RetconnedLegion
-
Posts
131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by RetconnedLegion
-
-
2 minutes ago, Luperci said:
Ah I see, I wonder if darkoath that worship a specific chaos god exists, can you give them god keywords in the current s2d book (savagers, warqueen etc.)
A quick play on the app, it doesn’t seem so. I imagine their disdain is for the various mortals in the god specific factions.
I’m not going to make a declaration on the fluff before it’s released, too much of that going on with the current 40K internet silliness, but it does seem some of the themes from our dearly departed bovine chums have been transferred across to the less horned newcomers. -
2 minutes ago, Luperci said:
I don't think it's their disdain for monotheism, moreso disdain for "craven" Gods who they perceive as hypocrites
Last line of the paragraph. Also add to that their desire to see civilisation crumble and it’s sounding very familiar.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Vagard said:
Sad that 2 reclusians out of 3 have exactly the same pose
by the way, darkoath lore before skaven lore hahahahaha
Undivided worshipping savage warriors who look down on those that devote themselves to a single god? That sounds familiar…
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, dmorley21 said:
I mean, that’s on you. It was not worded as some big reveal. We got rules for Darkoath, an article looking at the models, and the EC stuff. All were new looks. Sure, they used the word shindig, but that’s just a fun word.
It was more of a hootnanny in the end.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Pizzaprez said:
But GW not wanting their players to use their armies in more than one book/setting/game system is absolutely not going away based on current trends; no idea if the colors thing is still relevant in 40k but it grossed me out real hard.It’s not. Detachments focus on play style over narrative restrictions. As it should be really. It should be up to the player to impose any restrictions on their armies they feel fit their background. I don’t use Gaunt’s Ghosts with my Catachans because I don’t feel they fit my fluff, but nobody should be told they cannot use them.
-
58 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Very likely. If we turn them all gold they would look ******.
Who looks better in all promotional shots? Only the Faithful!
-
10
-
-
21 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Is that a sexy Bel'akor?
That’s Azazel. He’s a daemon prince with serious history with Sigmar.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Nezzhil said:
A series of campaign books for ToW was on the pipeline since the beginning. That rumour is not a rumour, It is like saying that AoS next edition will have Battletomes
I’ve heard whispers that GW are considering releasing miniatures in the future. Can’t reveal my source.
-
13
-
-
5 hours ago, Baron I_oyd said:
Good evening/day everyone,
today I bring news regarding specialist game studios.
With the succes of Old World..GW considering reviving Thrones of Chaos Campaign and finish the story...all depends on two things: Thrones of Decay sales and Old World needs to continue gather revenue in similar style with remaining core factions.
Old World is now considered on same level of importance as Horus Heresy for the studio...it was never planned to go into this huge scale by the studio..but this changed a lot.
Sorry not buying it. Throne of Chaos was one of the last ditch attempts to turn WHFB sales around, along with Storm of Magic. It failed and it’s been moved on from. There’s simply no reason GW would take any TOW success and feel resurrecting a failed project, whose author has departed GW, would be the best route.
I’d believe Dreadfleet was returning before I’d buy this rumour.
-
1
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:
Its so good isnt it!! Whilst not in the Horror genre per se I highly recommend Gloomspite by Andy Clarke.
It completely changed my view on Gloomspite Gitz from funny quirky little Grotz to truly horrifying creatures that make me feel like Id have a better chance against a Khornate Bloodbound.
Gloomspite 100% should have been under the Horror branding. Everyone should read it.
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Maybe they substitute the Hobgrots with humans this time? Based on Horns of Hashut? Would be weird releasing Hobgrots for KB and the next edition doing the same for Chorfs. Is like Chorfs theoretically stepping into the FS but rather than being the main army the ones doing it would be their slaves.
I don’t think it’s that odd for Hobgrots being both. They’re only a single unit in Krule Boys, just like Cities have their Ogor.
-
26 minutes ago, BarakUrbaz said:
IIRC Chaos Dwarfs were designed less to be "Chaos, but Dwarfs" and more "Dwarfs that have given in to the evil side of Dwarfish nature". Chaos Dwarfs are essentially the greed and spitefulness of regular Dwarfs turned up to eleven.
Their background from the White Dwarf Presents days was they turned to Chaos out of desperation because their own gods failed them, and became twisted by it.
Turning to Chaos to avoid extinction has become a bit of a tired trope and covered by Ogroids and Dragon Ogors ( if they survive the Beastcull) in AoS, so I’d like them to go further down the notion you’ve said. Have the new Duardin be motivated by greed and spite, have them embrace Chaos not to survive but because it gets the more stuff than following Sigmar’s little Pantheon.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:
There's a certain intoxicating flavour of nostalgia that comes with old models that are ugly as sin. The old massive-crab-clawed Daemonettes, from Fantasy Battle's fourth edition I believe, are never going to win any Best Model contests. But I love them just the same, and still use them when I feel like it!
It’s why I still have the original Mandrakes in my collection. Some things are so horrendously bad they loop around into being good.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:
Something I always thought was a bit odd about the Chaos Dwarfs is that they're not very chaotic. They were all about industry and organisation. I wonder if that will change...
Chaos (big c) =/= chaos (little c).
-
1 hour ago, Mr_Whateley said:
How many of you like the concept of a "necromunda like game" but actually don't play Warcry?
