We still mostly have rumours and speculation so obviously things will change when we can look at actual rules. In the meantime...
What army (or armies) are you going to start out with? What units or build styles are you excited about trying out to see if they're viable and you can make work?
Personally - as primarily a High Elf player - I've found Lothern Seaguard to be underwhelming in any edition where I've fielded them, but I'm hoping that THIS time they'll be viable enough that I can build an army around them. I'm also going to try my hand at making Ellyrian Reavers useful for me.
I'll likely hold out for empire or kislev, most of my old WHFB are now AoS armies, though my chaos dwarves/legion of azgorh are looking for a home since being legendsed out of AoS, so if the whfb pdf list is any good I'll put the effort in there.
I might do bretonnians but if they put those old Pegasus Knights minis in the faction box I'm probably out. The old skellies in the Tomb kings box killed any chance if me buying that set.
If the get by rules are decent and not completely half assed, I might be finally inspired to finish building my ogres and converting up some maneaters. Also if the army box prices are actually competitively priced, I might grab one of them.
I'm excited to try some of my Wood Elf units I've been collecting since the announcement. I've played a few games of 8th that have gone terriby... but then I'm playing a hybrid shooting/fast cav/tree force instead of specializing into one. I've heard fast cav Woodies was the way to go in 8th but it sounds tremendously unfun to me.
So yeah, it's all pretty new to me. I'm excited to see what standard Wood Elf shooting and magic can do I guess. I wish I had some hawk riders but I haven't found any models I'm happy with so I hope they get a new kit when the Asrai get thei turn in the release spotlight.
I'm waiting to see how things pan out. Given that nearly half the armies are Legacy rules and GW has a poor history with those (or rules in general really) I'm not getting overly excited about it yet. I sold my Brets earlier this year to fund a new gaming PC so I might buy a starter for them to play them with 8th rules but so far nothing I've seen has convinced me to move to TOW.
Waiting until I have the rules in my hands to decide. Might probably just stick with me Empire army and just invest in larger movement trays as I sure as hell ain't rebasing anything.
The other alternative is I have several boxes of Wood Elf Glade Guard/Glade riders I bought off a friend getting out of the hobby. I could just make that my Old World army as I really not sure what to do with them yet.
I started painting an Ogre Kingdoms army in october. I came to the realization that I played as a clown in 8th edition, so for the re-launch I should have an army that matches my playstyle. So I´m painting up a clown-themed army
Gonna have to get that Bretonnian starter kit, I reckon - just debating with myself as to how far I'm willing to go, heraldry-wise. On the one hand, a nice unified colour scheme is probably easier, but having a classic "everyone's got their own colours" Bretonnian army wouldn't be half bad!
I've also still got my old Ogre Kingdoms horde from way back when. I know they're legacy, but my hope is that - with two armies - I can introduce my mate who's just started 40K to the joys of complex regimental manoeuvres as well. A man can dream, eh?
YeeeMako wrote: Gonna have to get that Bretonnian starter kit, I reckon - just debating with myself as to how far I'm willing to go, heraldry-wise. On the one hand, a nice unified colour scheme is probably easier, but having a classic "everyone's got their own colours" Bretonnian army wouldn't be half bad!
I've also still got my old Ogre Kingdoms horde from way back when. I know they're legacy, but my hope is that - with two armies - I can introduce my mate who's just started 40K to the joys of complex regimental manoeuvres as well. A man can dream, eh?
My plan for Bretonnia is to do a hybrid scheme for the army. The peasant archers, men-at-arms, and the like will all have the scheme of the lord. My knights of the realm (both foot and mounted) will also either follow the lords scheme or have their personal heraldries quartered or marshaled to the lords scheme, so they will still be predominantly cohesive to the main scheme but still have some individualistic flair, to represent that they have taken vows and pledged fealty to the lord and are loyal retainers, etc.
The knights errant will have their own individual schemes, representing that they are wandering knights that are trying to be seen and make names for themselves and aren't thus pledged to service to anyone else.
The Questing Knights I haven't yet entirely figured out, GW has historically presented them as retaining their individual heraldry, but the fluff indicates that a Questing Knight has to surrender all their domains, titles, lands, and possessions, forsake all ties with family, kin, etc. Logically this would also mean surrendering ones coat of arms and heraldry. Part of me is tempted to have them "take the black" and paint them sans any heraldry at all, but in fluff such "black knights" are treated with suspicion and seen negatively so it doesn't feel appropriate to go that route - we'll see.
Grail Knights will all be back to their own distinct custom heraldry, but dialed up to 11. They are the individualistic living saint folk-heroes of the Bretonnia and are pledged to the Lady, not to a lord, so they get their own heradlry. Foot squires and mounted yeomen, my intent is to have them in schemes shared with the Grail Knights - each Grail Knight having a handful of squires/yeomen who share their heraldry and attend to them.
Those are some really sound ideas, actually - I may also do that, as it seems like a really happy compromise between my two options!
With your Questing Knights, I guess you could have them dress in sackcloth and some other primary colour (perhaps white?) rather than having them "take the black." Sackcloth would show a kind of disregard for worldly things as they carry out their quest, as well as a humility and penitence before the Lady which would hopefully win her favour and bring them closer to finding the Grail. A nice white, or something like it, is also symbolically a "pure" colour in religious terms (as I understand it), so it'd complement the cloth.
Of course, there's probably issues with this approach too, but I thought I'd suggest it just in case, eh!
I have High Elves I'm waiting to build until we get base rules for them. Well, that, and getting to play TOW to see if I like it enough to base specifically for it rather than figuring out movement trays/spacers or whatever.
My first games are going to be with my dwarf army, I think. I should probably see how much repairs it needs, a lot of Slayers were falling off their bases last time I brought it out.
I also want to do Chaos Dwarfs, sometime down the line. But normal Dwarfs will probably see the table first. I assume the army list will be based off of their Tamurkhan/Legion of Azgorh incarnation, since those were the most recent rules and models.
Yeah, that seems the safe bet, given the way they phrased it as "armies that had rules in 8th edition" or whatever. The only rules Chorfs had in 8th was Legion of Azgorh so its probably going to be built around that rather than whatever they might have had in older editions.
Well, to be fair, LOA/Tamurkhan rules are pretty much an expansion/twist on the old 4th rules. Some stuff gets renamed, but all the old options are there, plus more.
Weird. I seem to remember a lot of complaints from old school Chorf fans when the army list came out about how Legion of Azgorh wasn't "real" chaos dwarves and how GW ruined the faction. I assumed there were probably big changes that occurred.
chaos0xomega wrote: Weird. I seem to remember a lot of complaints from old school Chorf fans when the army list came out about how Legion of Azgorh wasn't "real" chaos dwarves and how GW ruined the faction. I assumed there were probably big changes that occurred.
The models very very different but the rules were broadly similar other than the size increase for Bull Centaurs and the new units like the trains and bound daemons.
I had no issue using my Chaos Dwarf army I built up under the Ravening Hordes rules with the LoA rules without buying anything new.
Tbh though the ideal would be an approach like CA have done for TWW, where you get *both* the old stuff and the new as slightly different units. They use the 8th Ed versions of the warmachines, but otherwise the only thing missing from either edition is the hobgoblin bolt thrower.
Yeah, the big divide in the Chorf community was between big hats and masks on the models. It's mostly a in-joke now, but it was pretty heated, from what I hear.
Tomb Kings as they're mostly skeletons. Wraithbone spray for undercoat and base paint, Agrax Earthshade wash, and a nice dry brush of ushabti bone will do most of the work.
It will look pretty nice and all you need is to pick a colour for the shields and add gold to the trim, do the weapons black for the handles and silver for the blades.
I'll be starting a Bretonnian army, always wanted one since fifth edition, but I was a 40k player and in my early teens with very little money to spare. I've loved the idea of mostly non-magical, normal dudes fighting monsters and the like, it's very heroic.
