Panzer
-
Posts
416 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Panzer
-
-
18 minutes ago, AaronWilson said:
The real question - what will people be playing!?
I'm going for some sort of elves, Dark elves are my current pick!Depends on what will be available. If it's the same as in WHFB then it will be Tomb Kings for sure. If it's just factions from the Old World then I'm hoping for Kislev.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Icegoat said:
I get what your saying but in three years time look how much AOS has changed I could have been happily collecting high elves and orcs and goblins until this year.
Now those armies are gone never to return where are the people who were collecting those armies going to go??? Dwarf cannon lines. Gone. Goblin wolf rider army. Gone. Devoted of sigmar. Barely exists anymore. AOS has torn out a lot from its starting line up and replaced it with armies whose popularity I find questionable. FYreslayers, kharadron, idoneth have good gimmicks but very few people I know collect them. And I have never in my area met an ironjawz collector.
I think people should be more worried than they are about this.
Just because those armies aren't popular in your area it doesn't mean they aren't popular elsewhere. In germany WHFB was more popular than 40k in many parts as well but that didn't nearly reflect the sales numbers GW had on a global scale.
-
The focus of my argument was less on Petrifex being the default for competetive lists and more on no matter what you do it's automatically going to be a competetive list that requires an equally competetive list from your opponent. Every subfaction should be able to be less competetive so people who like that subfaction for other reasons than crunch can use it without having to feel bad playing against weaker lists.
There's a huge difference between lists being competetive because they include a specific combination of units, relics, special rules etc, and a list being competetive simply because it's from a specific subfaction. -
One of the most important things to create and foster a gaming community, aside from being friendly and open, is to be active and have some kind of semi-regular schedule.
Nothing is worse for someone new to the hobby to have to keep asking whether someone wants to play except for having to keep asking just to get a 'not today' or similar as response (or if it's a community meeting in an LGS just not to find anybody there when visiting most of the time). That way interest in the hobby disappears super fast.-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Gwendar said:
I think I've said my piece on the balance subject as have others and I don't think you can change the minds of some people 😉. Overall I'm happy with it, but the solution is not to bring down the competitive choice but to elevate the others; this would still make Petrifex the tournament choice while making others not 100% horrible. @Sception I'm just going to agree to disagree. If other players don't like playing against Petrifex because it 'isn't fun' then I think those people need to separate fun games from competitive games. If you want to bring your Triple Keeper\Hagg Nar\2 Engine of the Gods + Shadowstike + Thunderquake\-insert tournament list here- then I am most assuredly bringing a competitive Petrifex list because if I didn't things would be much harder and that's okay. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having 1-2 particular setups being the tournament choice. I would never bring my tournament Skaven lists to new\casual players because I'm not that guy... but if we're practicing for a tournament then I would always bring a filth list just like they would.
If someone doesn't like that, play a different Legion. I don't know what else there is to say. You don't need to bring 1 down to match the others, they are balanced differently for a reason.Agree to disagree then.
It's fine to have a way to bring competetive lists, but Petrifex shouldn't default to competetive lists. It should be possible to play Petrifex without the enemy needing a super competetive list himself.-
1
-
-
As so often it's probably a mix of both. Petrifex seems too strong so should definitely receive a nerf, however others (especially Ivory Host) require a buff too.
-
32 minutes ago, Silchas_Ruin said:
Its great that so many people here have a gaming community so big they are not worried about it splitting at all. But for the rest of us, this is actually a problem. If my local play group loses 1/3 of the players, it will be harder to actually get a game and if you start having trouble getting a game more will stop.
It's less about the gaming communities being so big and more about being confident about people not just trashing their AoS armies because of Old World. It's not black or white. The world is not a binary one. Most people will collect and play Old World parallel to AoS, not instead.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, eekamouse said:
Here's the one thing I don't want "Old World" to be.
Yeah that would be horrible. Luckily WHFB was never this bad. At least not during my time during 7e.
-
Now I'm feeling much less bad about wanting to bring two Harvesters in my 2k list.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Even if the hype dies meanwhile, it only takes some active marketing in the months prior to the actual release to get everybody on board the hype train again.
