Neil Arthur Hotep
-
Posts
4,329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
104
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Neil Arthur Hotep
-
-
4 minutes ago, Swamp Trogg said:
A challenge to logic? Hum... Gotta try something...
Here me out, guys.
@Whitefang
Fimirs? Pretty please...
If Beasts of Chaos are squatted from AoS only to be replaced by Fimir, I'll have some choice words for GW.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Someravella said:
I would keep only "Silent" (insectoids?), "Change" (Tzeentch? Morghur?), and "Hungry" (Ogors?).
If "lore" and "realms" are important, my first idea would be Lumineth Realmlords and their Loreseekers.
-
Just now, Ejecutor said:
Wow. It looks fancy!
He is a fancyman
I wanted a model that looked a little less haggard than the normal Cavalier Marshal, because my army is from a city that is proud of their wealth and artisan skill. But I still wanted him to look like a soldier rather than a knight.
I think I got there in the end, and I think the added AoS bits actually make the model read as Cities of Sigmar instead of Imperial Guard at a glance. I swapped out his gun for one from the old Pistolier kit, as well. You can see it a little in this picture.
-
I got my kitbashed Cavalier-Marshall painted, finally.
I think the Lord Solar kit is a pretty cool option if you want an alternative Marshal (although the regular one is pretty great). The robot horse is pretty great if your army is based in Chamon.
I used foot Marshal and Freeguild Cavalier bits on this guy. You will need to source a base if you are interest in doing this conversion, because the base size of the Lord Solar is quite significantly different from the Cavalier Marshal.
-
2
-
-
Once again, a proper base uplifts the model by a lot.
-
2
-
4
-
-
50 minutes ago, Still-young said:
Synergy across games seems to be almost the opposite of how GW work, especially with like the Old World/AoS divide…
It's a business choice, IMO. If you want to grow the player base, you make your games easy to get into (sharing models). This is the purpose of Kill Team and Warcry. They are games in their own right, but also entry poinzs for 40k and AoS.
If you want maximum monetization, however, you make people buy separate armies for each game, like AoS and TOW. GW is already the market leader in tabletop games. They don't need to spend extra resources to grow their player base. So they frequently don't.
-
8 hours ago, PiotrW said:
On the other hand, they said they will be moving these models to Legends next year. So, here's something I'm wondering: does the stuff in Legends really receive updates? I haven't checked the app, but the last PDF warscrolls for Legends models available on WHC are from 2021. Have there been further updates for these models in the app?
They updated a few Legends warscrolls at the start of 3rd ed, if I recall correctly.
-
2 minutes ago, Tonhel said:
The new skaven are phenomenal, but for the average painter / hobbyist these are really close to the IoB skaven, just more detailed and the very gritty paintjob helps😀.
Personally, I think the big advancement is the variation in poses. I think that will make these guys look a lot cooler compared to the IoB sculpts, even painted to the same standard.
-
3 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said:
Think these come in units of 20 or 10 ? I hope 20 just like the zombies/skeletons/hobgrots...
Are Clanrats the worst infantry unit in Skaven? If so, 20s, considering the changed reinforcement system. Since double unit size is the max now, I think any faction that can be characterized as a horde (Zombies, Skaven, Gitz) needs a 20 base size unit to make that workable.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Luperci said:
I also do not buy that the TOW/specialist games studio team strongarmed the main studio into giving up all this minis for exclusive use in TOW.
My best guess would be that BoC were slated for a big remaster eventually but due to some change of priorities within GW(maybe a new chaos faction like chaos duardin being focused on) caused them to completely axe any future plans, and the TOW release is just fortunate timing for them
I think this is more or less the most plausible explanation right here.
GW plans their releases pretty far in advance, but not decades in advance. The decision to remove Beasts from AoS was probably made before the announcement of the TOW core factions in May last year, but probably not long before that. This is conjecture, but I think Beasts were in the same boat as every other old WHFB faction for most of the lifespan of AoS: The plan was probably to update them eventually, but there was no clear time line beyond the current and next edition at any time.