The Empire, I will need to construct new movement trays thought. I do not plan to re-base my entire army and still want to be able to play older editions.
Tomb Kings as they're mostly skeletons. Wraithbone spray for undercoat and base paint, Agrax Earthshade wash, and a nice dry brush of ushabti bone will do most of the work.
It will look pretty nice and all you need is to pick a colour for the shields and add gold to the trim, do the weapons black for the handles and silver for the blades.
I'm sorting through my armies trying to figure out what I already have. I have plainly forgotten some things. My Empire collection is... generational. A few Reiksguard foot, including some of the Marauder Miniatures sculpts (before they were incorporated by Citadel/GW).
Even have some really terrible and small halberdiers with shields (including stickers) from a pretty terrible playing mat game that GW put out with some toy company or other.
Though it dead ends before stuff like Demigryphs and some of the reworks of the plastics. The metal crossbowmen with almost completely undetailed plastic crossbows amuse me the most, though.
I have a lot of core troops, but not a lot of weird stuff.
Tomb Kings will be interesting to sort through. I know I have two heavily pinned catapults, at least two tomb scorpions, a bone giant and some ushabti. But no snake surfers or necrosphinx.
The whole change to base sizes puts me off of using any of my existing armies as rebasing scares me of breaking fully painted models and movement trays with weird spacers just makes me want to do kings of war multibases instead.
I do have dwarf / empire armies that never got past the buying models phase, so I could buy a pack of larger bases and start on them. But I'll wait for their books to come out and see what models get a rerelease etc.
Given the time this is set in I was expecting a focus on the empire, so maybe they will get some nice new minis that will give me the bug, but so far I'm happy to wait and see how the game pans out.
I'm kind of excited to try my Empire army out. Though first thing I'll do is play some solo games between my old metal dwarf army and my orc & goblin army.
I'd never rebase a model because a game company wants me to, and as some others have pointed out it won't make a big difference in this game (and it's difference is a vastly overstate meme for past games). But it's easy enough to just cut movement trays to whatever size you want and put your models on it. I buy 28"x44" sheets of thick card from Blick, you can cut out a lot of trays from just one $3 sheet, give them a quick spray of green paint and you're good to go.
Watching some of the videos around to figure out what units and characters made the transition in various army lists.
Did not expect Empire wizards to get access to everything: dark, necromancy and daemonology as well as battle, illusion and elementalism.
That's oddly appealing, especially given some of the old models I've dug up. I've got some weird old metal chaos sorcerers that are a lot more interesting than the standard 'holding a staff and sword' college wizards.
Not sure if I will get into this game, but if I do, a Nurgle-marked Chaos Warriors army could be fun, possibly made to look like the Rotblood Marauders from Vermintide 2.
I'm going for Bretonnia. Having watched the GMG review for the faction I'm interested in doing both the Exiles and Crusaders themes.
I've had most of the parts of an Empire Mortar sitting in my bitz box for a while and with some other spare parts I've made it serviceable as the Border Prince Bombard. I'll throw in some of the mercenary types as well for an interesting side project.
Overall, even though thus far my group isn't interested, I'm really looking forward to this as a project.
I got a poorly assembled, overpriced high elf army on ebay, but at least it was mostly unpainted and the seller was kind enough to include the sprues that still had parts on them.
It seems to be mostly assembled with superglue so I'll be trying to redo the most egregious offenders, but I don't have the highest hopes for these spearmen.
Edit: Disassembly went mostly smoothly. These things were completely covered in superglue so some pieces didn't come apart quite as well as I would have liked, and there is plenty to clean up before reassembly.
Definitely thinking Bretonnian Errantry Crusade army! Leaning hard into the all-cavalry list. At 2k, I'm squeezing in about ~56 mounted models, based on prelim list tinkering.
Not sure if it'll be any good, but damn will it be thematic and a fun army to paint!
ArcaneHorror wrote: Not sure if I will get into this game, but if I do, a Nurgle-marked Chaos Warriors army could be fun, possibly made to look like the Rotblood Marauders from Vermintide 2.
That would be amazing. I have my 8th ed WFB nurgle Warriors of Chaos, but unfortunately I put most of them on round / oval bases for AOS.
So I'm thinking of doing WoC again with the re-launch of Old World, but I will focus on Slaanesh for a true painting project.
Meh. Given the starter set I suspect my army list isn't going to be valid either because of the rules or because of the meta.
I used to run Brets, some archers, some M@A, a Grail Reliquae, a couple units of Knights Realm/Errant, a small unit of questiing knights, some Pegasus Knights, and a block of Grail - but realistically the army was about Hammer and Anvil with the Grail Reliquae and a Deathstart of Grail Knights - Grail Knights, full command, The Lord on Warhorse, a Damsel, and the BSB Paladin, war banner, banner of defense. It was fairly layered on defense vs shooting and magic, with the mobility for the flank+ charge...
Breton wrote: Meh. Given the starter set I suspect my army list isn't going to be valid either because of the rules or because of the meta.
I used to run Brets, some archers, some M@A, a Grail Reliquae, a couple units of Knights Realm/Errant, a small unit of questiing knights, some Pegasus Knights, and a block of Grail - but realistically the army was about Hammer and Anvil with the Grail Reliquae and a Deathstart of Grail Knights - Grail Knights, full command, The Lord on Warhorse, a Damsel, and the BSB Paladin, war banner, banner of defense. It was fairly layered on defense vs shooting and magic, with the mobility for the flank+ charge...
I do not see why it should not be valid or powerful...
You have the compulsoty units. Plenty of % in characters. Grail knights up to 25% of the army.
Breton wrote: Meh. Given the starter set I suspect my army list isn't going to be valid either because of the rules or because of the meta.
I used to run Brets, some archers, some M@A, a Grail Reliquae, a couple units of Knights Realm/Errant, a small unit of questiing knights, some Pegasus Knights, and a block of Grail - but realistically the army was about Hammer and Anvil with the Grail Reliquae and a Deathstart of Grail Knights - Grail Knights, full command, The Lord on Warhorse, a Damsel, and the BSB Paladin, war banner, banner of defense. It was fairly layered on defense vs shooting and magic, with the mobility for the flank+ charge...
I do not see why it should not be valid or powerful...
You have the compulsoty units. Plenty of % in characters. Grail knights up to 25% of the army.
And it does not seem weak...
It looks like they're building the theme around the winged horses. I haven't seen any of the rules etc yet, but it just looks like they're pushing away from the Death Star units into the Lone Hero thing.
Edit to Add: I haven't even seen a kit yet for a mounted (on warhorse) lord, or a Mounted Damsel.
Breton wrote: Meh. Given the starter set I suspect my army list isn't going to be valid either because of the rules or because of the meta.
I used to run Brets, some archers, some M@A, a Grail Reliquae, a couple units of Knights Realm/Errant, a small unit of questiing knights, some Pegasus Knights, and a block of Grail - but realistically the army was about Hammer and Anvil with the Grail Reliquae and a Deathstart of Grail Knights - Grail Knights, full command, The Lord on Warhorse, a Damsel, and the BSB Paladin, war banner, banner of defense. It was fairly layered on defense vs shooting and magic, with the mobility for the flank+ charge...
I do not see why it should not be valid or powerful...
You have the compulsoty units. Plenty of % in characters. Grail knights up to 25% of the army.
And it does not seem weak...
It looks like they're building the theme around the winged horses. I haven't seen any of the rules etc yet, but it just looks like they're pushing away from the Death Star units into the Lone Hero thing.
Edit to Add: I haven't even seen a kit yet for a mounted (on warhorse) lord, or a Mounted Damsel.
I've seen the rules in various places and been list building and I have yet to add Pegs to a list. Also, no Lone Heroes either. They sit nicely in units for Brets, from what I am seeing.
