all the non plastic, that will be a big release. Let me see if I can list them all:
Pestilence:
Priest ( Lord Skrolk) - resin
Censor Bearers - resin
Moulder:
Master Moulder (Skweel Gnawtooth) - metal
Rat Swarms - metal
Eshin:
Gutter Runners - metal
Ninja Monkeys - plastic, but please GW, do something about this eyesore! (Even if it means leaving all the metal and resin in the range. Just update this one kit.)
Skyre:
Arch-warlock (was this one Ikit Klaw?) -metal
Warlock-Engineers - metal
Doomflayers - resin
Gattling gun team - metal
Warpfire Thrower team - metal
Warp-grinder team - metal
Skyre Acolytes - metal
I think Master Clan and Clan Verminous are OK or now. Did I miss anything? The plastic rat orges are functional, but not really inspired sculpts. That would mean replacing the whole kit including packmasters and the rat-rat-ratties.
That would be 12 units to upgrade plus a few really bad plastic kits that are in desperate need of replacement. This is assuming they don't add anything new to the range. TW:Warhammer is getting some new Skaven stuff, I believe. Some sort of mutant clan a bit like Moulder. Will they show up in AoS?
Will GW really do a Skaven release of that size?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Boingrot Bouncer said:
To bad that Stormbringer magazine cost so much to get from UK to Sweden that it makes it cheaper to buy the kits.
Since I love to paint a model or two from different factions now and then it would be a instabuy if I could get it at something that looks like the UK price.
There was a time when Scandinavians who didn't like British prices, would row right on over to 'renegotiate' a fair distribution of British production. The young are too soft these days.
-
2
-
12
-
-
6 hours ago, novakai said:
I doubt Skaven and Seraphon stayed because of driving opposing counter forces, they probably stay because an analysis was done that they where salvageable into AoS compare to their other more generic armies that did not.
Skaven at the time just got new models from Endtime, and Seraphon was at least mostly plastic core compare to other armies.
at the end the biggest push was probably and still is IP strength
Both @Bosskelot and yourself make good points. Understanding that a company like GW can be complex makes it easier to see that there are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I might add to the list of corporate politics and competent people continuing with their work, there is also corporate strategies, various shareholder interests and deals with other companies.
The relationship with Creative Assembly might be in transition as there isn't much more to do with Total War Warhammer, other than rake in profits from future sales. Maybe ToW is a play to retain a living IP, or create create new materiel in that IP, which CA would have to pay royalties for again? Why did GW go with Frontier Developments rather than stay with CA and do a TW AoS series? No doubt GW could get a better business deal with FD than CA, even though I would have liked to see TW AoS.
Is GW handling this well? We don't really have enough information to say.
-
Dogs of War and Pirates of the Vampire Coast should have been the two factions in the launch box.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Freemeta said:
it was 4 rank of 4 a long time ago. then it was in creased to 5.
That is one thing that I am curious about. I think the 5 model wide rank rules came in with 7th edition. One of the development dairies mentioned the rules would be based on 7th edition but including "the best features" of 3rd through to 8th edition. So I am assuming it will be 5 models wide to qualify for the rank bonus. It would be good if GW let us know what it is going to be some we can better plan our armies.
I am hoping that they will bring back the push back mechanic and "fight over the standard" rules from 3rd edition. And perhaps the weapon profiles and formations available from 3rd ed. Maybe even the old rout mechanic where you had to run them all down. 4th ed and on was a bit too simplified in combat resolution and routing, in my opinion. Or am I grumbling too much?
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I would disagree with that, at least to a degree. I think the definitive feature of grognards is not just a preference/nostalgia for older games, but the grumbling about how new games are generally bad.
The Old World is a cool setting that a lot of people like. I personally prefer the Mortal Realms in their current state (this was not the case when AoS launched), but it's not like the existence of a new setting "obsoletes" the old one. The same goes for gameplay: I prefer AoS style squads, but I don't think people are wrong for wanting historicals-inspired rank-and-flank.
If you are into tabletop RPGs, there exists a movement called "old school renaissance", where people are finding value in the design of the earliest editions of DnD and try to build games around the play style of that time. Some of those games are innovative and do certain things better than later evolutions of the genre. I don't necessarily think they have mass appeal in the same way that some newer games have, but they have thought-out solutions for problems many players have that draw upon older design paradigms.