TOW getting greenlit made it a necessity to divide factions/model lines between the two games, due to the GW-internal separate profit sheets. I imagine it was at the meeting where this was discussed that the AoS/Citadel team decided that they'd rather give away the BoC line and focus on building another original faction in the future, or something like that. I don't think there is a long running conspiracy and re-distribution of BoC models to other factions or anything like that.
-
5
-
-
13 minutes ago, Tonhel said:
I don't think a legacy faction is set in stone for eternity.
Again, if GW will continue with support for TOW and that the sentence "the scope of the project has changed" has some substance, than it is perfectly possible that Vampire Counts, Daemons and Dark Elves will become a core faction sooner than later.
They can't keep Vampires away from TOW, just because the Vampires are already in AoS. I don't believe that for a second. To much cool campaign stuff they can do with it.
I agree, factions that are legacy in TOW don't have to worry about being removed from AoS.
The path for legacy factions to graduate to core faction status is by having their old kits re-released instead, which I think is very possible for Vampire Counts. They have a bunch of old models that some people might want.
-
10 hours ago, The Red King said:
What a fun conversation to have to have a DECADE into the life of the game.
Yeah, I was also thinking that it sucks that we have to consider which model lines are safe or in danger at all.
It's one thing to note "models that are originally from WHFB are going to very likely get reimagined at some point", but the whole Sacrosanct thing really is a big detriment to the community trust GW has been building the last few editions.
-
3
-
-
35 minutes ago, ThalmorRepresentative said:
Is the knight with the wavy sword a Lord Solar from the astra militarum ktibash or straight from the kit. They look so similar - but epic job none the less!
It's a Lord Solar kitbash
-
1
-
-
An Arch-Cavalier and Freeguild Marshall on Chamonite Cog-Horse
-
4
-
1
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
Tbf, you could already do that unless you played into (a subset of) tournaments -WYSIWYG is not really a thing in casual play. What this does is to take away some depth for the players who enjoyed that part without actually giving anything for casual play
You see a lot of new players asking about optimal weapons for models and worrying about "would you have a problem if I build x but use y rules?" online, though. Perhaps irrationally, since weapon options very rarely did anything significant or when they did the optimal choice was obvious. Plus, as you said, the WYSIWYG police won't come to your house and confiscate your models, anyway. But it is a thing I have seen casual players struggle with in the wild, nonetheless.
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, Flippy said:
Agreed. But it is already an established fact that @Neil Arthur Hotep is not a fan of „quartermaster simulators” 😄
I think I'm just kind of burnt out on micro-optimizations. I used to spend ages building characters in RPGs, carefully thinking about every small decision. Before I actually started actively playing, that is. It made me realize that none of those decisions mattered very much except broad strokes once the dice hit the table.
The truth is, I don't feel super strongly about this choice, though. I just want either a real choice or no choice. If they had kept separate warscrolls for double hammers and hammer and shield, that would have been impactful enough to justify it for me. It does run up against the realities of painting and modeling units, as I described above, but it's fun. Not the old "swords are 3+/4+, hammers are 4+/3+" design though.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Beliman said:
I'm nit a big fan of that. I had a bit of hope that rules would be closer to the models they represent (and I'm not talking about lore, more about the physical models).
I agree with you and everyone else who likes the idea of having different weapons and loadouts in the rules also reflected on the models. It is cool, in theory.
In my experience, it almost always runs up against different barriers in reality, though. People build and paint models one way and then just tell you "these guys have swords but I'm using the spears warscroll, actually". Maybe it's because of a rules change, maybe it's because they built 2 min size squads but now want to try running reinforced, maybe swords just look cooler. And I think everyone agrees that it's unreasonable to expect people to buy, build and paint another unit just for a +1 to hit.
Personally, I am more glad that I will get the skip the 15 minute "loadout talk" in future games than I am sad about the loss of fidelity.
