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.

JSG wrote:

 Overread wrote:

JSG wrote:

Aren't the Idoneth at the bottom of the ocean to deprive themselves of sensation? How would Gull Aelves do this?

By not hiding at the bottom of the Ocean.

It easily fits into the lore for them, with the Idoneth forced into alliance with the Daughters of Khaine and forced into more and more land based combat (because that's where 99.9% of the other factions in the world are) it would make sense that at some point some of them might grow a greater tolerance or need to be surface side. Why not avail yourself of winged air units who can take to the skies and scout far above and ahead of your sea forces, without the need for the aether sea to be present. Especially if you're being forced to conduct major campaigns of war and not just raiding parties and raids on the coastlines.

Genius! You've created elves.

Last time I checked elves don't have seagull wings


I mean granted the Daughters of Khaine have bat-winged Khinerai and serpent melusai and Malarion's army is rumoured to have dragonish elements to his elves as well as lots of shadow

 Equinox wrote:

I don't have any issue with the models being added to AOS, it is them being shoehorned into GSG that disappoints me. You clearly are of the opinion that anything new is a good thing regardless of how it is implemented, but that is not a view I share. I like GSG and want to purchase more for the army, but I want those purchases to share common elements with my existing collection.

It's more of a timing thing, the way I see it. Remember when AOS Batltetomes first started to come out and we had multiple ones for several former WHFB Armies that were now instead split into subfactions - Orcs and Goblins were split into two, then three when the first Gitz book came out. "Wet" undead were also split into two, then three books when Nighthaunt were released. (I won't even go into Chaos' 72 different sub-factions with their own books!) It seemed that the plan at the time was to split every surviving WHFB army into sub-categories, so we saw Pestilens had their own book, Beastclaw Raiders had their own book, Slayers and Witch Elves and Treemen/Dryads were split off their existing armies since they were more distinctly IP-protectable than the more generic Dark Elves and Dwarves and Wood Elves that they were formerly a part of (which is why we got the Gitz as well)

There's since been some re-condensation as several of those split model ranges alone were pretty anemic - Orcs being re-combined and Ogres and Skaven getting their buddies back - but they've since added in a reworking of VERY old-school WHFB 1st edition Orcs & Hobgoblins, and so I wouldn't be surprised with subsequent waves of gobboes expanding on the old "regular" goblins until they do get their own book. They'll probably revisit Forest Goblins while on that particular path as well, since everything old is always new again at GW (and I'm not even complaiing about that!) I wouldn't be surprised to see a second (or third, even) Goblin book down the line once they have more new models and feel that the ranges can support themselves in terms of sales and simply retail space.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Equinox wrote:

It does make me wonder what GW's internal opinion of the destruction ranges are since they seem hesitant to expand them. We can have 3+ elf books, but all orruks or goblins are lumped into a single book. With this edition being themed around destruction, it is disappointing that we haven't gotten anything major since 3rd edition launched.

We got new (old) Orcs and Hobgobs as an addiitonal book. That's what this edition started with. The design ethos is different, but they're still Orcs - just the very old-school Jes Goodwin design rather than the Kev Adams design that became Warhammer's mainstay (not to mention WoW, etc)... They're the equivalent of the Sea/Fish Elves in some ways (that were also a concept floating arounf GW for decades).

And if this one testbed Gitmob unit doesn't sell GW will not conclude it's not selling because it's one unit being shoehorned into a book totally out of context, they will conclude people hate Gitmob and this one random unit will forever be a lone eyesore in the GSG book.

But hey, stans gonna stan, sometimes you gota bend backwards a little less, sometimes a little more, as long as you can make excuses for The Brand.

Calling me a stan is pretty laughable and I don't have a facepalm big enough to respond to this level of imbecilic trolling from you, so I'm gonna chuck you on ignore instead.

I will suggest that the Underworlds models must have sold pretty well otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these.

Also as GW is partly design led, maybe someone in the design studio just really likes wolf riding gobbos.

 Azazelx wrote:


I will suggest that the Underworlds models must have sold pretty well otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these.

