Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
It's their own fault really, AOS is so shallow they had to split all the WHFB armies up and turn single units into their own faction.

Can you explain this viewpoint? I don't think I understand what you're trying to convey.

AOS had no content, models or lore and some genius thought making an entire army of dwarf slayers would be more interesting than a proper dwarf army.

Probably because the last time GW did an entire army of Dwarf Slayers it was more interesting than a "proper" Dwarf army.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
It's their own fault really, AOS is so shallow they had to split all the WHFB armies up and turn single units into their own faction.

Can you explain this viewpoint? I don't think I understand what you're trying to convey.

AOS had no content, models or lore and some genius thought making an entire army of dwarf slayers would be more interesting than a proper dwarf army.

With all due respect that isn't an explanation, or even true.

They did it for a bunch of armies though.

They split Slayers out of Dwarfs to make their own army. They split Witch Elves out of Dark Elves to make into its own army. Ghouls out of Vampire Counts.

They then found themselves with a mess of rando units, so cut a bunch of them completely, and pushed the remainder into a "Cities of Sigmar" book for abandoned toys, an army with such a short shelf-life that I'm amazed if anything from it will survive the coming of the Crusade book.

Which slayer models from the Dwarf line made it into Fyreslayers?

And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies

Goose LeChance wrote:
And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies

Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies

Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.

Seraphon (which have gotten functionally skipped (in terms of models) every edition so far)
Beasts (have a character model to replace the character models you've already got, alternately, a terrain piece.
He-man Skeletons, which turned into a one and done project
Fish elves, for the same reason
Witch elves, which had a promising start with the harpies and medusas, then somehow turned into character, character, character. (And i can't figure out why, with 3 editions of AoS, they've had so many iterations of basically nothing)
Orcs without goblins, which have the new guys, the last push for savage orc plastic kits, and a couple bad renditions of black orcs, but don't really congeal into a functional army.
Giants
the crazy vampires with the weird plastic mutant orcs passing as ghouls. Where it took years and years just to get a vampire character that wasn't ripped off the back of a zombie dragon.
Fire dwarves

Special mention for Malekith's brand of elfs, which three editions in and it hasn't even materialized yet!
and Cities of Sigmar, which have _lost_ stuff every iteration, and will probably be binned completely and replaced by the Dawnbringer army (or at least that was my impression from latest Dawnbringer preview, where they started using 'Dawnbringer Crusade' and 'Cities of Sigmar' interchangeably).

Some of the others (fallout dwarves, skaven, sylvaneth) still need work, but don't feel actively incomplete and neglected anymore

Age of Sigmar has improved a lot, but somehow they still really let some factions rot and over-updated others (especially light elfs and sigmarines)
And clearly with beasts and gloomspite, this isn't changing anytime soon.

Goose LeChance wrote:
And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies

A true spiritual successor to WFB then.

Having come into a large collection of unbuilt Bretonnians, is there a way to play these in AOS, or do I just need to wait til Old World rolls around?

Brets got the short end of the stick in that they were dumped wholesale. TK are in a similar situation.

You can try to squeeze them into Cities of Sigmar, but you're basically doing a 100% 'Counts As' army.

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies

Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.

Seraphon (which have gotten functionally skipped (in terms of models) every edition so far)
Beasts (have a character model to replace the character models you've already got, alternately, a terrain piece.
He-man Skeletons, which turned into a one and done project
Fish elves, for the same reason
Witch elves, which had a promising start with the harpies and medusas, then somehow turned into character, character, character. (And i can't figure out why, with 3 editions of AoS, they've had so many iterations of basically nothing)
Orcs without goblins, which have the new guys, the last push for savage orc plastic kits, and a couple bad renditions of black orcs, but don't really congeal into a functional army.
Giants
the crazy vampires with the weird plastic mutant orcs passing as ghouls. Where it took years and years just to get a vampire character that wasn't ripped off the back of a zombie dragon.
Fire dwarves

Special mention for Malekith's brand of elfs, which three editions in and it hasn't even materialized yet!
and Cities of Sigmar, which have _lost_ stuff every iteration, and will probably be binned completely and replaced by the Dawnbringer army (or at least that was my impression from latest Dawnbringer preview, where they started using 'Dawnbringer Crusade' and 'Cities of Sigmar' interchangeably).

