Neil Arthur Hotep
-
Posts
4,455 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
105
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Neil Arthur Hotep
-
-
11 hours ago, Loyal Son of Khemri said:
Crypt-Halls: Demented Flesh Eater musicians or banshees. My personal hope is a bunch of skeletons playing ragtime jazz/blues, why? cause it's a fun image.
*dooting intensifies*
As a side note, I want to mention how much I love that the instrument of choice for skeleton troops in Warhammer is the horn.
8 hours ago, Grim Beasties said:In terms of player character expansions, here is a wish list
1: Undead character, could be a vampire, necromancer, skeleton, nighthaunt, Bonereaper, fleshgolem, or any other macabre character
2. Destruction Character, could be anything ( I have a bias, sue me)
3. Chaos character, hopefully something on the more subtle end like the skaven or Warcry warbands (Unmade are from Shyish afterall)
4. Something completely different, Golemkind, Silent People, Zoat, or something completely new
I think we may be able to find some of the future expansion characters in rumour engines, be it good guys or bad guys. The game has been in development long enough:
SpoilerSome kind of Destruction character?
FEC expansion?
Birbs:
Can't have an AoS game without Stormcast:
More Nighthaunt or Deadwalkers?
Mounted Death stuff, probably Gravelords and not Cursed City:
Duellist guy:
F E N C E:
Big bat or gargoyle (Hangman's Coppse?):
The Hound of Ulfenkarn:
Whatever this is:
Of all those images, I think the duellist's dagger and Stormcast stuff are the most likely to be new player characters.
I think the eyeless vulture is fairly likely to be Cursed City related, the other vulture not so much.
I would not be surprised if the bone flute and pitted sword were part of an FEC expansion. The stocks with a hand nailed to it also seem like they could be for Cursed City. As does the giant bat/gargoyle. I think that creature's foot on the grimey ruin also seems fairly plausible as a Cursed City thing.
I believe the tattered banner and coat with scale armour look more like a Gravelords unit. Maybe updated Black Knights?
The ramshackle weapons look like they could be Death related, but I am leaning towards Destruction.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Sception said:
Shifting from grousing about potential price point concerns to a more positive note, the more time that passes from the preview, the more I absolutely adore the new mounted wight king.
Part of why I'm so excited for this model is because I wasn't sure "wight king on skeletal steed" was going to continue to be an option going forward. In fact, I had kind of resigned myself to the idea that the option was probably going to be removed, so this confirmation that the option will continue into the new battle tome comes as something of a relief.
But more than that is just the model itself, which is just fantastic model in its own right. In particular, it's very evocative of the classic Warhammer Armies: Undead artwork and aesthetic, just updated to take advantage of GW's improved model making abilities. There's distinct, recognizable elements brought forward not just from the old metal mounted wight king (the helmet, the shield emblem), but also from other classic undead models. The steed's barding takes queues from the old Red Duke model in particular (the barding on the steeds neck) while blending it with more modern design elements taken from the black knight models this wight king will most likely be fielded alongside (the layered plate/chain/cloth barding on the steed's body).
This kind of faithful, almost reverential update of a classic model blending in modern design elements and elevating the result to spectacular new heights is a treatment that up till now had mostly been reserved for faction-defining special characters like Abaddon the Despoiler or Sigvald the Magnificent. Seeing that kind of effort and care lavished on a relatively minor character model like the Wight King makes me feel like the Soulblight Gravelords release could really be something special.
There is one thing in particular that I appreciate about GW Skeletons is that they don't deform their skulls to give them cartoon angry skeleton expressions like a lot of model companies do. This image of mantic skeletons shows what I mean pretty well:
And yet, with the two Wight Kings they have managed to make them expressive and give them personality. For the new Wight King on Steed, they have actually done something incredibly smart: They used his helmet and the horse's armour to suggest facial expressions. The rim of the Wight Kings helmet gives him a brow line that he would not otherwise have, and the horse's armour partially covers it's eye sockets to give it an menacing expression. It's just such a smart move that makes the models much more expressive without becoming cartoony.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, dekay said:
I've done a quick research:
He first appeared in 1986, in Terror of the Lichemaster set:
http://solegends.com/citscenarios/lichemasterterror-01.htm - you can see his original model here.