Goblin Wolfrider has to be one of the most versatile and uncontroversial sculpts in the fantasy genre, you can use it in almost any fantasy setting that is vaguely inspired by Tolkien and ''Generic Brand Fantasy'', from D&D to boardgames or just for painting it up. Only assorted giant vermin or perhaps skeleton warriors are even more generic than basic gobbos

 Overread wrote:
Also as GW is partly design led, maybe someone in the design studio just really likes wolf riding gobbos.

Absolutely. But a big part of GW's thing over the past ...quite a few years now is bringing old stuff back as well. It started with 40k and things like GSC and more recently we've been seeing it in AoS with High Elves, Jes' WHFB1 orcs, and I think we'll see more and more as they mine their existing IP for designs and concepts that they can reuse with a bit of a tweak or more significant new spin.

The most interesting part of this is that (as Tsagualsa notes) goblin wolfriders are a pretty generic fantasy concept, which is quite different to the "it needs to be distinctly warhammer" ethos that has been more prdominant to date.

I wonder if they'll bring Squats back one day?

 Azazelx wrote:

I will suggest that the Underworlds models must have sold pretty well otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these.

I don't know if we can use that as a justification for anything since the lead time on new stuff is 18+ months and those models are not even available online (best I can tell). They could re-release the unit with the GSG book, but we don't know that for certain at this point. Best I think we can conclude was that someone in the studio either wanted to or was instructed to create a modern version of the old wolf-riders and came up with a couple different units.

 Azazelx wrote:

It's more of a timing thing, the way I see it. Remember when AOS Batltetomes first started to come out and we had multiple ones for several former WHFB Armies that were now instead split into subfactions - Orcs and Goblins were split into two, then three when the first Gitz book came out. "Wet" undead were also split into two, then three books when Nighthaunt were released. (I won't even go into Chaos' 72 different sub-factions with their own books!) It seemed that the plan at the time was to split every surviving WHFB army into sub-categories, so we saw Pestilens had their own book, Beastclaw Raiders had their own book, Slayers and Witch Elves and Treemen/Dryads were split off their existing armies since they were more distinctly IP-protectable than the more generic Dark Elves and Dwarves and Wood Elves that they were formerly a part of (which is why we got the Gitz as well)

I hear you. It just seems to be a haphazard approach that is applied inconsistently across the game after 5+ years. The contrast between how dwarves and goblins are handled is a good example. Fyreslayers are kept as a separate book/faction with a shared aesthetic and a small range, but goblins and orruks are all just lumped together. Comparing slayers (~16) to moonclan (~22), and removing Kragnos, spiders and giants (oh my) from the count, the two ranges are roughly the same size, so there is a logic to saying that if one has a standalone tome, the other should as well given the same information.

A different way to look at this is that GW lacks a good mechanism for testing new ideas and model ranges without fully committing to them.

 Overread wrote:
Also as GW is partly design led, maybe someone in the design studio just really likes wolf riding gobbos.

That is likely the case, but doesn't make for a good approach to handling the overall brand.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Equinox wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

I will suggest that the Underworlds models must have sold pretty well otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these.

I don't know if we can use that as a justification for anything since the lead time on new stuff is 18+ months and those models are not even available online (best I can tell). They could re-release the unit with the GSG book, but we don't know that for certain at this point. Best I think we can conclude was that someone in the studio either wanted to or was instructed to create a modern version of the old wolf-riders and came up with a couple different units.

These came out three years ago, so it's entirely possible that they served as a new "proof of concept" that has come back around now if they sold at the time they were available to whatever metric we're not aware of. Possibly lower requirement to the Tactical Space Marine box.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/09/14/new-warhammer-underworlds-beastgrave-warband-revealed/

 Equinox wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

It's more of a timing thing, the way I see it. Remember when AOS Batltetomes first started to come out and we had multiple ones for several former WHFB Armies that were now instead split into subfactions - Orcs and Goblins were split into two, then three when the first Gitz book came out. "Wet" undead were also split into two, then three books when Nighthaunt were released. (I won't even go into Chaos' 72 different sub-factions with their own books!) It seemed that the plan at the time was to split every surviving WHFB army into sub-categories, so we saw Pestilens had their own book, Beastclaw Raiders had their own book, Slayers and Witch Elves and Treemen/Dryads were split off their existing armies since they were more distinctly IP-protectable than the more generic Dark Elves and Dwarves and Wood Elves that they were formerly a part of (which is why we got the Gitz as well)

I hear you. It just seems to be a haphazard approach that is applied inconsistently across the game after 5+ years. The contrast between how dwarves and goblins are handled is a good example. Fyreslayers are kept as a separate book/faction with a shared aesthetic and a small range, but goblins and orruks are all just lumped together. Comparing slayers (~16) to moonclan (~22), and removing Kragnos, spiders and giants (oh my) from the count, the two ranges are roughly the same size, so there is a logic to saying that if one has a standalone tome, the other should as well given the same information.