You list sounds like a well-rounded all-comer style list and I'm pretty sure it's entirely legal too.
I'll be going for a proper mish-mash Tomb Kings army, but built to mostly be a display army that I hope to form some sort of cohesive army out of. My general will be riding a Warsphinx because I'm not a huge fan of crocodragon (TK didn't need a dragon), and because I decided his title was "Lion of the Desert" so a cat mount seemed apt.
I want to get some of those high elf lions from that chariot and Tomb Kingify them to be his pets (painted to look appropriately like animated statues), but I have no idea what to run them as outside of just doing a lion chariot.
I'm also planning on turning crocodragon into just croco by omitting the wings, shortening the neck, and leaving the palanquin off of its back. But again I'm not sure what it would be used as in a game.
It's massive compared to the necrospinx base. If I can't somehow squeeze it on there, I'll try to get it vertical and use it as a Colossus or something.
I've been frantically rebasing my Empire army. Being among the lucky few whose orders shipped before the snowstorm closed Memphis, I got my books today (along with the bases for my cavalry). I give you my 2k list:
Characters:
Grandmaster on barded warhorse, full plate, shield, sword of might
BSB in full plate, NO shield, ruby ring, Imperial Banner
Ulrican priest with greataxe (because WYSIWYG)
L1 Wizard (Daemonology)
Engineer
Ouch, these guys are expensive, and it's hard to resist sexy toys. Originally had a L3 Daemonologist because the lore has 3 spells that would help the greatswords...but then I noticed the rampaging banner. Sorry, rerolling charges is a must. I didn't want to drop the priest because he adds D3" to that charge... and everything depends on them getting the charge. So a L1 gets a 3/6 chance of getting ONE of the 3 good spells, and the signature is a decent magic missile. If the wizard gets what I want, he goes with the greatswords. If not, he just goes in the swordsmen and shoots. Then...40 points left over, that almost pays for an engineer so the great cannons don't misfire. dropping the BSB's shield gets me over the top!
Core:
40 Swordsmen with FC 20 Crossbows
20 Handguns
Special:
Great Cannon
Great Cannon
28 Greatswords with FC and Rampaging Banner
10 Inner Circle knights with lances, preceptor, and banner.
No Rares. All of it is rebased except the cavalry. Left out are 40 swordsmen, 2x20 halberdiers, 10 crossbows, 10 handguns, 5 pistoliers, 2 mortars, and more characters, so I could go 3k without stretching, but I'll be in no hurry to rebase the mortars, pistoliers, and halberdiers, nor to repaint the remaining 20 in that unused block of swordsmen (who are also not rebased, although the bases are done, so I could field 20 now)
I was initially planning to go for Tomb kings but because I am an underdog type ..when they were the first army to be released I lost my interest.
Currently hoping to see more Chaos dwarfs.. but if their noses are no longer as big as they were I will skip those too and probably either go skaven or beasts.
If I saw that army across the table, I think I would reconsider playing. Out of morbid curiosity, I put a list together and it just seems disgusting and like it would be very, very un-fun to play against.
Spoiler:
Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Flayed Hauberk, Biting Blade
[380]
Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Blood Drinker, Talisman of Protection
[405]
Wight Lord BSB Spelleater Axe, Enchanted Shield
[110]
Core:
(30) Grave Guard
Full Command, Great Weapons, Drilled, Drakenhof Banner
[488]
If I saw that army across the table, I think I would reconsider playing. Out of morbid curiosity, I put a list together and it just seems disgusting and like it would be very, very un-fun to play against.
Spoiler:
Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Flayed Hauberk, Biting Blade
[380]
Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Blood Drinker, Talisman of Protection
[405]
Wight Lord BSB Spelleater Axe, Enchanted Shield
[110]
Core:
(30) Grave Guard
Full Command, Great Weapons, Drilled, Drakenhof Banner
[488]
Special:
Terrorgheist
[205]
Rare:
Terrorgheist
[205]
Terrorgheist
[205]
[1998]
Not a legal army. You need 12pts more in the Grave Guard unit (needs to be 500pts min) and you need to spend 30pts to make one of the Ghoul Kings a wizard to be the General - both probably at the expense of a chunk of your magic items.
Tbh, I think ‘1999+1pts’ is going to be a common thing ti prevent exactly this sort of silliness.
If I saw that army across the table, I think I would reconsider playing. Out of morbid curiosity, I put a list together and it just seems disgusting and like it would be very, very un-fun to play against.
Spoiler:
Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Flayed Hauberk, Biting Blade
[380]
Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Blood Drinker, Talisman of Protection
[405]
Wight Lord BSB Spelleater Axe, Enchanted Shield
[110]
Core:
(30) Grave Guard
Full Command, Great Weapons, Drilled, Drakenhof Banner
[488]
Special:
Terrorgheist
[205]
Rare:
Terrorgheist
[205]
Terrorgheist
[205]
[1998]
Yeah, that looks like a great army to play against someone you don't want to be friends with anymore.
If I saw that army across the table, I think I would reconsider playing. Out of morbid curiosity, I put a list together and it just seems disgusting and like it would be very, very un-fun to play against.
Spoiler:
Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Flayed Hauberk, Biting Blade
[380]
Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Blood Drinker, Talisman of Protection
[405]
Wight Lord BSB Spelleater Axe, Enchanted Shield
[110]
Core:
(30) Grave Guard
Full Command, Great Weapons, Drilled, Drakenhof Banner
[488]
Special:
Terrorgheist
[205]
Rare:
Terrorgheist
[205]
Terrorgheist
[205]
[1998]
Not a legal army. You need 12pts more in the Grave Guard unit (needs to be 500pts min) and you need to spend 30pts to make one of the Ghoul Kings a wizard to be the General - both probably at the expense of a chunk of your magic items.
Tbh, I think ‘1999+1pts’ is going to be a common thing ti prevent exactly this sort of silliness.
Oh, that is an easy fix. Overall, it still generally stands and looks unpleasant, which was my point.
And yeah, new edition - same old points finagling. It didn't seem as necessary at first but this army sells me on it again.
I don't know about you all but there are people who will play against list like this. Even though its "legends/legacy" it will help for similar list in competitive play. Not to say Random local tournaments will possibly allow "legends" armies in the tournaments.
In a casual/friendly setting I could understand people being hesitant but even if this list is brought it's not like I would be like "HA! Surprise!". I would make it known and accept tailoring against it. You could agree to not play and I'll just look for someone else.
Rogzor87 wrote: I don't know about you all but there are people who will play against list like this. Even though its "legends/legacy" it will help for similar list in competitive play. Not to say Random local tournaments will possibly allow "legends" armies in the tournaments.
In a casual/friendly setting I could understand people being hesitant but even if this list is brought it's not like I would be like "HA! Surprise!". I would make it known and accept tailoring against it. You could agree to not play and I'll just look for someone else.
Yeah fair play. Optimizing for filth and playing against other folks optimizing for filth is a perfectly legitimate way to play. As a High Elf player, this'd be a list where I could bring a double dragon + whatever else unfun things I can think up and not feel bad about it.
If I brought a well rounded "play friendly games at the store" list - or if I was starting out and had a "I'm fielding what I think looks cool and it's all I got" -and I got rolled by a list like that I might feel a bit sore about it.
Though of course a lot depends on the attitude of the person you're playing the game with.
chaos0xomega wrote: The fixation with the size of chaos dwarf noses i've seen from various corners of the community is honestly mystifying to me.
Its just a thing I like of them, gives them their character, its like how I think the older Ork models in Aos look better cause they look more like chimps.
i'm probably not going to have the funds to start buying into TOW until at least summer, which means GW will be a bit further along in the re-releases of armies, and at that point, it comes down to what is already out. if WE are out, probably that, or maybe O&G. from the returning armies, those are most interesting to me, but i've also thought about ogres (which would also turn into a project of how to figure out a way to base them for TOW and AOS at the same time)
If I saw that army across the table, I think I would reconsider playing. Out of morbid curiosity, I put a list together and it just seems disgusting and like it would be very, very un-fun to play against.