However, as part of that movement, there are also exists a significant minority I would call grognards, who basically just want to play the same game of DnD 1e that they played as children and deny that any innovation of the last 40 years was in any way worthwhile. I think it's similar with the current WHFB player base. I don't think the majority there is "anti-progress" in the way I take grognards to be.
I think it is a very good idea to define our terms.
I have found at least three definitions of "Grognard":
1/ old soldier
2/ original term is from Napoleon's Old Guard, literary "grumblers"
3/ Wargamers who likes to play old versions of rules
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grognard
I would say that we are all Grognards, in the term's general sense. But it is being used to describe those people who disparage AoS with comments like "I can't stand a game with flying eels". I might point out that back in the 1980's that Fantasy gaming was fringe and it was Ancients and Napoleonics that were the main games, in the way that 40K is dominate today. So those who don't like AoS wackiness would have been playing historical games back in the day. I find it ironic that they play scifi or fantasy games today. Anyway...
So yes, I guess that is what we are talking about in regard to a "Grognard", right?
The sense in which people here are using it is in an American pejorative sense which seems to come out of the D&D sub culture. I would urge caution is accepting this definition of the term at face value as it leads one into rather a cliche mindset. Perhaps the D&D sub culture is a little bit, how do we say...toxic? That is not an example that I think Warhammer communities need to follow. I see no reason why such grumblers should be excluded from gaming groups. Let them grumble.
This video is a nice explanation and the term's origin (and correct pronunciation) and it's uses:
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Although I think it's not fair to think of all Fantasy players as grognards, it is true that they exist and are at the very least a vocal minority. I keep reading posts on Warhammer Fantasy groups about TOW in order to get an impression what the actualy target demographic for the game thinks about it. The opinions I see expressed make me wonder if they are, in fact, a good demographic to target.
IN response to the notion that Gorgnards are a small but vocal minority amount WFB fans, I would think that someone who wants WFB to return would be a great example to use in a dictionary to describe "Grognard" in the vernacular context. Present company excluded, of course.
-
14 minutes ago, Hollow said:
Maybe my wording wasn't the best, but they are kept "purposefully" out of stock because each range will have its own rotation. If there are a few dozen of a particular product line selling slowly and is about to run out of stock, then they will let it run out and stay listed as out of stock rather than clamoring to get a reprint made (which they could do). It's not a coincidence that every range on the UK GW site has a few kits out of stock, but no single full range is out of stock. That stock management is done purposefully. There are of course kits that have clearly just been misjudged in terms of supply/demand, but I think they might actually be less than people think.
See Hanlon's Razor for a discussion of this phenomena.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, zilberfrid said:
Yeah, FW was never great at AoS, but it's all gone now.
Oh, I see.
Hey, Forgeworld dudes!!! If you are reading this, how about a model of Sigmar himself? There is a model of just about every other god hero in the Mortal Realms. So where is Sigmar? Make of model of him and put it in the FW AoS section. My model of Archaon is waiting to slap him around the table top.
-
2
-
-
It seems awfully empty in the Forgeworld AoS section:
https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-AU/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:
Sorry, but I can't call any system which still uses I Go You Go a modern game. I enjoy AoS, but it definitely feels like a Frankenstein's Monster of a system they've been trying to graft more modern concepts onto an outdated engine rather than something truly it's own, which is why I do kind of hope 4.0 is a full reset.
To me, AoS doesn't really feel anymore modern than... say, Warmahordes in that respect. That doesn't make it a bad game (obviously or I'd not be here), but it feels caught between the two brackets of something truly modern and one stuck in the 90's. I guess that's the curse of being a GW 'core' game.
Pretty much every new, non-core game from GW (and every new game from non-GW companies) being some form of alternating activations whilst their core games cling fiercely to it makes me assume there's people in the sales department who're terrified of change and say, "It's always been I Go You Go we can't risk changing that!" We see hints of their longing for Alternating Activations with their adding more ways to interact with your opponent's phase, but clearly somebody at the top is stopping them from committing fully to it.
I agree with you that AoS could use a more interactive turn sequence. But it is no so simple as you have laid it out. Consider....