Then he got resculpted circa 1995 to his current form.
Thank you! I have only been able to locate old catalogues and the Kemmler model has been missing from the 2008 and 2009 versions, but was available in the 2010 one.
It has seriously held up fairly well considering it's from 95. Retirement after 25 years is well deserved, though.
-
9 minutes ago, Still-young said:
That current Kemmler model is old though. I’m pretty sure it was around when I started, I remember seeing it in some of my earlier WDs. Krell is much much more recent.
1 minute ago, dekay said:I think the resin one is exactly the same as 90s metal model, only the material changed. I remember his pictures from 5th ed Magic supplement, I'm positive it's the same Kemmler as the current one. There *was* an earlier sculpt before that, but it might've been from the late 80s.
It could always be possible that what I found is a re-issue of an older metal model in finecast. It would be great if anyone knew for sure.
-
Just now, Lazarine said:
I believe the Heinrich Kemmler model dates back to 1994, remember it coming out, and pretty sure it has never been updated.
The Krell model is much more recent, think it was from the last refresh of the range before the End Times, at the same time as the newer vampire lords, like the Von Carsteins.
The Kemmler model has definitely been updated, you can find pictures of an older metal model if you google it. I am fairly confident about the resin Kemmler model being released in 2010, because it first appears in the 2010 worldwide catalogue (along with an old Krell model).
-
20 minutes ago, EMMachine said:
The Question is, is GW going back to a weekly release or will it stay at 2 weeks, because this would be a point that would speak against March 13th, because we already have a release for March 6th.
If 2 week releases will stay the earliest release would be March 20th.
I was under the impression that GW is going back to weekly releases starting in march, but I don't have a source on that besides "everyone is saying".
28 minutes ago, Souleater said:I'm sure I got Necromancer Avec Chapeau in the Great Lead sale?!
I am misremembering, surely? Was that sculpt that old?
It stood the test of time pretty well, at any rate.
I tried to figure out when Mr. With Hat and Mr. With Black Axe were released, but could not find any definitive info quickly.
I believe they were updates for Kemmler and Krell from late Fantasy (7th, 8th or End Times), but I could well be wrong. Does anyone know for sure?
EDIT: As far as I can tell, the Necromancer with Hat is from 2010, and the Wight King with Black Axe is newer than that.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, EMMachine said:
If it would be March 13th, their should be a "Coming Soon - Preorder next week" with this on Sunday.
My guess would have been April or May, but the preview showed way more than I have thought.
Honestly, I would not be surprised if Cursed City comes out fairly soon. We know they have been sitting on the models for nearly a year from rumour engines. No doubt the game was intended to release a lot earlier.
March 13th seems like a plausible release date, given that we should probably expect BR: Teclis to come out around the end of March if the release timing of BR: Morathi is any indication. And since all the models have been revealed for Cursed City now, I don't really see why this should not be possible.
That said, I will also not be surprised if we see Cursed City in April or later. That would be just like GW, too: Get everyone massively hyped about a new release, then wait a few months until all the hype has died down to actually release it.
-
3
-
-
17 minutes ago, Random said:
I believe this as well. As GW has used the recent times to do that to a lot of sets.
Most of the old Underworlds sets have been repackaged into AoS sets without the cards and being 5€ cheaper for some time now. Thundrik's Profiteers or Mollug's Mob are two examples of sets that were "No Longer Available" just a week ago, but are now both back in stock. With a new army on its way, a repackaging makes sense.
But why would we believe that this is a case of units being repackaged when we know new plastic Vampire Lord, Bat Swarm and Mounted Wight King models exist and that GW is trying to phase out Finecast models?