Spoiler:
Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Flayed Hauberk, Biting Blade
[380]
Strigoi Ghoul King on Terrorgheist
Blood Drinker, Talisman of Protection
[405]
Wight Lord BSB Spelleater Axe, Enchanted Shield
[110]
Core:
(30) Grave Guard
Full Command, Great Weapons, Drilled, Drakenhof Banner
[488]
Special:
Terrorgheist
[205]
Rare:
Terrorgheist
[205]
Terrorgheist
[205]
[1998]
Yeah, that looks like a great army to play against someone you don't want to be friends with anymore.
its probably more fun than the old Wood Elf armies
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i'm probably not going to have the funds to start buying into TOW until at least summer, which means GW will be a bit further along in the re-releases of armies, and at that point, it comes down to what is already out. if WE are out, probably that, or maybe O&G. from the returning armies, those are most interesting to me, but i've also thought about ogres (which would also turn into a project of how to figure out a way to base them for TOW and AOS at the same time)
There are some "base adapter" options out there that make round ones square, which can then go into trays. I am doing that exact thing with my Ogres, so I can play them in both games.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: i'm probably not going to have the funds to start buying into TOW until at least summer, which means GW will be a bit further along in the re-releases of armies, and at that point, it comes down to what is already out. if WE are out, probably that, or maybe O&G. from the returning armies, those are most interesting to me, but i've also thought about ogres (which would also turn into a project of how to figure out a way to base them for TOW and AOS at the same time)
There are some "base adapter" options out there that make round ones square, which can then go into trays. I am doing that exact thing with my Ogres, so I can play them in both games.
oh! that would be perfect, yes. thank you! certainly earlier than some sort of convoluted solution to do with swapping the actual bases. that definitely makes ogres more enticing as something to get into, knowing it can work for two games. a shame that Genestealers can't take ogryns or i might be able to make them work in a third game
As someone who has never played WHFB, I thought TOW to be an easy pass for me. I am a Dwarf guy and I don't think, the range aged very gracefully. Then I discovered the alternatives from Highlands Miniatures and now I am seriously tempted. I also found a designer with alternative woodelves which are really charming. Still not sure if I will pull the trigger, as my printer broke and I need a new one (which I eventually want to buy anyway).
Bago wrote: As someone who has never played WHFB, I thought TOW to be an easy pass for me. I am a Dwarf guy and I don't think, the range aged very gracefully. Then I discovered the alternatives from Highlands Miniatures and now I am seriously tempted. I also found a designer with alternative woodelves which are really charming. Still not sure if I will pull the trigger, as my printer broke and I need a new one (which I eventually want to buy anyway).
Well, if it's just about using the cool miniatures, there are some model agnostic systems that will be easier to get into (KoW, One Page Regiments, Hobgoblin). But admittedly none of them communicate faction identity through the rules as well as GW.
Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD
chaos0xomega wrote: Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD
To be fair a lot of people may not be able or want to build models in resin or metal, so in that case the only way to go is third party if a decent proxy is out there. Though it isn't helped by the generic nature of the minis (which as you say was a problem for WHFB). Having watched a few videos on YT I've no interest in attempting the Bretonnian trebuchet but it's not like it's hard to find a generic plastic trebuchet to fill in for it.
chaos0xomega wrote: Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD
Well the options currently are:
1) You already had the miniatures 2) You use third party miniatures 3) You don't play the game
Y'know, on account of GW not selling the miniatures.
I think, when it comes to Lizardmen, you can build (almost) any TOW unit out of AoS Lizardmen currently on sale? Maybe bar Jungle Swarms, but these are very easy to do (green stuff snakes on a base- can't get simpler than that).
chaos0xomega wrote:Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD
Well, that didn't kill the game. GW did. They wanted to do their whole Age of Sigmar thing and reinvent their brand. Now they are doing what so many brands do now - capitalize on nostalgia. It allows them to sell 20+ year old kits for big prices and people eat it up. I am guilty of it myself. After seeing the rules and watching the batreps - I am on board fully, because they at least did a good job with the rules this time.
chaos0xomega wrote: Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD
the GW paradox
making the best fantasy plastic models in the world, but mediocre rules (at best)
yet everyone wants to play their games with models from other companies
kodos wrote: same unit in general, not same unit per slot
chaos0xomega wrote: Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD
the GW paradox making the best fantasy plastic models in the world, but mediocre rules (at best) yet everyone wants to play their games with models from other companies
Not a paradox, GW prices are absurd for a rank and file.
F.e. You can buy a whole Pike and Shotte army to run as an empire army for a fraction of the cost GW would demand of you with arguably better minis.
Bago wrote: As someone who has never played WHFB, I thought TOW to be an easy pass for me. I am a Dwarf guy and I don't think, the range aged very gracefully. Then I discovered the alternatives from Highlands Miniatures and now I am seriously tempted. I also found a designer with alternative woodelves which are really charming. Still not sure if I will pull the trigger, as my printer broke and I need a new one (which I eventually want to buy anyway).
Well, if it's just about using the cool miniatures, there are some model agnostic systems that will be easier to get into (KoW, One Page Regiments, Hobgoblin). But admittedly none of them communicate faction identity through the rules as well as GW.
Way easier to find people who want to play TOW than the other systems though.
And if there were nice dwarf miniatures from GW, I wouldn't bother with third party. But a) GW dwarves are currently not available. b) They don't look as nice in my opinion. I am explicitly thinking of TOW because of the range of highland miniatures they have for dwarves. Without that, I would not be interested at all.
F.e. You can buy a whole Pike and Shotte army to run as an empire army for a fraction of the cost GW would demand of you with arguably better minis.
this is true for all their model ranges
you get a full TOW army for half the price from others, with the same quality (personal taste on design is a different story)
but than the only reason to go with GW are the models
(as the game being popular and easier to find people to play with is countered by the argument that it only is "fun" if you find like minded people to play anyway)
F.e. You can buy a whole Pike and Shotte army to run as an empire army for a fraction of the cost GW would demand of you with arguably better minis.
this is true for all their model ranges
you get a full TOW army for half the price from others, with the same quality (personal taste on design is a different story)
but than the only reason to go with GW are the models
(as the game being popular and easier to find people to play with is countered by the argument that it only is "fun" if you find like minded people to play anyway)
In order to find if it is even "fun", there must be players. So GW games it is.
I am tired of trying to show/promote other games/scales for nothing.
So for me there is no paradox. Only games with players available in my small (-ish) city are GW's, so it is like there are NO other rules.
I suppose that's the brutal difference between having a friend group with a shared hobby, and having a hobby for which you have to find people to do it with.
Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?
Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.
This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.
chaos0xomega wrote: Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?
Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.
This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.
Dude, this came out within days of the release - people building to the "army comp rules" literally haven't had them long enough to be screwed yet. This is to prevent spamming units - something we see in their other games already. It goes beyond gyrobombers, obviously. This will help keep the game healthier for longer, imo.
chaos0xomega wrote: Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?
Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.
This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.
This event is 1500 pts, but it will be pretty funny if wording stays as is and in 2000k points you can have 6 of a 0-3 per 1000 special, but only 3 of an "unlimited" core
chaos0xomega wrote: Incredibly dumb decision. Whats the point of building unit restrictions into your core army lists only to turn around and rule of three them all?
Why say you can have 0-2 per 1000 points of a unit, and then say "you can have a max of 3"? Presumably the limits published in the army list still apply, but if you were 0-2 per 1000 pts before, now you're... not. You're 0-2 for your first 1000 pts, and 0-1 for your next "infinity" points.
This is classic dumb ass GW creating one size fits all solutions and screwing over people who started building armies based on the actually published army comp rules because a few jackasses figured out they could spam a gajillion gyrobombers. Just nerf gyrobombers or publish a faq saying they are 0-2 per 1k pts or whatever instead of busting everyone else up over it.