-
8 hours ago, Gecktron said:
Something like this:
Crematorians
Leaders
Arkhan the Black, Mortarch of Sacrament (360)
Mortisan Soulmason (140)
Arch-Kavalos Zandtos (220)
Battleline
5 x Kavalos Deathriders (180)
- Nadirite Blade and Shield
20 x Mortek Guard (260)
- Nadirite Blade and Shield
20 x Mortek Guard (260)
- Nadirite Blade and Shield
10 x Mortek Guard (130)
- Nadirite Blade and Shield
Behemoths
Gothizzar Harvester (200)
Gothizzar Harvester (200)
Total: 1950 / 2000
Wounds: 108
Almost the list I'm going to build. Probably a bit stronger. Now I'm worried.
-
8 hours ago, Lightbox said:
So I've begun trying out the in-book colour scheme for Crematorium (though changing the initial yriel yellow for iyandan yellow contrast) and whilst it's a bit of a messy scheme it's quite quick and fun enough to paint. I'm pretty happy with how this big boy turned out and I'll have to see how the smaller stuff ends up but it's a good start
It's a very promising start, but the big guy really needs some more conrast between the bones, the glow and the armour. Right now all the elements bleed into eachother and look like one convoluted mass which is a shame for such a nicely detailed model.
Try to get the bones to be a bit more black and the armour a bit brighter bronze like in the examples in the battletome I'd say. Having the collected bones in his backpack painted in regular bone colours helps break up things too. -
Warmaster scale could be nice with modern miniature production methods but I prefer the regular 28mm scale and imo it's much more likely to be the case too.
-
11 minutes ago, michu said:
I've just realised that return to Old World could mean new miniatures for characters... UBERSREIK FIVE ANYONE?
Yeah I'm expecting new miniatures for most anything but something I'm really looking for would be a new Valkia miniature.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Moldek said:
While I agree that it would be a huge mistake to tease about square bases and end up with round ones (if only because they’ve become symbolic of the opposition between fantasy and aos), marketing teams in all kinds of companies have been known to play fast and loose with this kind of teasers.
If I remember correctly the video said something like « everything comes around, even squares ». So it might be a way of saying that the setting associated with square bases is coming « around » and being converted to round ones.
using square bases in my opinion would be bad because it would hinder cross compatibility between the 2 ranges. I’d much rather they’d put the Old World minis on smaller round bases and have square movement trays. Especially given how insanely expensive GW sells their bases.
I can’t believe I wrote 3 paragraphs about bases but here we are lol.
Well if other companies base their marketing on GW switching from square bases to round bases, it would make even more sense to bring them back and use both, no?
Also I think if they wanted to imply that they'd switch from square bases to round bases for the Old World they would have used a stronger visual language than just showing a square base in a matter how brand new products get shown/teased. To me the visual language they used really just means "square bases are coming back for something new".
-
Well not a horde, not charge&smash and also not SCE (which I would have suggested after the first two requirements) ... not very much left then. I'd say Kharadron Overlords as well. Perhaps a Legion of Grief army too.
-
8 minutes ago, Wobbly said:
So...? How does it tell us how square bases will be used? Will all miniatures use them? Will they instead be square trays with inserts for round bases? Does only infantry blocks use them? Where it only used as that was a very visual and remembered difference from AOS?
The answer to all that is that we don´t really know. It was only used in the promotion video for the announcement of a game that is years and years away. It can be a hint of things to come (bases) to be used but also as a tool for nostalgia and a pure marketing strategy.
Until we actually get more information I´d say we don´t actually know anything besides the game is supposed to be based in the Old World and that´s it!
I mean, sure you are free to ignore the obvious and decide to be blind to it until you see the rules. Whatever floats your boat.
-
9 minutes ago, Beliman said:
Not even that. The square base was just a sneak-peak to another teaser-preview that only showed the only oficial thing at this moment: the logo.
That's not really true.