Some of the others (fallout dwarves, skaven, sylvaneth) still need work, but don't feel actively incomplete and neglected anymore

Age of Sigmar has improved a lot, but somehow they still really let some factions rot and over-updated others (especially light elfs and sigmarines)
And clearly with beasts and gloomspite, this isn't changing anytime soon.

I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.

You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.

So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies

Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.

FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.

OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.

 Sasori wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies

Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.

FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.

OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.

Rumours are that FEC is getting an update next year. There are some very old rumour engines that definitely have a FEC vibe.

 bullyboy wrote:
Having come into a large collection of unbuilt Bretonnians, is there a way to play these in AOS, or do I just need to wait til Old World rolls around?

Official battletome? No. They don't have it.

You could count as them as something though. I have seen bretonnia count as armies as flesh eater courts and slaves to darkness. Slaves to darkness just got new tome that buffs their cavalry quite a lot.

 bullyboy wrote:
Having come into a large collection of unbuilt Bretonnians, is there a way to play these in AOS, or do I just need to wait til Old World rolls around?

Keep them as they are, paint them, have an awesome oldschool army ready when TOW finally drops.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.

So what would count as an incomplete army by your standard, if a faction consisting of 1 box of infantry, 1 box of monstrous infantry and 1 monster doesn't cut it? A box of literally just legs on bases?

Voss wrote:
You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.

So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.

This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies

Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.

FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.

OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.

Hm, I disagree on FRC but only somewhat. I feel like they did a great job creating a lot of options from a narrow number of kits and allowing unridden terries/dragons did a lot to flesh out non-character options. But at the same time I see your point.

As for OBR, totally agree. There are tactical and thematic niches unfilled there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.

So what would count as an incomplete army by your standard, if a faction consisting of 1 box of infantry, 1 box of monstrous infantry and 1 monster doesn't cut it? A box of literally just legs on bases?

Covering what makes the army incomplete instead of listing model releases and aethetic preferences.

Here's the thing, GW can make a single model work as an army. Flesheaters can take a whole army of Zombiedragons and only one has to have a lord on top. As an army it works.

It's 100% nothing but spam of 1 model, but it does work.



The thing is most people consider an army complete when the army has multiple builds, multiple model kits and a diversity of options both in tactical senses and visual. This generally corresponds to a wealth of kits.

Different heroes, both generic and named; different troops, cavalry, monsters, artillery* etc....


Ossiarchs have clear tactical gaps because they were clearly designed with a second wave of models in mind. Flesheaters on the other hand were kind of designed not to have that because they were clearly intended to operate as they are right now for a prolonged period of time before GW would get to adding to them.


Yes FEC work as an army, all the AoS armies work. However a good many are working whilst having very limited options. Heck even Daughters of Khaine are pretty limited with most of their kids doing duel roles to bulk things out, but often its just a weapon swap. Which is interesting at a time when GW is making weapon swaps almost null for many other armies. If they broguht that theory to DoK then their army diversity would suddenly drop by near half for their troops (the only one that would survive is likely the snakes and even then they could be put on one profile just with archers or spears)


*Heck most armies don't even have any artillery. AoS has 4 unit types and 1 of which is almost empty for a good portion of forces.

I have no idea whether this is intentional design or not, but i saw it and it got a chuckle out of me.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:
You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.

So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.

This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Goose LeChance wrote:
And now they have a bunch of half finished and neglected armies

Can you point out which and why? Fyreslayers are the low hanging fruit here and you have no arguments from me on that one but I would be interested to hear others' perceptions on which armies are incomplete.