It makes very little sense to me that those old models would stick around for Gravelords.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Loyal Son of Khemri said:
That begs the question: are skeletons or zombies on the bottom of the pyramid?
If I remember my Warhammer Fantasy lore right, zombies are the most garbage kind of undead. But in AoS, there are sentient varieties of both zombies and skeletons that run their own kingdoms.
That reminds me, though, I need to go take archery lessons so that I don't end up as a stupid spear skeleton after I die.
21 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:I wouldn't really get too excited.
Likely just a re-boxing. GW and FW stuff has been going "No Longer Available" now for a few months, when really they're just out of stock or getting new boxing.
FWIW the Blood Knights are still "No Longer Available" on the UK store.I don't think so. I would really expect all those resin models to no longer be part of the Gravelords model range after that book comes out. Especially for stuff like bat swarms and vampire lords, where we know a new plastic model exists.
Plus, when I visit the store, Blood Knights are "no longer available", while Black Knights are "temporarily out of stock".
-
59 minutes ago, Grim Beasties said:
This is just a bit of speculation but what if Gravelords is split into 3 sub groups like Gloomspite Gitz? For example you would have Soulblight, Deathrattle , and Necromancer/Zombies
I see it more as a hierarchy with Soulblight at the top. No doubt we will see subfactions that enable Deathrattle/Deadwalker/Soulblight only lists, though. Deathrattle and Soulblight are already barely playable as their own list. It would not take much to make them full subfactions.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Chikout said:
The warcry article on Warhammer community has a fee campaign based on broken realms: Morathi. They said they will do one based on Teclis next month so that pretty much confirms we will see it in March.
Based on the timeline of the release of BR: Morathi, I have been expecting BR: Teclis very close to the end of March (two full months after announcement). It will be interesting to see if they are speeding up the release schedule of the BR books. It will be hard to fit in another thing for warcry in time, otherwise.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, zilberfrid said:
I forgot one thing I really would like to see changed: More differentiation of the words "Wound" and "Damage"
We have:
- Wound value
- Wounds attributed
- To wound
- Mortal wounds
- Damage value of a weapon
- Damage dealt
The way these interact is super unintuitive, and changing a few words here might make it a lot clearer.
Currently (as far as I understand it):
- Roll to wound, if successful: enemy saves
- Take damage value, apply modifiers
- Apply damage
- Attribute wounds
- Compare total attributed wounds to wounds value, if equal or larger, dead and go to next
Somewhere, there is damage dealt/damage taken in there. I think mortal wounds simply forgo the roll to wound and save, but there is a niggling something that tells me this is not entirely correct.
There is this weird game state where an attack has succeeded, the target has failed it's save roll, but the wounds caused by the attack have not yet been applied to the model. That's the time when bodyguard abilites usually apply. It's just such a strange, counter-intuitive moment, where according to game logic an attack has passed the target's defenses and has wounded, but it has not yet wounded anyone in particular. The wounds are just kind of free floating.
A strange consequence of this is that during this moment, you can attempt to negate free floating wounds as often as you like. The rule that disallows multiple wound negations only applies to assigned wounds. This is really the kind of weird edge case, potential gotcha moment that I would love to not have to worry about as a player. I think it would help a lot if there was an in-depth rules document that helped players understand the inner workings of the game better, in addition to the basic rules that we have at the moment and that are good enough for 95% of play.
-
7 hours ago, stratigo said:
A minus one to hit is a significant decrease in expected damage. And the combos in the game are so fundementally warping that it's better to have at least some tools to take the combo pieces off than it is to not have those tools and protect support characters. Like, they'd have to redo every army with ridiculous combos to tone that stuff way down before you can make the combo pieces untargetable (and GW would probly to something dumb like making cauldrons and bells untargetable too like they already have). Seraphon would jump from 65 winrate to 70 if you removed the ability to target their combo pieces.
[...]