A different way to look at this is that GW lacks a good mechanism for testing new ideas and model ranges without fully committing to them.

Oh, the main thing that GW have been consistent about is being wildly inconsistent. This "split, then recombine" thing has been going on for decades now. 3rd Edition 40k was when we started seeing Codex Catachans, Codex Craftworld Eldar, and on and on it went... Even 7th-9th 40k has been this way, most notably with Space Marine subfactions (Templars ahoy!) but also Admech and so on. They go back and forth between splitting subfactions, throwing new units into books and throwing new units into "campaign" supplements.

My best estimate is the kit was ready, they figured they could release it now, and down the line there will be a Battletome: Gitmobs that they more readily fit into. There's also Grotbag Scuttlers presumably in the pipeline, so it's possible they get rolled into that.

Though TBH I'd like to see a return of the regular Orcs & Goblins as a faction. We have Orc specialists and Goblin specialists, but no norm that they actually deviate from. It would make sense too; the specialists have their strengths while the normals make up for it by being Orcs & Gobbos working together.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
My best estimate is the kit was ready, they figured they could release it now, and down the line there will be a Battletome: Gitmobs that they more readily fit into. There's also Grotbag Scuttlers presumably in the pipeline, so it's possible they get rolled into that.

Though TBH I'd like to see a return of the regular Orcs & Goblins as a faction. We have Orc specialists and Goblin specialists, but no norm that they actually deviate from. It would make sense too; the specialists have their strengths while the normals make up for it by being Orcs & Gobbos working together.

From your lips to God's ears.

I like the new wolf riders, but think my issue with them is how well made their equipment looks. Weapons look suitable "greenskin quality", but the armor doesn't look ramshackle and the shields seem to have a high degree of ornamentation. Perhaps another Chaos Duardin connection, much like the Hobgrots?

Don't really have an issue with their inclusion in the Gloomspite battletome, as I'm sure the lore will explain how they find common cause with their cave dwelling brethren. Wolves are nocturnal hunters and have the added bonus of being able to scout their prey during the day while the Gloomspite hide from the sun and wait for darkness.

I don't understand the complaints about the new wolf riders.

One of the best parts about Warhammer Fantasy was how armies were whole cultures with all of its variety. Greenskins, specially, were basically 4 armies in one, savage orcs, orcs, goblins and nightgoblins with even more crazy stuff like forest goblins, giants and trolls in the mix.

Then AoS came along and made a whole faction of a single thematical unit (Slayers, for example), creating armies flanderized to the extreme and 0 sinergies between units (Like beastclaw raiders and normal foot ogres).

Having stuff like this adding cultural and fluff variety to a battletome its not something bad.

The Night Gobbos battletome is allready 3 factions in one (night goblins, forest goblins and trolls).

I don't know about flanderized; that's when one trait overtakes the entire picture. That's what happened to Khorne, with honor and even strategy buried under bloodkillbloodblood all the time. Fyreslayers aren't actually like Dwarf slayers at all, bar one hero option. They have an entirely new culture written for them. Beastclaw Raiders also had a whole new background to serve as their central theme with the Everwinter. Even the likes of Bonesplitterz or Clan Pestilens have had their narrative elements expanded upon, not diluted. It is the opposite of flanderization.

Seeing folks on Facebook already getting their MTO Archaons. Disclaimer said 180 days, but that thankfully never seems accurate and is more there for a CYA in case something goes wrong.

 nels1031 wrote:
Seeing folks on Facebook already getting their MTO Archaons. Disclaimer said 180 days, but that thankfully never seems accurate and is more there for a CYA in case something goes wrong.