-
12 minutes ago, JPjr said:
NO PANTALOONS!
but seriously if you’re going to try and capitalise on the success of Age of SIGMAR, that’s pulled in loads of new people surely you base your game around the rise of Sigmar, and his first confrontations with Nagash & an Everchosen.
rather than some Magnus dude who you then have to explain where in the timeline of the empire it is etc etc, much easier to just start at the beginning.
plus NO PANTALOONS!
I kinda agree. If they want to keep the ties to AoS they need to set it in a timeperiod where most of the know characters where already active and/or alive. If they weren't doing that they could just as well go really far back to the timeperiod where the Tomb Kings where still alive as they were the oldest human civilisation but that would be too far detached from AoS. It's not like it's in 40k where names from 10k years ago are still relevant and soldiers and traditions (aka Marines) are still mostly the same just a bit evolved.
-
2 minutes ago, michu said:
We're on the internet. It's tradition.
Tradition has always been one of the worst arguments in history.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:
It is my hope that if thety are going to do this that they do NOT (absolutely NOT) create a different ruleset and leave it the AOS ruleset and then just make background books for the old world.
That way our communities aren't divided up, the whining cranky minority that GW is trying to appease can get their background back, but most of the competitive people like me don't really care about background anyway.
If everyone has to use the same ruleset, there won't be any dividing up my community and making my player base smaller.
Thats all I really care about.
I know people have said lots will play both but thats just not true here in my reality. People will abandon AOS to play WHFB if they are given a WHFB ruleset, and that would leave things dead for me because my group would be halved in number and I'm playing BECAUSE of the GW community promising a large pool of players, not dividing us up into small little cells.
Write all the campaign books you want and set them in the old world. Thats great. That has no impact on my group because none of us care about campaign books, but keep the ruleset the same please!!!
I don't think GW wants to appease a "whining cranky minority". That doesn't generate much money if at all. Most people who are interested in this new system are very likely ones that would still be playing AoS as well.
I also don't think it would split the community nearly as much as some people here claim. It might be the case for your local community and in that case it would suck for you and I'd be sorry for you but I'm confident it's not the case on a global scale and thus has absolutely no relevance for GW.
I'd appreciate it a lot if we'd stop the name calling and the sky is falling mentality.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Ollie Grimwood said:
Just a thought it’s called Warhammer The Old World (at the moment) and the map is of the Old World part of the Warhammer world. Might be that it’s going to be a bit more pared back in comparison to WFB. Maybe that’s part of the Horus Heresy similarity, a reduced number of races/factions and a more concentrated scope.
Yeah I was thinking about that as well. Doesn't bode well for my Tomb Kings but gives hope for a Kislev army.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Beliman said:
New information:
The stream from yesterday, Tony Cottrell (one of the Forgeworld elad designers) talked about Warhammer The Old World. Maybe it will not be part of the main Warhammer Studio and more a side project for Forgeworld.Well yeah, he was in the teaser video, it got announced on a Friday which is the day FW stuff gets announced and they've compared it with 30k which is done by FW. ^^
-
9 minutes ago, Beliman said:
LOL. Nobody has denied that!! Of course the debate between both games is something (in my view) healthy. Constructive arguments are always good, and of course some pepople are going to take it personal in some points (I think that's what you are talking about...). Like I said, AoS for me seems to be a "beta" than a full fleshed game.
At least you should read my posts if you want to answer me. I said that one crowd (and not every WHF fun, just a loudy crowd on internet) just started insulting (ignoring any type of debate) both the game and the players.Uhm it seems you aren't understanding what I'm saying. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't a unique thing to the WHFB crowd as that's how your post made it sound. Nothing more nothing less. If you didn't mean it like that I apologize for misunderstanding.
11 minutes ago, Beliman said:Looking how arey you answering other people, I must say that I understand a lot now.
Don't worry, my back and forth with JackStreicher is not the norm. He's just the kind of person I just can't deal with.
Warhammer - The Old World
in Warhammer: The Old World
Posted
Unlikely. Those models are really old compared to todays standards. GW is releasing systems to sell models. Putting in the effort and ressources of 3+ years to create a new system just to sell outdated models makes no sense whatsoever.