-
3
-
-
33 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
It seems that liberators have the same weapon profile with two hammers or hammer and shield. Great for modelling and rule of cool, but it feels a bit extreme in terms of simplification
Certainly a big change.
Looking at the Tomb Guard with shields that I have been proxying as Grave Guard with great wrapons for the past edition, though, I know it's not as big a deal as it feels at first.
-
9 minutes ago, Ragest said:
My problem with Nagash is that they show us how warscrolls work and some mechanics they have and suddenly nagash come with weird stuff like a skull symbol, damage points, power level, rampage, a weird big number with some color around and wizard (9), everything with any explanation about and I is too much shady information at the same time.
We will get used to this new terminology I guess.
Yet, reading most of that I feel like I know exactly what it means. Damage and health are extremely intuitive: You have health, you take damage.
Skull ability? Bad stuff that happens when you take damage.
Big number on a spell ability? Must be cast value.
Wizard (9)? 9-cast wizard.
Rampage is just monstrous rampage.
Only power level is unfamiliar, really.
Of course, I am only able to understand it easily because I know how AoS works and what Nagash's warscroll did before. And I am sure there will be some new wrinkles when the full rules are out. Monstrous rampages seem to work differently now, for example. But as far as intuitively and quickly communicating info, I think the new warscrolls look pretty good.
-
4
-
1
-
-
I only have one Stormcast, a Knight-Azyros:
I convertes him for my Cities back in 2nd edition when he gave all ORDER units +1 to hit.
He has been on the shelf for all of 3rd edition, but when I get an opportunity to proxy him for something, you better believe he's coming back.
-
6
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, Chikout said:
It's here.
The article also says there are seven weapon ability USRs. I can only think of 4. Mortal wounds, exploding hits, auto wounds and ignore save modifiers. Anyone care to guess what they all are?
Reroll 1s/failed/all, mortals on the wound roll, mortals in addition?
-
1 minute ago, Vaellas said:
This is where we get the Cogfort regiment with the Hero Cogfort and their Cogfootlets units joining them.
Hoping for a Cogfort leading a Steam Tank regiment, actually.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Lucentia said:
When it comes to cross-over stuff from the side games, I can kinda feel the pinch point from GWs perspective, it is neat and cool that you can also use those models in AoS, but it's also unsustainable in a way that (most of the time) their other ranges aren't, keeping every one-off board game model in circulation just cos it has an AoS scroll is going to be impossible sooner or later. If they had a more robust 'legends' system that would probably be perfect for this type of thing, give the side game stuff bonus warscrolls but clearly label them as something intended for limited use.
Hopefully they can make this a reality with the new modular rules thing they are pushing. They should absolutely separate their "matched play" and "tournament" modes.
1 hour ago, Whitefang back me up said:Why don't they mention the Cogfort?
My #1 biggest wish list item! Can't wait to see it if it's real.
EDIT: Also, all the leftover Empire stuff in Cities will very likely get a replacement instead of being removed outright, so I'm not too worried about those models. The Hurricanum kit is not even in TOW, I think it's actually treated as an AoS kit. Here's some cool art of it which acts as an illustration of the realm of heavens on ageofsigmar.com:
-
1 minute ago, DrossyGob said:
Who cares about waac player's wallets? It's a fluffy bundle now arbitrarily squatted (and surely Cursed City won't remain available indefinitely). Justifying GW's hostile practices is just stupid unless you're a callous shareholder.
I see a distinction between fully supported armies like BoC. Boneslitterz and Sacrosanct chamber, and models released in side-games like Warhammer Quest.
I don't think it's fair to call anyone who engages with the crunch of the game a WAAC player, either. It already kind of sucked in the last edition when Gorslav and Torgilius were temporarily very good in Vyrkos to have to tell new players "you will need to buy this huge bundle of other models you don't care about if you want to run these guys".
-
2
-
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Fimir for Old World if anything. AoS players don't care about Fimir (by and large) and 40k players double don't care. TOW is the nostalgia-driven "remember this?" game.