UPS says they delivered my mounted sorcerer today. Have to check with my parents if it actually arrived since I had it sent there because I'm moving this month and won't be in my new location until after it said they'd send them out.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't know about flanderized; that's when one trait overtakes the entire picture. That's what happened to Khorne, with honor and even strategy buried under bloodkillbloodblood all the time. Fyreslayers aren't actually like Dwarf slayers at all, bar one hero option. They have an entirely new culture written for them. Beastclaw Raiders also had a whole new background to serve as their central theme with the Everwinter. Even the likes of Bonesplitterz or Clan Pestilens have had their narrative elements expanded upon, not diluted. It is the opposite of flanderization.

I disagree, I believe its a problem when you take something greater and piecemeal it to its basic thematic components. Ogres had beasts as part of its culture. That was removed and made its own thing, all around winter and beast and winter-beast and frost and ice and... whatever.

As I said, I believe is a net positive for GW to give back cultural variety to factions. It allows for more playstiles and different units in the same battletome.

 Galas wrote:
I don't understand the complaints about the new wolf riders.

One of the best parts about Warhammer Fantasy was how armies were whole cultures with all of its variety. Greenskins, specially, were basically 4 armies in one, savage orcs, orcs, goblins and nightgoblins with even more crazy stuff like forest goblins, giants and trolls in the mix.

Then AoS came along and made a whole faction of a single thematical unit (Slayers, for example), creating armies flanderized to the extreme and 0 sinergies between units (Like beastclaw raiders and normal foot ogres).

Having stuff like this adding cultural and fluff variety to a battletome its not something bad.

The Night Gobbos battletome is allready 3 factions in one (night goblins, forest goblins and trolls).

And the support for at least one of those is creaky at best (honestly, even the night gobbo element of gitz feels unfinished to me). They could have expanded on what they started rather than pulled a 'well, we made goblin wolfriders again, I guess... uh, sell them with the night goblins?'

I got my MTO Archaon today!

 Equinox wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Because, again, Gloomspite are not the only faction in the book. Spiderfang are their own thing and there is no issue if they want to expand and look at other goblin types.

Which is an indication of GW's laziness and lack of creative depth when it comes to the range. Would you have the same opinion of the release if it was a winged/avian themed elf that was added to the Idoneth battletome? You know seagulls eat crabs, so bird-elves fit with fish-elves if I use that logic. Why expand the resources to create a new product that only shares superficial similarities to the existing range when something with closer ties would garner a better reception (potentially).

It could also be argued that a single kit does not constitute or justify a faction. Unless there are additional kits to be revealed, you cannot field a Snarlfang only army, which I would consider a basic requirement of being a faction. At least with Spiderfang, it is possible to field a complete army composed of just that faction regardless of tabletop viability.

Lumineth have different looking elves that hardly look same. Slaves to darkness ditto. Why gobbos should look all same? Guess you just want gits to be one dimensional joke army...so remove spiders, trolls and squigp as well? If not you have no logic in your arqument.

Dok also shouldn't have snakes and witches in same book. Khorne shouldn't have humans and daemons(same for other books). Std remove chaos warriors and cultists to own books. Ogors beastclaw and gutbusters separate. Gargants mancrushers and mega's to their own. Sylvaneth dryads and spirits to own. Etc etc.

You really want to split books to 1 dimensional mini-factions...

 KidCthulhu wrote:
I got my MTO Archaon today!

I want it so bad, but I refuse to purchase anything directly from GW.

Voss wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I don't understand the complaints about the new wolf riders.

One of the best parts about Warhammer Fantasy was how armies were whole cultures with all of its variety. Greenskins, specially, were basically 4 armies in one, savage orcs, orcs, goblins and nightgoblins with even more crazy stuff like forest goblins, giants and trolls in the mix.

Then AoS came along and made a whole faction of a single thematical unit (Slayers, for example), creating armies flanderized to the extreme and 0 sinergies between units (Like beastclaw raiders and normal foot ogres).

Having stuff like this adding cultural and fluff variety to a battletome its not something bad.

The Night Gobbos battletome is allready 3 factions in one (night goblins, forest goblins and trolls).

And the support for at least one of those is creaky at best (honestly, even the night gobbo element of gitz feels unfinished to me). They could have expanded on what they started rather than pulled a 'well, we made goblin wolfriders again, I guess... uh, sell them with the night goblins?'