FEC feel pretty incomplete. They are pretty much using 4 kits for the entire army. It really needs more, and not just heros. It needs some actual meat.

OBR had a nice initial release, but they really feel like the are missing a few units for me to really consider it complete. It doesn't need much, just a ranged unit or two and a big monster (The Harvester does not fill this role at all) would be enough for it to feel complete for me.

Hm, I disagree on FRC but only somewhat. I feel like they did a great job creating a lot of options from a narrow number of kits and allowing unridden terries/dragons did a lot to flesh out non-character options. But at the same time I see your point.

As for OBR, totally agree. There are tactical and thematic niches unfilled there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm asking about opinions on armies being incomplete, which none of this is.

So what would count as an incomplete army by your standard, if a faction consisting of 1 box of infantry, 1 box of monstrous infantry and 1 monster doesn't cut it? A box of literally just legs on bases?

Covering what makes the army incomplete instead of listing model releases and aethetic preferences.

You just look for trouble often, its amazing how many times you end up in negative exchanges. Here is a hint- it probably isn't everyone else in the wrong.

Meanwhile, Voss really hit the nail on the head and could have gone deeper. AoS is in a bad place. Its sad because the wolf riders are great models, but the armies themselves are so messed up they don't fit at all with the army they've been put in (GSG).

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I have no idea whether this is intentional design or not, but i saw it and it got a chuckle out of me.

All that’s missing is an eight-pointed scar on the beastlord’s chest…

this is the Standard Beastmen Hero pose:





heresy if we would get finally something new for them

My goodness, seeing the new Underworlds warband just announced, what I wouldn't give for whole unit options for both the squigapults and squig-spear gobbos!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:
You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.

So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.

This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.

You decreed none of them were incomplete. With italics.
If that wasn't your intent, maybe change your posting style.

 Clockpunk wrote:
My goodness, seeing the new Underworlds warband just announced, what I wouldn't give for whole unit options for both the squigapults and squig-spear gobbos!

One of the few surviving AoS Forgeworld models is already there for you

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/Night-Goblin-Squig-Gobba

Christmas battleforces and Warcry up next week:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/11/20/sunday-preview-get-your-fill-of-age-of-sigmar-battleforces-and-the-new-warcry-expansion/?utm_source=CUSTOMERS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WHP_20th_November_Preview_&utm_content=&utm_term=

Damn that ghost box keeps appealing. Death is only grand alliance I don't have an army yet...That plus vanguard + kruciator=2k army right away

Voss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Voss wrote:

Spoiler:

You're free to disagree (though even a vague reason why would be enlightening), but I consider all of those very incomplete. More than a half are barely fleshed out as a basic concept, some are multiple concepts mashed together and abandoned, or just leftover models with nowhere else to go, and several are just the WFB army (with some losses) or worse, a sub-faction of an army, with barely a new coat of lore-paint, no new models and a festering pile of finecast still hanging on for some bloody reason. Three editions in.

So what counts as 'complete' or 'incomplete' to you? You've given no criteria, just declared my opinions wrong. That doesn't sound like you're really interested others' perceptions.

This is more what I was looking for. The previous post listed criticisms but they were not about why the armies were incomplete. I did not agree or disagree with those opinions or declare them wrong, that is a bold-faced lie.

tneva82 wrote:
Keep in mind that doesn't mean that 1 book is ONLY summer book. StD was taunted as only winter book in last roadmap

As for big releases summer will be 40k 10th edition so big pile of miniatures coming then as is.

Indeed.
In that and this one it never said just one, it just was as far as they were showing.

AoS books upcoming for spring.
My guesses for what’s coming (Order, Chaos, Chaos, Death, Death):
Kharadron, Slaanesh, Khorne, flesh eater court and Bonereapers?

Seraphon for the following Order one.
Leaving what Soulblight with an unknown date.


I think it’s clear to all that for after that it is Cities coming later.
With the work so far and amount previewed and on and on..