And you can't start stacking further negatives to hit because, well, negatives are already pretty common. DoK can all be minus 1 or more for their supports. LRL will have the majority of their army minus one to hit at the start. All characters are already minus one. There's a lot of artifacts or command traits that give out minuses to hit in shooting. Start stacking that stuff and shooting becomes worthless against some of the best armies in the game,
I think this is in response to Look Out, Sir! being fairly useless. On the one hand, you are right. -1 to hit is significant. Especially if your shooting attack has a low hit chance in the first place, like 5+. But on the other hand, +1 to hit has to be just about the most common buff around, so the disadvantage is also kind of easy to negate. And on the third chaos mutated hand, the armies that are most affected by Look Out, Sir! are the lower tier shooting armies, not the top ones.
Seraphon, for example, have a pretty easy time either buffing their hit chance back up for Skinks or can use their other sources of mortal wounds to make up the difference when picking off heroes. If they are bringing Chameleon Skinks, they deal mortals on a 6 to hit, so -1 to hit does not affect their damage enough to be an actual defense against their shooting. Same for Salamanders. The Bastilladon also has the Skink keyword, so it gets +1 to hit fairly easily, too.
Lumineth Sentinels are the same: They deal their damage as mortal wounds on hit. This is just extremely strong on shooting, because it means their damage is barely affectedy by Look Out, Sir! and cover, since -1 to hit does nothing against effects that trigger on natural 6s and +1 to saves does nothing against mortals.
But I agree with you in so far as I also see the need to have shooting which is good enough to be able to remove buff pieces. I think that is generally healthy for the game. But currently, some armies have to barely try to do this, while others are nearly unable to. Just look at the points you have to invest into otherwise sub-par units to remove a buff hero reliably in Mawtribes. Or even in Cities of Sigmar, which have pretty solid shooting. But Seraphon get to remove buff heroes at range nearly incidentally, with all the mortals they have flying around even when they don't build to do this. And Lumineth basically just need to bring 20 archers to all but guarantee 5 to 6 mortals anywhere on the board every turn. I think this imbalance, where you either can't really efficiently deal with buff heroes or get to remove them super reliably and cheaply is definitely worth looking at for a new edition.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:
If you would go for Skitarii, making a few gyrocopter-like things from Pteraxii might be an option, I think something could be done with the 5 models to make 2 gyrocopters, say two biplanes with a stabilizer. I would like to have another gyrocopter (only have a metal and a kitbashed one), but think the kit is just too expensive.
I already used that idea for my Knight Azyros:
I do have an idea for using the big wings from the Archaeopter and a Steam Tank to make a Kharadron boat. The only problem with that is that because of the size of the Steam Tank it would probably have to be a Frigate or Gunhauler, which is just not worth it for the cost.
I agree that price of the Gyrocopter kit is awful. It's the worst points-per-money I have seen.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Sharkbelly said:
Any guesses as to what these might be? Here's one thought: the Gheistgale spot on the map mentions that none dare venture near it except the spectral dead. So ghosts of some kind? How about Myrrmourn banshees or something similar?
I think the spots on the Cursed City map that are not yet connected to any of the big bads seem like a good basis for future expansions.
Right now, we have:
The Gheistgale
The blurb mentions spectral undead. But there are none of those in the base game. That makes the idea of a Nighthaunt expansion pretty plausible to me. But I don't think the Gheistgale will have banshees, because...
Shadowed Crypt-Halls
The discription of the Crypt-Halls mentions music and screams! That sounds like if a Banshee goes anywhere, it will be here.
The Clot
Much like the Gheistgale, the discription of this location seems to hint towards another Death army. "Carrion Horrors" sounds like Flesh Eater Courts.
Hangman's Copse
Sylvaneth and bats are mentioned. I would love to see what undead sylvaneth look like, that's for sure. A bat-themed expansion does not sounds super exciting.
Ven Alten Skydocks
There is a connection here both to the Kharadron Overlords and the Ven Alten family. I would love to see a KO ghost ship.
I think it's also worth noting that some of the heroes have explicit connections to certain villains, but others don't. That could also hint at future expansions, although we are probably getting new heroes in those as well.
