KingKull

Just curious, how has the cannon fared in your games? I fielded 0 of them (or other warmachines) in my half a dozen or so games with dwarfs, and I'm wondering if I'm missing anything (although it doesn't feel like I am).

Thank you for not minding it! (My closest wargaming friend is allergic to outside advice so I'm always wary when giving it haha!) As I understand the Shield of the Lady ability, the unit itself needs to have a knightly vow (that's how it's worded, at least). As for your list, I'd consider ditching the lvl 1 (not worth it imo, especially when facing lvl 3-4s) and the cannon unless it's a heart choice you're willingly taking (same with the treb). The only use I see for warmachines now is making the enemy want to come to you (and even then only in the absence of other tools that do it better), which isn't a problem for Brets given their speed. For the duke, I personally would never leave home without Sirenne's locket so that things like dying at the hands of a Sphinx's killing blow just don't happen, also possibly Gromril great helm. If you're taking the Virtue of Knightly temper, I'd also ditch the ogre blade and just go for the lance (or perhaps sword of heroes if you're dead set on monster hunting). Did the squires prove to be useful in any way? I still haven't tried playing with them.

I actually played a list very similar to your opponent's in the game where the Brets absolutely wrecked me (game was 1500 though, and my Ushabti didn't have bows). For Brets, I think that two lances is far too little to be able to pressure the opponent in any meaningful way, and 3-man darts of GK are too good not to be taken. Btw I get what you're saying about list building, as I too refuse to play armies that don't look like, well, armies (which is why I was put off Sigmar for a long while btw), but yours definitely has room for improvement, possibly even within said parameters. But yeah, I'd definitely say his list was a lot more optimized than yours. Add those spicy rolls and gak mission deployment to the mix, and I can see why it could've felt frustrating.

I don't think anything in TK is undercosted (scorps are good, but not fanatic level tbh), but yeah, some people are just born lucky. Could you share the lists used on both sides?

That's a lot of bitterness right there. I don't know what kind of list you played against, but I got absolutely wrecked by my regular opponent's Brets in the first game with TK I played recently (after winning against him consistently with dwarfs). From my experience so far (both practical and theoretical), TK are nowhere near as oppressive as some armies out there (bar the dragon, which you didn't face). Sure, they may have the tools to kinda (emphasis on kinda) deal with most stuff out there (as opposed to relatively one-trick-pony (no pun intended) Brets), but most of that stuff is tame and/or has real vulnerabilities/downsides. It may be a combo of bad dice rolls (or your opponent's good ones) and bad deployment? Edit: I don't know what lists were being used, but it sounds like your opponent was more competitively oriented than you are (in list building and actual gameplay) on top of luck.

You need to charge something else along with dragons - ie dark riders with a champion to accept challenges

I didn't see any talk about this. Sounds interesting (and tragical at the same time). https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerFantasy/s/1Pe4YbADfl

Printed Highlands dwarfs & Brets, painting the former as I wait for the Bret launch box to get the book & peasants. I'm seriously considering beginning a third army, and I'm split between Ogres, TK & WoC. As other people have noticed on the internet, painting comparably less detailed R&F models (compared to contemporary 40k & AoS units) did wonders to my painting motivation

To add to this, AoS could have had fewer armies with larger model ranges. I'm not talking about whether this works for the business side of things (I don't know); but I'm damn sure I would've preferred that.

This writeup is absolute gold, and I can't thank you enough for it. Maybe save it in a pdf format and release it into the wild? I'm sure many more people would be extremely grateful to read something like this.

This trio of dwarf thanes

Could you share your entire list please? I'm looking at getting into tomb kings, but for the life of me can't get around the faction.

To anyone who's taken the time to read the rules in a more detailed manner: can Dwarf units charge with the conveyance rune from the Anvil of Doom or not?

Slightly worried that the Exile's vow is Knight's vow +1 (or rather +3). Wait and see the full picture, I guess.