Infinity is a I go You go game. Yet most wouldn't describe it as an old fashion rule system. What it does have is exceptional engagement for both players throughout the turn sequence, thanks to the ARO system. It should also be noted that most, sometimes all, available activation can be pumped through one unit.
Another I go You go game, this time from the 1980's, was WGR 7th Edition Ancient rules. It also have a high degree of involvement of players in both player's turns. Counter charge, skirmisher evasions and shooting allowed the player in his off turn to respond to the first player's actions.
On the other hand, ASOIAF game has issues with it's activation system as the player that runs out of units to activate has to sit there and take what his opponent can dis out, just like in a straight forward I go You go system. The individual unit action approach can introduce it's own problems.
So it isn't the I go You go that matters, but rather the degree of interactivity for both players through the turn sequence.
OK, so how to improve interactivity in AoS?
I see two possibilities;
1/ introduce extra response options for player in his off turn, in addition to Unleash Hell and Redeploy. EG: Counter Charge. This might work if the first player failed a charge within 12"?
2/ Unit Activation. I would suggest the Battletech method of alternate activate each phase would be best. EG: every alternates activation of units to move. Then go on to shooting phase. Everyone alternatively activates units to shoot. Move on the Combat phase and do he same thing. Note this might require a balancing of combat, since we would have changed this par of the game very significantly.
I would prefer option 1. Stick with I go You go but add more response mechanics.
As to the idea that anything from the 1990's is to be regarded as old, I must point out that rules design actually reached its peak in the 1980's. After that complex rules moved into computer games and physical mini games trended toward the simple and fast play. 7th ed Ancients I mentioned above was a milestone in this regard, as the DBx and Impetuous style rules that followed extended the simplifying assumptions that began with that rule system. Impetous is the same concept of rules as KoW, BTW.
It was Magic the Gathering which was the watershed between old school and modern fantasy/sci-fi games. Check out Jordan Sorcery's videos to see this history unfold from a Warhammer perspective:
-
6
-
-
2 hours ago, Tonhel said:
Personally I am looking forward to the rules. I hope they will get the same treatment quality wise as they did with Middle Earth. It doesn't have to be more than that. Miniature wise, 3d printing has surpassed anything GW can release for the Old World. I have bought lots of STL files / subscribed to different patreons / tribes so I can make beautiful armies for Warhammer the Old World. Lol, I am ready for it.
I.e https://lastsword.com/product/imperial-kindred-dragon-riders/
So I am still looking forward to the Old World, but I will probably not buy any Old World mini's. I's not that I don't like them, but I can get the same quality or even better with my printer and it's a lot cheaper.
For AoS I am currently not so happy with the rules, Our group is starting to ignore those GHB updates, but miniature wise AoS is still rocking and I don't think STL's are a replacement for it.
Me too. I am hoping the TOW rules will be good. I have 6th and 7th, but a lot of models came out with 8th ed. So it would be nice to have a set of rules to tie it all together. 3rd ed had some fun features that were lost after 4th ed simplifications. My dream rules would be 3rd ed based but with some later ideas included plus the model range of 8th ed. Anyway, just have to wait and see what they have done. If it is not so good, then back to garagehammer.
I agree TOW is going to be a backwater game, alongside MESBG. I think both will be maintained for legal reasons. Warhammer TW is a good source of royalties, so GW needs to keep the IP current. Must be something like that with their ME business. In this regard @KingBrodd is right about the cash grab motive. But it is not quite a direct cash grab.
But that is fine by me. It will have a lot of hype at first, then settle down to being a quiet fringe game. Which is what I want.
Regarding AoS, it is very well supported by the GW studio. As is 40k. Both become full time jobs for players to keep up with as the rules develop fast. This both keeps the most engaged players satisfied and keeps the cashflow going through new product. The major GW games are very much a case of life in the fast lane.
It might be worth contrasting AoS and WFB design concepts. AoS is a modern system in that it incorporates a MTG like rules synergy concepts (look at SW Legion or ASOIAF for other examples). WFB uses 1960s/70s historical wargame design concepts like panic tests when near by units rout (KoW is also old school). To use a railway analogy, it is like comparing a steam engine with a diesel locomotive.
In fact WFB was obsolete by the time 6th ed was launched. Everyone has their favourite theory why GW canned WFB, but it was too old fashion for modern gamers and just couldn’t attract a sustainable player base. To be honest, it is surprising it lasted as long as it did. And why does anyone play KoW? I guess the reason is that some people like steam locomotives. But that is only going to be a small but dedicated following.