Because we, the players (at least all my gaming circle) are comfortable with the game, would like minor tweaks (and don't like the removal of our warbands, because we have a lot and don't want them to become unplayable).
Again, my point being: Are you playing Warcry these days and think Necromunda style would be better, OR you don't play Warcry and think Necromunda rules would make you enter the game? Thanks for your responses in advance.
I play Warcry for Warcry and Necromunda for Necromunda. I don’t want Warcry to be a reskin of Necromunda because there already is Necromunda.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Sarouan said:
What ? Witch Hunters, chaos dwarves and squats all had a very official army book in their time (different editions of 40k and Battle). Fimirs had very official rules too in very old books.
What you're saying is not true. GW did remove these entire miniature ranges at the time, render non official their factions to be able to play for years before some came back and it had the same impact on their respective communities too at that time.Witch Hunters are Sisters of Battle, no squatting just a rename, Chaos Dwarfs didn’t have an army book, we had a collection of White Dwarf articles and there was no Codex Squats because they stopped being sold at the start of 2nd edition, not 3rd. Fimir were a handful of models. A far cry from removing a full range of plastic miniatures.
Regardless it’s a moot point. The dropping of small ranges of mostly metal miniatures in the early ‘90’s is hardly a trend when it’s literal decades before its done again.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I found the point Tom Lyons made on the most recent Warhammer Weekly pretty interesting. His idea was that the removal of the Stormcast Sacrosanct models is explained by a shift in product management of the Stormcast line. Sacrosanct would have been sculpted and put into production during a time when the overall plan for Stormcast potentially still was for them to be fantasy Space Marines, with all that would entail. Specifically, with separate kits and books for different Stormhosts or Chambers.
The realities of how the AoS player base interacts with Stormcast turned out to be so that this plan had to be changed. Looking at the current wave of Stormcast, with its focus on refreshed models and a new unified aesthetic, So the shift would be from Stormcast as a huge faction with potentially books and model lines for its individual subfactions to a more regular faction that works like everyone else.
Entirely possible, and I imagine the continuous production woes for the last several years played a significant role. I think it’s certainly clear something has changed in GWs plans for supporting products.
-
2 minutes ago, GrimDork said:
Just seems like they could sell a steady stream of them, especially to new players.
Timmy, "What's a D3?"
GW staffer, "Buy this!"
Maybe the markup isn't high enough on such a product, but there are a lot of D3rolls in GW games. I was thinking they could just be generic non custom dice, like the D6 they sell in a cube.
I own several D3’s because they came with Warlord Games ‘Gates of Antares’. After the initial novelty wore off, they’ve lived in my dice tub unused. It’s simply far easier to roll one of your many, many d6s and halve the result then to bother taking additional special dice.
-
4
-
-
14 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Yeah, but role-wise, what is the difference between a Lord Important and Bastian? It is basically the same. That's where I think Celestants, Mr Importants and Commanders clash. One gotta go, IMO.
The fact I’ll need to see a flow chart before I even know who’s in charge of what and reports to whom is evidence of this.
-
9 hours ago, BarakUrbaz said:
Yeah, a lot of the talk about which factions are "safe" kind of reminds me of this endless cycle I see mainly in 40k. A certain faction hasn't gotten any refreshes in a while, people constantly whine about how neglected they are, GW finally gets around to updating said faction, people move onto complaining about the next faction that hasn't gotten an update.
That cycle is why the Beastcull has surprised so many. Despite some claims, the GW model has typically been to leave armies for substantial amount of time and then add something or refresh the range. “Squatting” a whole army, rather than the occasional unit, isn’t common at all.
Nor is dropping a range of plastics after only six years. The fact my Catachan army is still based around a kit released in the late nineties is an example of how the opposite has been the norm, that plastic kits linger.
As a Bonesplitterz player, did I expect new models? Nope. Did I expect a brand new Battletome exclusively for them? Nope. Did I even expect them to be on the store shelves at my local GW? Nope. I expected them to remain as is, maybe updated rules with the next Orruk book, online only to buy. But still available.
That for GW was the norm. Instead there’s a rules update but I can’t buy anything new for my collection. It’s literally the case where I WANT to give GW money, and I can’t.-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Gitzdee said:
Life in the mortal realms are sad if your favourite factions are Spiderfang, Bonesplitterz, Gitmob and Wanderers. At least Ironjawz are here to stay.
Which is ironic because it wasn’t too long ago that the consensus among my friends was that Ironjawz were definitely going to go because GW had done so little with them for years.
-
2
-
-
54 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
Also about this bit. GW PART of the hobby. It is not the only thing played out there. There are other games where you can use the same minis.
The counter to that, however, is I don’t want to play other games. I want to play AoS and I want to collect and paint Bonesplitterz models to do it. Something that now has a time limit. Yeah digital battletome and then legends lets me play for hopefully at least an edition or two, but I won’t be able to buy the models without trawling second hand sites.
-
4 hours ago, Sarouan said:
Ok, so having a lot of auxilary units in your list isn't a great idea with that in mind.
Based on my past luck with 40K etc, I can almost guarantee I’ll find out the army I want to collect will end up being auxilaries.
-
2 minutes ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:
Khorne already had his go at having his own Beastmen, back in... what was it, 5th edition? 6th? Something like that.
No more beasties for Khorne.
In a completely different game system. It’s like ruling out anymore Kharadron sky ships because Squats had them in Epic.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Huron Blackheart.
I can dream.