This event is 1500 pts, but it will be pretty funny if wording stays as is and in 2000k points you can have 6 of a 0-3 per 1000 special, but only 3 of an "unlimited" core
Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.
What problems does this cause unless you are trying to game the game in which case who cares or you are runing a scenario - in which case you are exempt as its a scenario.
Mr Morden wrote: Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.
No, that's not what it says.
How is that not what it says? I have re-read it a few times and that seems to be the case. Unless there is already a cap, it is 0-3 of any unit. The caps that exist are often already more restrictive than the 0-3 limit.
These aren't the same thing. The second one is correct. Any cap, not lower cap. Means a 0-6 cap unit (ie. cannons in 2000 points) would stay 0-6 and not be subject to the rule of three.
kodos wrote: same unit in general, not same unit per slot
chaos0xomega wrote: Heh, TOWs not even back a week and already the same problems that killed WHFB in the first place are rearing their heads - such as people not wanting to use GWs miniatures to play the game XD
the GW paradox
making the best fantasy plastic models in the world, but mediocre rules (at best)
yet everyone wants to play their games with models from other companies
It's the game everyone was playing... but the mini prices are not exactly competitive with what many other companies charge for similar minis.
Mr Morden wrote: Its very clear - its max 3 of any units unless there is already a lower limit.
No, that's not what it says.
How is that not what it says? I have re-read it a few times and that seems to be the case. Unless there is already a cap, it is 0-3 of any unit. The caps that exist are often already more restrictive than the 0-3 limit.
Bago wrote: As someone who has never played WHFB, I thought TOW to be an easy pass for me. I am a Dwarf guy and I don't think, the range aged very gracefully. Then I discovered the alternatives from Highlands Miniatures and now I am seriously tempted. I also found a designer with alternative woodelves which are really charming. Still not sure if I will pull the trigger, as my printer broke and I need a new one (which I eventually want to buy anyway).
Well, if it's just about using the cool miniatures, there are some model agnostic systems that will be easier to get into (KoW, One Page Regiments, Hobgoblin). But admittedly none of them communicate faction identity through the rules as well as GW.
Way easier to find people who want to play TOW than the other systems though.
And if there were nice dwarf miniatures from GW, I wouldn't bother with third party. But a) GW dwarves are currently not available. b) They don't look as nice in my opinion. I am explicitly thinking of TOW because of the range of highland miniatures they have for dwarves. Without that, I would not be interested at all.
Oh good point btw, I am really holding my breath here for what old world is going to do with how dwarves (and chaos dwarves!) look like, if they will be modeled after AOS dwarves I am going to die in pain..
I think dwarves should be 90% beard, 5% feet and 5% arms.
Vulcan wrote: It's the game everyone was playing... but the mini prices are not exactly competitive with what many other companies charge for similar minis.
the rules are not good and the miniatures too expensive
so people just play it because others play but everyone is grumpy because the don't play it because they like hence the toxic community
"because someone else is doing it" was never a good reason for anything
Vulcan wrote: It's the game everyone was playing... but the mini prices are not exactly competitive with what many other companies charge for similar minis.
the rules are not good and the miniatures too expensive
so people just play it because others play but everyone is grumpy because the don't play it because they like hence the toxic community
"because someone else is doing it" was never a good reason for anything
But "because no one else is playing it' is a very good reason to not get into a game. Unless you are supremely confident your community is willing to all try the same new thing together.
Yes, the Official GW Warhammer Minis (TM) are too expensive. That's why many Warhammer players use other company's minis, unless they are competing in Official GW Warhammer Tournaments (TM).
so your community is settled to only play games that a single company is selling currently in their shop
they are not playing games made by other companies, nor are the playing games that one company made in the past but currently does not sell
and the only reason why this is the case is because the community only plays games made from that single company
kodos wrote: so your community is settled to only play games that a single company is selling currently in their shop
they are not playing games made by other companies, nor are the playing games that one company made in the past but currently does not sell
and the only reason why this is the case is because the community only plays games made from that single company
To be frank, my local community is so fractured you have a hard time finding three people playing the same fantasy wargame. I've given up trying to get a game of anything in.
kodos wrote: so your community is settled to only play games that a single company is selling currently in their shop
they are not playing games made by other companies, nor are the playing games that one company made in the past but currently does not sell
and the only reason why this is the case is because the community only plays games made from that single company
One thing many people that criticize people for playing GW systems overlook is the longevity of Games Workshop. People might be more willing to invest in a Games Workshop game, because in 5 years, the game still exists. I play SW: Legion and was hit with an existential dread after Shatterpoint because I thought Legion is going to die. Yes, there are better game systems. Yes, there are cheaper miniatures. But go into a random LGS (after you move house maybe) 5 years down the road and you are more than likely to find a player who plays a GW system, than Kings of War for example.
and yet by now GW is the only company that killed one of their games to replace it a different one and in addition games were phased out like any other company has done as well
there was no reason to fear Star Wars Legion is removed when AMG added an Skirmish Game in the same setting
Yet there is no reason to think GW won't kill Warhammer Fantasy again, or removing Kill Team again to replace it with a similar but new game is they have done before
kodos wrote: and yet by now GW is the only company that killed one of their games to replace it a different one and in addition games were phased out like any other company has done as well
there was no reason to fear Star Wars Legion is removed when AMG added an Skirmish Game in the same setting
Yet there is no reason to think GW won't kill Warhammer Fantasy again, or removing Kill Team again to replace it with a similar but new game is they have done before
So, are you disagreeing that there is a high probability of finding players who play GW systems in x years and x location then others?
Granted, I only play non-GW-Systems that are quite young, but Imperial Assault is a good example of a dead system replaced by another? There are a lot of dead systems out there. It kind of reminds me of all the "WoW-Killers" that came out over the last 20 years like Hellgate London or Age of Conan, but WoW is still around and these are not.
intresting that you are listing the "pause" only for WHFB but not for Necromunda, Kill Team and Blood Bowl and Kill Team (as the first version was released with 3rd Edi 40k)
Warmaster is still dead, Inquisitor is still dead, Mortheim is still dead, Battlefleet Gothic is still dead, Epic is dead but replaced with a different game
Yeah, I totally see how going with GW guarantees that the game is still there and supported years after release which is outside of 40k not there at all
And Blood Bowl is also good example that "official support" has nothing to do with the game being dead or not but with the quality of the game and the community rather than having a company behind it
play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it
there is no longevity to overlook, as it is only there for 40k and by the same argument you can play Battletech as well as this is around for the same time, everything else comes and goes
So, are you disagreeing that there is a high probability of finding players who play GW systems in x years and x location then others?
yeah, because this highly depends on the region
finding someone who plays any game is always easy, finding someone that is playing the same game you want to play something very different and outside metropolitan areas difficult for any game
if you want to be sure to find someone to play with, Chess, Magic the Gathering and Pokemon are your best options, no matter where you are
and everything else depends
intresting that you are listing the "pause" only for WHFB but not for Necromunda, Kill Team and Blood Bowl and Kill Team (as the first version was released with 3rd Edi 40k)
Warmaster is still dead, Inquisitor is still dead, Mortheim is still dead, Battlefleet Gothic is still dead, Epic is dead but replaced with a different game
Yeah, I totally see how going with GW guarantees that the game is still there and supported years after release which is outside of 40k not there at all
And Blood Bowl is also good example that "official support" has nothing to do with the game being dead or not but with the quality of the game and the community rather than having a company behind it
play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it
there is no longevity to overlook, as it is only there for 40k and by the same argument you can play Battletech as well as this is around for the same time, everything else comes and goes
So, are you disagreeing that there is a high probability of finding players who play GW systems in x years and x location then others?
yeah, because this highly depends on the region
finding someone who plays any game is always easy, finding someone that is playing the same game you want to play something very different and outside metropolitan areas difficult for any game
if you want to be sure to find someone to play with, Chess, Magic the Gathering and Pokemon are your best options, no matter where you are
and everything else depends
I only listed the pause for WHFB, because I didn't know the support for the other games ceased to exist at some point. I just pulled the publication dates of the first editions. And of course, there are specialist games that are deader than dead. There's always a chance. I also don't want to defeat you in an argument or defend GW. I play more non-GW games than GW systems. I just say that it's quick to say "just play "Random Game XYZ instead of GW system". The consistency of Games Workshop is a factor one should include when talking about starting a system.