-
1
-
3
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Tervindar said:
They shouldn't be phased out until there is a proper alternative for that player base to play at a supported level. AoS was fundamentally built by WHFB factions, like demons are a fantasy faction should all those be gone, should nagash, teclis, slaves to darkness etc? probably not.
Once, ToW is released and properly supported, then sure but up until that point, I would hard disagree.
Anyways....the manticore and clan pestilence are absolutely fantastic and the Bretonnia mounted paladin is just chef's kiss. It's too bad that epic, out of nowhere, took up so much of the show.I sympathise with @KingBrodd as it would nice to have all legacy minis updated or removed from AoS. But the logistics make it clear why GW has not done this. Their fantasy range is just too big.
Regarding epic taking up so much air time, it looks to be the next big launch, maybe for the Xmas period? So where does this leave the Old World launch? Must be 2025, since next year is AoS 4.0.
-
1
-
-
It will only be one new UW war and for me out of that lot. But I was impressed with the Legions Imperialis models. Those were a lot better than the epic scale models that I remember. I wonder if we will see a Warmaster reboot with similar quality models in a few years time?
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:
All aboard!
(Anyone knows what book this beautifull piece of art belongs too?)
http://goblinlee.blogspot.com/2019/05/ratspike-john-blanche.html
That would be art by John Blanche. It might have been used in Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3rd edition rule book. Warhammer books of that era were full of art by people like JB and Chris Achilleos.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:
Don't worry, @KingBrodd is always happy when an AoS release happens ! Rspecially if Skaven are involved. They make tasty treats for his ogors.
I would have thought that selling deep fried Skaven, even if the customers are Ogors, is a violation of food safety standards in most parts of the Mortal Realms.
-
3
-
-
I am hoping any Skaven release is just an UW war and nothing more.
I want to see more 40k releases. I am so seriously not interested in 40k. With every 40k release, I get to save some money. More 40k please, GW.
Lots of Order releases for AoS is good too. Though I am not interested in Order myself , I am very happy for all those Order players getting gorgeous new models for Seraphon and CoS. And I get to save my money. More Order for AoS, please GW.
I hope we are not going to see lots of filthy rat releases for AoS. This is bad..very, very bad-bad. Just when I thought my bank account was safe. Please GW, don’t do this to me. Nooooooo!
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Flippy said:
Oh yes, you are right. I have already forgotten this article; wasn't it just a bunch of design sketches from a computer game though?
As for their idea for TOW I guess its just "We give you the final and ultimate WFB edition. You will get the official ruleset, the opportunity to buy all the old stuff you apparently love so much and a handful of new models from time to time". Nothing more, nothing less.
I rather suspect IP rights protection has a lot to do with it. A copyright lawyer might be able to tell us what GW is up to, and possibly, maintaining a living IP might be what that lawyer would talk about. GW is getting a decent income out of royalties, as I understand it. IP matters to them.
Anyway, I don't really care. An up to date rule-set with better base sixes looks pretty good to me. I have other people around who also want to play it. And it is a bit of a blast from the past. One from the vaults, or so to speak. After all, at the end of the day, it is a hobby and thus is all about having some fun with friends. Why over think it?
-
3
-
-
14 minutes ago, Beliman said:
Completely agree. It's like any Black Library book: We have 3 or 4 armies that are moving the main narrative with new units, new ruleset, new weapons and new models. But that doens't mean that other armies are dead (as some people believe), it means that they can still play without any problem, but they need to wait for a new campaign book to be tthe stars of the show. Btw, all this armies still ahve their own rules and miniatures, it's just that they are not the stars of the show in that book.
I think that is how it will be.
For my own part, I am very happy that for all the factions for which I could build an army (I have a large pile of 'potential'), only one (Chaos Warriors) is in the part of the initially story at release. I can save some money and, more importantly avoid creating more storage problems. Furthermore, I am delighted fans of the long neglected factions are finally getting some love from GW. Not everyone will be pleased but I think GW struck a fairly good compromise with the release plan.
-
Back to bases....this guy thinks Citadel miniatures were too big for their bases from 1994 onward. I think he might be right. I have only been looking at Dark Elves, but their Black Guard from the late 90's really needed a bigger base.