-
14 hours ago, Neverchosen said:
I think that is the issue with the cost of this hobby, on the one hand there are expensive premium purchases such as centre piece models and then there are small core unit and horde purchases. Both are great uses for such a giveaway I mean I went to both extremes getting expensive preimum models for my Slaves to Darkness that I couldn't afford otherwise and Gnoblars for my Ogors because I think they are funny and add personality to the army.
You don't choose the horde life, the horde life chooses you. 😎
Although I kind of hate everything about playing horde armies, like how expensive they are, how many of the same model I have to paint and how fiddly they are on the table, to me nothing can really compete with the sight of 100+ model on the table.
11 hours ago, zilberfrid said:Instead of the Handgunners, you could take a look at the Cawdor Necromunda gang, there are 10 two handed guns in there that can be made into more medieval handguns, and the normal handgunners are really bad. Skitarii are also an option if you're going for a cogfort/Kharadron allies vibe.
Guards can be fixed with Greatsword/pistoleer heads, but the Handgunners are really bad.
You're not wrong. This is actually one reason why I have so far put off buying them. The problem is, I really want my Cities army to have an overall Freeguild aesthetic. Even the stuff that is usually dwarves is converted to have Freeguild crew.
But I realized that I am also still missing two Gyrocopters for my final list. So I have replaced the Handgunners with those for now. Let's hope Handgunners get an updates sculpt before I have to commit to getting them. But even if not, I can deal with a few wonky looking models. They are just battleline troops after all.
-
1
-
-
On 2/19/2021 at 12:54 AM, Evil Bob said:
Has anyone tried running The Sepulcharl Guard? I sort of boxed mine after the LoN FAQ nerf and forgot about them. Might be nice to dig these bonus up.
In my opinion, they are not worth it. They are sort of just a min-size skeleton unit that is not summonable.
For all their advantages, they also have a drawback that cancels it out. Yes, they heal d3 models from their warscroll, but they don't heal from gravesites and invocations. Yes, they can reroll charges, but they can't auto-charge 6". And on top of all of that you need to manage five separate weapon profiles just to deal no damage at the end.
I think you are better off just running them as alternative skeleton warrior sculpts.
-
I've kind of filled a basket with the most boring stuff possible. Freeguild Handgunners, Freeguild Greatswords, Skeleton Warriors and Black Knights.
It's all the horde stuff that is not super exciting, but necessary to round out my two existing armies. So getting all that for free would be pretty convenient.
-
17 hours ago, EMMachine said:
It's quite interesting. For once it took some time until Radukar made the Cities his own (Age of Chaos until the Necroquake) and we at least get some reason why our heroes try to free the city.
And also why the city is called "Ulfenkarn".
Weird that they say the city was originally called Mournhold. That's the name of a major city in the Elder Scrolls universe as well.
-
3 minutes ago, Sception said:
They only have one point more armor than skeletons, and while their attacks are better, skeletons at full unit size have fully twice as many attacks per model, before you even get to any buffs. And skeletons are around half as many points per model, and battleline by default. It's the comparison to basic skeleton warriors that has left grave guard largely without a niche in AoS since basically day one. The introduction of Grimghasts just highlighted in stark relief now not-elite grave guard really are by showing what an elite undead infantry at their approximate points value unit could be.
A last comment on this matter because it's off topic, but I think you are under-valuing Grave Guard.
The niche of Grave Guard over Skeleton Warriors is as an offensive unit. They are not worth for their extra armour. Skeletons do the job of a defensive unit much better just in virtue of being a lot cheaper per wound alone. That's why I would always take Grave Guard with two hand weapons and pretend the shield option does not even exist.
Offensively, Grave Guard are a lot better than Warriors, however. If you compare 40 skeletons with spears against 26 Grave Guard (because if you can get 40 skeleton warriors into combat in three ranks, you are guaranteed to be able to fit at least 26 Grave Guard in two ranks), Grave Guard are better against every save except '-'. Often, quite significantly better.