"play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it"
I don't really think that is totally true either. MESBG has been without much support for longer times as well for example and has always had a community that stuck to it. WHFB was also kept alive by the community for the last years, wasn't it? But as I said. I don't want to defend GW or have any horse in this race.
The pause for WHFB shouldn't even be there, TOW is a different game. Theres as much argument that WHFB continued into AoS as there is for TOW being the same game - on launch all your WHFB armies and the majority of your minis (characters included) were available for play in AoS.
That's just corporate semantics tho. Functionally it's a new edition of WHFB. We've had two 40k rewrites with far, far more drastic changes than between 8th and ToW in the same timeframe.
Case in point, Age of Sigmar is the 9th, 10th, and 11th editions of WHFB. Same minis, same characters, the lore is a continuation of the story, rules changes are no more dramatic than some of the mechanical changes featured in 40k over the years.
chaos0xomega wrote: Case in point, Age of Sigmar is the 9th, 10th, and 11th editions of WHFB. Same minis, same characters, the lore is a continuation of the story, rules changes are no more dramatic than some of the mechanical changes featured in 40k over the years.
I was unaware that 40K, at any point in time, used square bases for ranks-n-flanks gameplay.
I buy and sell a lot of minis, and all GW models hold value even after the game stops being supported. Maybe immediately afterwards they're discounted heavily, but if you had a WFB army, it wasn't worse much less after the End times than before. And if it was TK or Brets, it was worth more!
I know that's not a strict correlation, since plenty of people collect but dont' play, but I think it minimizes the idea that GW players are left holding the bag completely when GW stops support.
Vulcan wrote: And the 'ranks 'n' flanks' tactics instead of skirmishing?
3rd Edition IG Close Order Drill for your ranks
Armor Facing for your flanks.
But you know, thats a completely arbitrary metric to go by. Theres a long list of mechanics and rule concepts that 40k has abandoned over its 9 life-cycle updates. Gamemasters, using d4/8/10/12/20 for resolution, intelligence stats dictating ability to use certain weapons, 90 degree line of sight/fire arcs for every individual model (kinda rank and flank-y), following fire/sustained fire rules in place of just having more attacks on a weapon with multiple shots, vehicle targeting grids, pivot-turns for vehicles based on their forward speed (again, not unlike rank and flank), etc.
play GW games because there you know that outside of Blood Bowl, the game is dropped by the community the moment GW stops supporting it
I've been a part of 3-4 different groups playing Warhammer Fantasy after the end times and before TOW either playing WAP, 6th or 8th. Mordheim has also done very well since GW dropped support. A lot in that community are worried that GW will start supporting it again and invalidate all great community warbands.
I am surprised I am the first to say that I am going Dark Elf. I used to have a ~2k force that I got rid of years ago.
It has been an absolute bear finding models tho. All the CoS dark elf kits are out of stock and online only. Ordered a bunch of 3d printed stuff for now. I was hoping to find a box or two of the drakespawn/cold one cav for $35 a box. I am afraid they are gonna rebox them(if they don't just squat them) and up the price of the unit to $60.
He is a great model. I have always been more drawn to the city guard aesthetic of them. Light on the corsairs and witch elves. I love the spears/xbows/black guard/cold ones/etc.
Tbh, I think ‘1999+1pts’ is going to be a common thing ti prevent exactly this sort of silliness.
1999+1 is dumb, it punishes everyone, not just the behemoth-spammers. Just have a rule like "max one ridden and one unridden behemoth" or something like that.
lord_blackfang wrote:Good news, GW itself already putting in additional comp for Warhammer World events
(rule of three on everything, including core)
That's a decent bit of comp, but not enough. Still allows two ridden star dragons, etc.
chaos0xomega wrote:The pause for WHFB shouldn't even be there, TOW is a different game. Theres as much argument that WHFB continued into AoS as there is for TOW being the same game - on launch all your WHFB armies and the majority of your minis (characters included) were available for play in AoS.
While I agree that TOW isn't WHFB, AOS DEFINITELY isn't WHFB. WHFB is napoleonics. AOS is 40k in a bizarro acid trip fantasy setting.
chaos0xomega wrote:Case in point, Age of Sigmar is the 9th, 10th, and 11th editions of WHFB. Same minis, same characters, the lore is a continuation of the story, rules changes are no more dramatic than some of the mechanical changes featured in 40k over the years.
Same minis? Are you kidding? I took a gander at the Cities of Sigmar range to see what might be useable in an empire army. Here's the complete list: General on griffin, mages, Stank, Flaggies. That's it. The rest is not only different/new models, but stylistically just WRONG for WHFB (and obviously also TOW). Yes, it's a continuation of the same story, in the sense of the sequel that should never have been made, but in that sense, TOW would be editions of WHFB with negative numbers?
Tbh, I think ‘1999+1pts’ is going to be a common thing ti prevent exactly this sort of silliness.
1999+1 is dumb, it punishes everyone, not just the behemoth-spammers. Just have a rule like "max one ridden and one unridden behemoth" or something like that.
1999+1 gives a similar distribution of most things to 2k in 6-8th. It worked fine then.
Tbh, I think ‘1999+1pts’ is going to be a common thing ti prevent exactly this sort of silliness.
1999+1 is dumb, it punishes everyone, not just the behemoth-spammers. Just have a rule like "max one ridden and one unridden behemoth" or something like that.
lord_blackfang wrote:Good news, GW itself already putting in additional comp for Warhammer World events
(rule of three on everything, including core)
That's a decent bit of comp, but not enough. Still allows two ridden star dragons, etc.
chaos0xomega wrote:The pause for WHFB shouldn't even be there, TOW is a different game. Theres as much argument that WHFB continued into AoS as there is for TOW being the same game - on launch all your WHFB armies and the majority of your minis (characters included) were available for play in AoS.
While I agree that TOW isn't WHFB, AOS DEFINITELY isn't WHFB. WHFB is napoleonics. AOS is 40k in a bizarro acid trip fantasy setting.
chaos0xomega wrote:Case in point, Age of Sigmar is the 9th, 10th, and 11th editions of WHFB. Same minis, same characters, the lore is a continuation of the story, rules changes are no more dramatic than some of the mechanical changes featured in 40k over the years.
Same minis? Are you kidding? I took a gander at the Cities of Sigmar range to see what might be useable in an empire army. Here's the complete list: General on griffin, mages, Stank, Flaggies. That's it. The rest is not only different/new models, but stylistically just WRONG for WHFB (and obviously also TOW). Yes, it's a continuation of the same story, in the sense of the sequel that should never have been made, but in that sense, TOW would be editions of WHFB with negative numbers?
Are you kidding?
Until 6 months ago, Cities of sigmar was almost the entire Empire army range with most of the wood elves, dark elves, high elves, and dwarves ranges thrown in. Even then, those new kits - plenty of people have been buying them to convert into Empire or bretonnian units for TOW.