I don't know. To me, it feels more like what adult salespeople think kids want rather than what kids really want, but maybe I'm wrong. In my experience, kids fall for what looks cool to them first and foremost, without bothering much with the goodness or evil of said things. On a personal note, I remember being delighted by discovering that protagonists from "evil-looking" factions in various Heroes of Might and Magic IV scenarios and campaigns had very human (and sometimes even noble) motivations when I played that game as a little kid. I absolutely agree with the second part.

Another final note since I already took the bait: if Settra was evil, so were Alexander the Great, Ramses II and Julius Caesar (and again, a case could be made for that as well, but it would largely depend on the position one is commenting from).

To play the devil's advocate here, it's not any easier to comprehend than just "here's a bunch of factions, each has distinct reasons to fight the others, now read on to discover them." Chaos and (contagious) necromancy (so not Tomb Kings), being the two existential threats to the whole world, would arguably be in a category of their own which is beyond moral "evil" (regardless of the morality system one is starting from) and more in the "purge immediately upon sight" territory. Even then, the idea of evil and morals in general (much like in real life) largely depends on one's viewpoint and culture - the "Were of Fjirgard" vignette from the 6th edition Hordes of Chaos book comes to mind, in which the wives and daughters of Norscan warriors who succumbed to spawndom of sorts still look after them and regularly bring food to the caves they now reside in. In short, I always preferred the kind of setting where it's just a free-for-all driven by "us vs them" rather than good vs evil, and I'm not even sure if I'm in the minority here (factoring in people who are fine with both takes).

For the life of me, I don't understand why they are so adamant about the "good" and "evil" camps. I'm not particularly upset about it as we can all ignore the artificial division if we want to, but I just don't see why it matters so much, either lore-wise or meta-marketing wise.

With such cases, I think it's just best to follow your current mood, since we're pursuing this hobby out of joy. Want to play/paint nothing but WHFB for the next 6 months? Go for it! Feel like diving back into AoS and forget about ToW for the foreseeable future? Do so! For example, I've been building and painting my dwarf throng with which I've been playing 7th with a few friends lately, but then got pulled back into my AoS lizardmen project after deciding to give a couple of saurus a lick of paint on a whim. Game wise, I think it's good that the two games function very differently and scratch completely different itches, so there's always the other one when the first (inevitably, imho) grows stale. To quote the friend I've been playing with, AoS is a better "game", but WHFB/ToW makes you feel like a general. All in all, it's a great time for people who enjoy both.

Only it isn't, really. Even Peachy said during a podcast appearance (the one he occasionally co-hosts, name escapes me) that such claims were more of an excuse than the real reason, noting that artists themselves don't take the threat of a Matt Ward scenario seriously and would much rather be credited. IIRC, he mentioned that they don't credit the artist because they don't want to have another Duncan Rhodes scenario, and want consumers to think about art/models in terms of Games Workshop the brand, rather as the work of an individual artist.

I was thinking about that as I've been playing some 7th edition with friends lately (and I'm playing dwarfs after playing wood elves while WHFB was still a thing, so I get the pain). On the one side, not hitting back most times is frustrating, but on the other, step-up kind of makes initiative redundant in case there's more than 10 models in a unit that goes second. I've come to the conclusion that the addition of entire first rank hitting no matter the base contact might be a way to make the no step-up less punishing, but retain the tactical element it brings to the table (in theory, at least).

I'm sad this forum doesn't have a SAY WHAT emoji for this specific post. Please do tell more

I would buy dozens of these (again, as I sadly sold my WE army years ago) in a heartbeat. Same goes for glade riders (and even 6th ed eternal guard & wild riders, which I like infinitely more than 8th ed resculpts).

The specification of "heavy cavalry" being on 30*60 mm makes me think that fast cav will stay on old cavalry bases

Being mounted doesn't confer +1 to AS anymore it seems - which is common sense, and it may just make heavy cavalry (I'm looking at you, imperial knightly orders) less of a mindless hammer/tarpit, since they won't have the 1+ armor save anymore.