Crucially, Grave Guard also absorb buffs better than Warriors. +1 attack is a lot more valuable on them, simply because they get fewer, higher quality attacks comparatively. They can reach some pretty insane levels of damage under ideal circumstances. Offensively, they are not just a little bit better than Warriors. They are absolute blenders that are able to take down nearly anything they get into combat with, while Warriors will bounce off anything with a 3+ save or better even in the best case. Not to mention skeleton warriors lose a lot of their offensive presence if they drop below 30 models, due to them losing their bonus attacks. Grave Guard lose offensive presence linearly with model loss, while Warriors lose it at an accelerated rate. So while 40 skeletons vs. 26 grave guard looks somewhat close, 20 vs. 13 is no contest.
What holds them back, in my opinion, is that Grimghast Reapers are faster and more defensive, while also flying and being ethereal. Plus, they don't need much in terms of support. The only way to make Grave Guard really worth it right now is in Deathmarch, I think, because in that build they are suddenly not just fighty, but also fast enough to actually get into combat. And in that build, I would actually take 30 of them every time. There is just little reason to do so otherwise, while Reapers exist.
-
18 minutes ago, Sception said:
"Ulfenwatch" is not a kind of unit, it is the name of the city guard of Ulfenkarn, the setting of Warhammer Quest: Cursed City, specifically. It would not make sense for there to be a unit called ulvenwatch outside of that setting.
As for what the ulfenwatch would be called elsewhere, they are in fact referred to as skeleton warriors in their preview article on warhammer community. (link)
"While an individual skeleton warrior shouldn’t cause your party much trouble, they will be inspired to fight even harder by their banner bearer, so make sure that you try to take him out first." (emphasis added)
So yeah, these guys are almost certainly skeleton warriors. I could see these new armored skeleton warriors *replacing* both the current skeleton warriors and grave guard, leaving us with just one skeletal infantry unit, but I absolutely cannot see them coexisting with both. Grave guard are only barely, fractionally, marginally more elite than regular skeleton warriors. Offensively and defensively they're barely any different. there really isn't room for a 'mid point' unit between them because there is no space between them for such a unit to occupy. If anything, grave guard are already too close in ability to skeleton warriors to begin with.
So yeah, I barely see room for two skeletal infantry units, certainly not three, especially with a bunch of new units being added, and double especially with some rumors that FEC might be getting folded back into this faction as well.
I pretty much agree with this, and the point about the Ulfenwatch being referred to as skeleton warriors is in the community articel is solid, too. I am currently leaning towards them just being variant Skeleton Warriors sculpts, then. Let's hope they stay on 25mm bases if that is the case.
Although I don't think you are giving Grave Guard enough credit. They have a pretty insane damage output for infantry because they are on 25mm bases and can easily be buffed with extra attacks. They are just outclassed by Grimghast Reapers right now.
I suppose there is another option, which is Grave Guards getting a warscroll rewrite to be more elite, which would make room for the Ulfenwatch as a mid point. But at that point, Grave Guard would be more elite than Mortek Guard (the two units are already nearly the same), so that seems unlikely.
It could also be possible (although unprecedented, I think) to treat the Ulfenwatch plus Halgrim like a Warcry or Underworlds warband, where they are playable as a special unit of 11 models. Again, though, what makes this unlikely is that the Ulfenwatch really seems like just another normal skeleton warrior unit without special abilities that would make this an interesting option.
-
Just now, Joseph Mackay said:
sadly what’s considered op seems to have higher sales and therefore higher player representation (not always the case and I’m not saying everyone buys the newest powercreep book just because it’s op)
If we look at the statistics from Warhammer Weekly, it does not seem like being OP makes people pick up an army significantly more. Especially in the green "what armies do you play" graphic, we have to go down quite a few places before we find any of the current top tiers, and that survey is only a few weeks old.
I do think, though, that an OP book will have a short term sales spike and be overrepresented in tournaments for a while. But I also believe that people who are willing to buy an army for tournament purposes will not feel especially bad for selling it again later when a new top tier army establishes itself.