While we're at it:
-Skaven - almost entirely whfb era minis
-Beasts of chaos - almost entirely whfb era minis
-Khorne/Tzeentch/Nurgle/Slaanesh - collectively half of the minis in these factions are whfb era
-Slaves to Darkness - 80% of the faction is either whfb minis or relatively recently resculpted kits that are basically 1:1 with the whfb kits they replaced
-Flesh-eater Courts - until literally today the faction was basically 100% whfb minis
-Nighthaunt - based around a core handful of whfb kits abd expanded from there
-Soulblight - ~80% of the range are whfb kits or resculpts thereof
-Gloomspite - ~80% of the range are whfb kits or resculpts thereof
-Ogors - pretty much the entire range are whfb kits or resculpts thereof
-Orruks - a third of the range are whfb kits or resculpts thereof
-Daughters of Khaine - half the range are whfb kits
-Seraphon - 80% of the range are whfb kits or resculpts thereof
-Sylvaneth - half the range are whfb kits
I'm torn between starting Bretonnia or Empire, I like both a lot, at least as far aesthetics go. I really wish I knew what new sculpts Empire was getting with their release...if any. I never really played WHF much back when it was still supported, so i'm pretty much going in blind and starting from scratch. Probably building to 1000 points to start and playing at that level for a while before moving to 1250-1500.
Tbh, I think ‘1999+1pts’ is going to be a common thing ti prevent exactly this sort of silliness.
1999+1 is dumb, it punishes everyone, not just the behemoth-spammers. Just have a rule like "max one ridden and one unridden behemoth" or something like that.
1999+1 gives a similar distribution of most things to 2k in 6-8th. It worked fine then.
Looks at how much stuff has a 0-X limit per 1000 pts It's quite a bit different now, actually
Tbh, I think ‘1999+1pts’ is going to be a common thing ti prevent exactly this sort of silliness.
1999+1 is dumb, it punishes everyone, not just the behemoth-spammers. Just have a rule like "max one ridden and one unridden behemoth" or something like that.
1999+1 gives a similar distribution of most things to 2k in 6-8th. It worked fine then.
Looks at how much stuff has a 0-X limit per 1000 pts It's quite a bit different now, actually
0-X but the X is frequently larger than 1.
Things that were Lords in earlier editions are usually 0-1/1k, but in 6th-7th you could only have 1 Lord. So similar.
A lot of the rare units are 0-2/1k - 6th-7th had max 2 rare at 2k and 8th had max 2 of each rare at 2. So similar.
And the Special units with limitations are even larger, e.g. Empire war machines are 0-3/1k vs 8th Ed which was max 3 of each special or 6-7th Ed which was max 4 Special total. So again similar.
Obviously not exactly the same (it’s a different philosophy), but yes the limitations on nastier things is fairly similar for 1,999. +1 vs 2k in earlier editions. It’s certainly no more restricted given it’s only certain units with limitations.
Not Online!!! wrote: 0-x on 1000 pts is rarely larger than 1. the only thing i know of is goblin bolt throwers,
Then there's also the fact that theres a 0-1 period limit on some units.
There’s lots that’s more than 0-1.
In RH you’ve got the goblin bolt throwers, plus quite a few for TK:
Tomb Scorpions 0-3/1k
War Sphinxes 0-2/1k
Screaming Skull Catapults 0-2/1k
FoF is absolutely full of them, at least one for every army.
For Dwarfs 0-3/1k Special war machines and 0-2/1k for the rare ones
Empire has the same 0-3/1k for Special war machines
Bretonnia has Battle Pilgrims at 0-2/1k (that one was on WarCom)
Wood Elves have Tree Kin at 0-2/1k and Eagles at 0-3/1k (in fact for WE, the only 0-1/1ks are things that were Lords in previous editions).
HE have both Eagles and Bolt Throwers at 0-2/1k
Things being 0-1 entirely is a different matter, but that’s not affected by 1999 pts vs 2k and was a thing in 6th Ed and earlier.
Lord Zarkov wrote:Things that were Lords in earlier editions are usually 0-1/1k, but in 6th-7th you could only have 1 Lord. So similar.
The Lords were the main reason for 1999+1. You can't have a single Lord below 2000. This point tally basically disallowed you from taking ANY Lord for 6th-7th. I don't know what this new Edition having seen the book, yet, but it's hard for old habits to die.
Not Online!!! wrote:That is the point so 1999+1 is at the current stage rather unfair or looks unfair.
It can be, particularly for some armies. With the 6th Ed Vampire Counts you couldn't take a Vampire to be General of your Army, and had to rely on a Necromancer to lead an army unless you went with a Necrarch Hero. What this usually mean is that as soon as squishy magic guy dies, the army started Crumbling. Tomb Kings were pretty much the same, except they always had to take both a warrior general and a Wizard to keep the army from Crumbling, so for them it was only Heroes that could fill those roles.
Lord Zarkov wrote:Things that were Lords in earlier editions are usually 0-1/1k, but in 6th-7th you could only have 1 Lord. So similar.
The Lords were the main reason for 1999+1. You can't have a single Lord below 2000. This point tally basically disallowed you from taking ANY Lord for 6th-7th. I don't know what this new Edition having seen the book, yet, but it's hard for old habits to die.
In TOW most things that were Lords in previous editions are 1/1k, so you can have 2 at 2k or 1 at 1999.
Though sometimes there are multiple lines for different ‘Lords’ (e.g. Bretonnians can have 1 Duke + 1/1k Prophetess/Baron or WE who can have 1/1k of the Elven Lords + 1/1k Treeman Ancient).
Or you’ve got goblins who can have as many L4 wizards and Warlords as they want (only Orcs are restricted).
Lord Zarkov wrote:Things that were Lords in earlier editions are usually 0-1/1k, but in 6th-7th you could only have 1 Lord. So similar.
The Lords were the main reason for 1999+1. You can't have a single Lord below 2000. This point tally basically disallowed you from taking ANY Lord for 6th-7th. I don't know what this new Edition having seen the book, yet, but it's hard for old habits to die.
In TOW most things that were Lords in previous editions are 1/1k, so you can have 2 at 2k or 1 at 1999.
Though sometimes there are multiple lines for different ‘Lords’ (e.g. Bretonnians can have 1 Duke + 1/1k Prophetess/Baron or WE who can have 1/1k of the Elven Lords + 1/1k Treeman Ancient).
Or you’ve got goblins who can have as many L4 wizards and Warlords as they want (only Orcs are restricted).
My point was that Lords weren't available a 1/1K in 6th and 7th, and that limiting Lords was an old habit from back then. It doesn't look like things have change in that area for some people. It might be some issues left over from 8th Edition when the Lords cost couldn't exceed 25% of the army's total.
I own many armies and plan to pick up some new things too. But out the gate I am rocking the legions of Ptra! Aka tomb kings. Chariot characters are worth taking again and now destroyer can be mounted this is an excellent build. Backed up by some cheap and plentiful Skelly blocks, double SSC and a healthy amount of chaff and magic. Later I will revisit my woodies. But I'm saving that one for now since the avoidance potential looks pretty potent.
I was going to do Orcs and Goblins, but I found my old warriors of chaos from 8th edition. they need work, and movement / conversion trays, but I have nearly 2,000 points.
And, look at this old Spawn I found at the bottom of my foam:
Until 6 months ago, Cities of sigmar was almost the entire Empire army range with most of the wood elves, dark elves, high elves, and dwarves ranges thrown in. Even then, those new kits - plenty of people have been buying them to convert into Empire or bretonnian units for TOW.
Not kidding. "Until 6 months ago." Right, so the current human component of the Cities of Sigmar range is stylistically completely incompatible with Empire and definitely very much the wrong feel for the TOW time period. Suggesting that those weird new sculpts are compatible with legacy Empire sculpts is like saying the steampunk stunties with their zeppelins are totally credible as TOW dwarves. If you could find a way to make an army entirely out of the new AOS kits, it would at least have the advantage of cohesive aesthetics. I'd be like, cool, your idea of light armor differs from mine, but your army is nicely painted and looks great on the table. But lining up fusliers alongside empire spearmen is as dissonant as cubist art in a baroque chapel.