When you look at his size comparisons, I can see why I can't recall ranking up issues from back in the day. The original base sizes might be good for anyone playing the first 3 editions only. I might have to donate my pile of 20mm bases to some Oldhammer group.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:
So are the skaven at some point.
I’m pretty certain that we are currently plan-sheming the assassination of of the false proclaimed god-thing.
and what better way then not to destroy a whole realm.
let the elf-things suffer as well.
we’ll rewrite the story of what stormcast into something more grimmdark, yes-yes😂
I think we need to find out more about what the Skaven have been up to. How about something like this:
Mallus is the core of the Old World, now fixed in the firmament in Azyr and used to mine Sigmarite metal to make Stormcast stuff. For many centuries now, Sigmar has been covering up rumors of lodes of Warpstone deep inside Mallus. He has also been suppressing stories of Skaven activity around those Warpstone nodes. Finally, he has been suppressing witnesses descriptions of these Skaven. Tales of the appearance of these Skaven say they look like the same old sculpts that long predate the Mortal Realms and possibly are still being mounted on square bases.
So there you have it. A Skaven focused campaign in Azyr itself. After all, who else could possibly get into Azyr to cause trouble? And this would be a good opportunity to produce the model of Sigmar himself that we have all been waiting for.
-
2
-
-
On 5/18/2023 at 4:20 PM, Wraith said:
I'll try to add some photo comparisons on the weekend. It is a matter of taste and I might be too fussy.
I had better do this before I forget. I hope the photos show how big the new Chaos Lord on Demonic Mount and Exalted Champion are. (they are the grey ones, BTW)
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Noserenda said:
There absolutely comes a point where X-hammer loses all meaning and you need to start using edition names.
That time is now
Picked up a few more Dwarves recently to expand my old Throng but im waiting on bases, rebasing whole armies is tedious but i dont think movement trays are really the answer given the lack of flexibility you might want, let alone skirmishers and the like. I am hoping basing artillery together wont be too awkward though as it looks a lot better imho.Wait! I am on a role! What about Kings of War, Oathmark and Conquest? We could call them "Nothammer".
To take the basing issue to a whole new level, I was measuring Citadel and unbranded bases.
Citadel 20x20mm is actually 20mm in dimensions.
Unbranded 25x25mm is actually 25mm in dimensions.
Citadel 25x50mm is 24mm by 50mm in dimensions.
I can't find a Citadel 25mm square base without opening a blister pack. Does anyone have one handy to measure? Or is this going to far?
-
I thought I might share some links to youtube content related to The Old World that I have been enjoying:
My favorite is a ride on Rob and Val's TOW hype train (toot.toot!). You too can be #squarebased. Here is their latest discussion covering a range of issues.
8 hours ago, Tervindar said:I printed them at 88% scale to match a true 28mm model, and are on 20mm squares. For ToW, I'll just use those trays that have the spacers, as this army I won't be rebasing since I want to keep it potentially for 6th.
Dr Blaxill has lead an informed discussion of the base size issue. He is another content creator that I regard highly:
I have decided to accept the new "Retrohammer" format as the newer models really need it. But this does create problems for "Oldhammer" (or "Paleohammer", if you like) and "Medihammer" gaming*. I have 3rd edition, 6th edition and 7th edition rules with a range of 6th edition supplements and army books. So I would like to maintain compatibility. But I think I will use the new base format even for older rule sets to keep the number of formats down. Otherwise I would have three basing formats: round AoS/40K, traditional square format, contemporary Retrohammer format.
I wonder if we should agree that tournaments for Oldhammer/Medihammer (eg: 8th edition and earlier) should stick with the traditional base sizes? If so, I have plans for a 6th ed era "Cult of Slannesh"army, given I have some older models that look a bit small compared to more modern models, that would be happy on smaller bases.
*I think AoS can be regarded as "Neohammer" and TOW should be regarded as "Retrohammer".
-
5
-
2
-
...).
Warhammer - The Old World
in Warhammer: The Old World
Posted
Yeah! Quite possibly GW is running a cunning reverse psychology marketing campaign that gets everyone sucked in by manipulating their emotions. Soon people will be racing out to buy whole new armies to build, paint up and then burn in protest.