The participant base from the Warhammer Weekly survey is probably self-selected to be mostly people who are pretty deep into AoS already (enough to listen to podcasts and fill out surveys). At least for those people, OP rules do not seem to translate into them buying the army and sticking with it long term. And for more casual players, I think they will frequently just not know enough about the game to go for OP armies specifically. I think they will be more likely to get an army that looks good or is cheap and convenient to start.
But it would be nice to have better data on this point. I wonder if GW have internal data that suggests writing OP rules increases sales.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Joseph Mackay said:
Because Flesh-Eaters were the overpowered flavour of the month army at the time of their new book that everyone jumped on. That didn’t happen with fyreslayers as they’re easy to counter.
additional, any army that consists of mostly old fantasy models has higher representation in these things than the new purely AoS armies
Not sure about that, I think Fyreslayers have been consistently powerful for at least, like, one and a half or two years. They show up in tournaments pretty frequently, and do pretty well. I really think the problem is that people are just not as enthusiastic about their defensive play style. That only goes for people how have enough in-depth knowledge to decide whether or not to pick up an army based on game play considerations, of course.
-
4
-
-
On 2/14/2021 at 10:19 PM, Harioch said:
To me, with a name like Gravelords...i think it'll be a Legion of Nagash 2.0 with same grave site faction rules...but I still hope for vampires units (blood knights mounted and unmounted).
I'd be surprised if they don't rework the grave site rules. The whole SUMMONABLE keyword, actually. I don't think we will see that anymore in the new book.
On 2/21/2021 at 11:47 AM, CDM said:We have saw a new vampire lord and the underworlds warband.
The warband had a feral vampire looking model bit I can't see us having two different vampire thrall units. But the very martial looking vampires are a must, they fill that gap of hero quote nicely without being a top power like a lord, would be great to see lots of these on the board.
What makes you say that? I think the Vrykos Bloodborn and a potential winged Vampire unit are distinct enough to have both. If anything, I having Vampire troops be feral helps keep up the image of Vampires being a kind of big deal: The only way you are getting them as regular troops instead of heores is when they have gone crazy from blood thirst already (with the exception of Blood Knights).
Since zombies and skeletons are in the book and will probably fill the niches of mass infantry, I don't think there is much of a need for vampire foot soldiers (from a gameplay perspective). I like the idea of vampires being elite units with special roles much better.
17 hours ago, lare2 said:I reckon multi build units are pretty safe. Things like Black Knights will stay as is as they're also Hexwraiths. This means they have to keep to a theme, which has been indicated by a pretty traditional mounted Wight King.
I would even say that Black Knights are nearly guaranteed with the reveal of the Wight King. They might even get a new sculpt (although they don't need it). At this point, I would be more concerned about Hexwraiths, which look much more out of place in Nighthaunt than Black Knights do in Gravelords.
Restocked Models Now Have BOTH Round and Square Bases
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
It's all speculation at this point, but GW has not confirmed anything about the scale of TOW.
Basically, it's a decision point that could go either way. If they keep the models for TOW in scale with AoS, there is potential for cross over between the two games. This might result in more AoS players buying TOW models, but people who already have square-based Warhammer Fantasy armies might not feel the need to buy new models if they can just use their old stuff.
If they go to a smaller scale, this would obviously prevent proxying AoS models or reusing Fantasy models. They could also make the battles larger while still staying accessible (100 models at 15mm scale take a lot less effort to get ready than at 28mm). If they are hoping to capture the Total War crowd, maybe that would make sense? Hard to say, though.
I think it's more probable that TOW will be 28mm, like AoS. But we can really only speculate right now, and there are reasons that could justify the game going either way.
---
Back to the topic, though:
There are a few models in the GW catalogue that still come with square bases and, as far as I can tell, always have. I am not sure what the logic is for which units do or don't get them, though. All my Steam Tanks came with chariot bases. So maybe it's mail order only models that were originally from Fantasy?