Until 6 months ago, Cities of sigmar was almost the entire Empire army range with most of the wood elves, dark elves, high elves, and dwarves ranges thrown in. Even then, those new kits - plenty of people have been buying them to convert into Empire or bretonnian units for TOW.
Not kidding. "Until 6 months ago." Right, so the current human component of the Cities of Sigmar range is stylistically completely incompatible with Empire and definitely very much the wrong feel for the TOW time period. Suggesting that those weird new sculpts are compatible with legacy Empire sculpts is like saying the steampunk stunties with their zeppelins are totally credible as TOW dwarves. If you could find a way to make an army entirely out of the new AOS kits, it would at least have the advantage of cohesive aesthetics. I'd be like, cool, your idea of light armor differs from mine, but your army is nicely painted and looks great on the table. But lining up fusliers alongside empire spearmen is as dissonant as cubist art in a baroque chapel.
given that a dwarf army pretty much relies on Gyros as the only moving part of the army if they don't want to camb in the corner waiting until they lose, those AoS models add at least some flavour instead of just having the very same, not really good looking model, 6+ times in your army
Not Online!!! wrote: Am i seeing that right on the goblin side that squighoppas are only on a 25 x 25 base?
That is correct. Which makes sense, they were 20mm before
The big character one is on a 50x50mm base (up from 40mm in WFB IIRC?) which allows it to fit neatly in the unit when ranked up.
Due to a scarcity in rulebooks locally i don't have the BRB, but you are saying that a Nightgobbo boss can join a squad of squighoppas. That's good to know...
Now if only the baseline goblin models wouldn't suck..
Not Online!!! wrote: Am i seeing that right on the goblin side that squighoppas are only on a 25 x 25 base?
That is correct. Which makes sense, they were 20mm before
The big character one is on a 50x50mm base (up from 40mm in WFB IIRC?) which allows it to fit neatly in the unit when ranked up.
Due to a scarcity in rulebooks locally i don't have the BRB, but you are saying that a Nightgobbo boss can join a squad of squighoppas. That's good to know...
Now if only the baseline goblin models wouldn't suck..
Yes, but only if on Giant Cave Squiq.
All squigs have the ‘Loner’ rule which means they can only join and be joined by other models with that rule (which is just squigs* for O&G).
Though it’s probably only worth putting a character in the hoppers not the herders as the latter don’t have random movement like the hoppers and giant squig.
Tbh, night goblins look like the way ahead over common goblins. While you lose out on Ld, the models are nice, you gain in I, and more importantly they lack the ‘Impetuous’ rule that has replaced Animosity and gives you the downside of Frenzy 50% of the time. Also, Fanatics.
*and snotlings, but they’re unbreakable so can’t be joined by characters.
Until 6 months ago, Cities of sigmar was almost the entire Empire army range with most of the wood elves, dark elves, high elves, and dwarves ranges thrown in. Even then, those new kits - plenty of people have been buying them to convert into Empire or bretonnian units for TOW.
Not kidding. "Until 6 months ago." Right, so the current human component of the Cities of Sigmar range is stylistically completely incompatible with Empire and definitely very much the wrong feel for the TOW time period. Suggesting that those weird new sculpts are compatible with legacy Empire sculpts is like saying the steampunk stunties with their zeppelins are totally credible as TOW dwarves. If you could find a way to make an army entirely out of the new AOS kits, it would at least have the advantage of cohesive aesthetics. I'd be like, cool, your idea of light armor differs from mine, but your army is nicely painted and looks great on the table. But lining up fusliers alongside empire spearmen is as dissonant as cubist art in a baroque chapel.
The current space marine is stylistically incompatible with the old space marine range, so I guess that means that post-8th 40k is a different game from pre 8th 40k.
The current necron range is stylistically incompatible with the original necron range, so I guess that means that 40k is a different game from older 40k.
The current dark eldar range is stylistically incompatible with the original necron range, so I guess that means that 40k is a different game from older 40k.
etc. etc. etc.
You can't just take an arbitrary snapshot in time out of context and plant your flag in it and declare you're right. You have to look at how you got there- guess what, when WHFB died the entire model range with the exception of Bretonnia and Tomb Kings became the model range for AoS. Over time some of it may have been phased out, other things weren't, but that evolution doesn't change the connective tissue that was there.
Yes, but only if on Giant Cave Squiq.
All squigs have the ‘Loner’ rule which means they can only join and be joined by other models with that rule (which is just squigs* for O&G).
Though it’s probably only worth putting a character in the hoppers not the herders as the latter don’t have random movement like the hoppers and giant squig.
Tbh, night goblins look like the way ahead over common goblins. While you lose out on Ld, the models are nice, you gain in I, and more importantly they lack the ‘Impetuous’ rule that has replaced Animosity and gives you the downside of Frenzy 50% of the time. Also, Fanatics.
*and snotlings, but they’re unbreakable so can’t be joined by characters.
Huh, i didn't realise that normal goblins also had only I 2.... yikes.
Ordered a Brettonia box last Friday, arrived today.
Much chivalry, very "For the Lady!".
Can't wait to have more than just a Paladin and a Bombard with a Halfling gunner.
Probably taking my Chaos Warriors as they were my most up to date towards the end of 8th, and somewhat more usual to play than my Wood Elves, though the latter (because I got a dragon for them back then) is probably more competitive.
soon as I get the chance, probably Tomb Kings. I like the Bretonnians but I'll probably need to practice more skin and cloth to paint them. The modeling potential for having half-built skeletons rising from the ground and unit filler potential is cool. I always liked how they looked and I think their tactics with spells and screaming skull catapults look fun to use.
I'm choosing between High Elves, Wood Elves, and Beastmen. I watched my first game tonight and it looked super fun and familiar as someone who played 5th-7th editions.
I have all my old armys so i can play a lot even starting new beastmen and highelve armys if they com out. i will not have demons, woodelves and lizardmen. we kept on playing 8the edition and now switchted to the old world
I jumped right into the deep end and have been ordering lots of Bretonnians. I always wanted them back in the old Fantasy days and finally got my dream army. My old Skaven are going back to my brother and I pretty much retired my other armies. My Lizardmen are cool and I love the new models but I really like the Old World setting. I ordered a couple of the Goblins to add to my brother’s small army to give them something better than just Orcs and night Goblins. He went full Tomb King since he already had a decent army from Fantasy.
Other than Orcs and Goblins if I do another army I might do Beastman. It will be fun being the Bretonnian player with both the armies my main faction hates. Otherwise I already have some High Elf Spearman, Archers, and 10 old metal Swordmasters I bought right before Fantasy got the axe.
I was working on refurbishing my 6th ed Empire army to The Old World, but I have put that on hold, to start Orcs & Goblins. I am currently building the Night Goblin army I could never afford before.
Lyquis wrote: I was working on refurbishing my 6th ed Empire army to The Old World, but I have put that on hold, to start Orcs & Goblins. I am currently building the Night Goblin army I could never afford before.
That’s been my favorite part with the Old World so far. I stopped playing Fantasy shortly after high school when I had nowhere near enough money for the armies I wanted. I was pretty much stuck with my free Skaven I got from my brother with a couple things added here and there if my FLGS had any stock. I’m just waiting for the Orcs and Gabbo made to orders now so I can get some of those beautiful classic Stone Trolls. Always loved those models but couldn’t afford them. Just want to get some Squig Hoppers after that. Hopefully I can find them at one of my local stores since they sold out quick when the Orcs and Goblins launched.
Is it me or is hero hammer back again? I've tried it and my opponent tried it in 2 different games and i'd say it can be a potent thing when combined with magic spells and magic items.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Is it me or is hero hammer back again? I've tried it and my opponent tried it in 2 different games and i'd say it can be a potent thing when combined with magic spells and magic items.
Yeah, seems that way. A killy Lord, BSB and a L4 seem mandatory at 2k.