You say the night goblins even feel unfinished.
Well, what more do you want?
We've got;
●A full range of characters,
●Melee goblins,
●Archer goblins,
●Squigs,
●Cavalry- Squig riding goblins
●A big scary monster in the form of the Mangler Squigs,
●an option for a character to ride the Mangler Squigs
●the iconic Netters & Fanatics that were the whole reason to include Night Goblins back in the WHFB days....
●a box full if very flavorful Endless Spells,
●a cool looking & useful terrain piece,
●and a 2nd monstrous squig option & an Artillery unit via FW.

Seriously, what more do you WANT? What do you think is missing?

ccs wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I don't understand the complaints about the new wolf riders.

One of the best parts about Warhammer Fantasy was how armies were whole cultures with all of its variety. Greenskins, specially, were basically 4 armies in one, savage orcs, orcs, goblins and nightgoblins with even more crazy stuff like forest goblins, giants and trolls in the mix.

Then AoS came along and made a whole faction of a single thematical unit (Slayers, for example), creating armies flanderized to the extreme and 0 sinergies between units (Like beastclaw raiders and normal foot ogres).

Having stuff like this adding cultural and fluff variety to a battletome its not something bad.

The Night Gobbos battletome is allready 3 factions in one (night goblins, forest goblins and trolls).

And the support for at least one of those is creaky at best (honestly, even the night gobbo element of gitz feels unfinished to me). They could have expanded on what they started rather than pulled a 'well, we made goblin wolfriders again, I guess... uh, sell them with the night goblins?'

You say the night goblins even feel unfinished.
Well, what more do you want?
We've got;
●A full range of characters,
●Melee goblins,
●Archer goblins,
●Squigs,
●Cavalry- Squig riding goblins
●A big scary monster in the form of the Mangler Squigs,
●an option for a character to ride the Mangler Squigs
●the iconic Netters & Fanatics that were the whole reason to include Night Goblins back in the WHFB days....
●a box full if very flavorful Endless Spells,
●a cool looking & useful terrain piece,
●and a 2nd monstrous squig option & an Artillery unit via FW.

Seriously, what more do you WANT? What do you think is missing?

I think it's fair to say the trolls/troggs are very at home with the night gobbos too, in theme if not in rules at present, so that's 2 elite infantry and a monster/hero extra.

No no no. They look different to night gobbos so obviously must be split to their own book! Can't have anything that isn't robed gobbo in the book!

well, it just should be the same for everyone and it would at least help if GW told people that they are now combining subfactions into one book again instead of splitting them up

 kodos wrote:
well, it just should be the same for everyone and it would at least help if GW told people that they are now combining subfactions into one book again instead of splitting them up

I think that the current approach is a pretty direct result of the ''no model no rules'' paradigm combined with the general restart that came with the shift from the Old World to AoS. They basically removed all established faction aesthetics except the most basic design elements, and now have to build up all the factions more or less from scrap. The no-model-no-rules thing forces them to release the rules in portions that coincide with an economically viable number of model kits each quarter, so stuff that has been a subfraction or just shared a number of style elements within a larger army is its own faction for now. We no longer get armybooks where half of the entries never gets around to having an official model, or does not have one for years. I guess that once the foundation of each Grand Alliance is established an furnished with a kit, they will start to recombine subfactions into larger tomes along the lines of the old Orks&Goblins army book, but for now the need to newly define all the aesthetics and their legal outlook on trademarks and stuff pretty much dictates baby steps and thin subfaction ''splash books''.

 nels1031 wrote:
Seeing folks on Facebook already getting their MTO Archaons. Disclaimer said 180 days, but that thankfully never seems accurate and is more there for a CYA in case something goes wrong.

What I've noticed happens with made-to-order is that GW will cast up a bunch of stuff for release at launch. Thereafter they will do waves of production rather than aim to satisfy all the orders in one big go. So you'll see an initial surge of people getting the model(s) and then, depending on how many were ordered compared to how much stock GW has, you'll see them released in waves thereafter. I know when I was waiting for my Catachan female character I had to wait through several waves of other people getting her before mine was delivered. Those waves can easily end up taking up the 180 days period of estimated wait time.

tneva82 wrote:

 Equinox wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Because, again, Gloomspite are not the only faction in the book. Spiderfang are their own thing and there is no issue if they want to expand and look at other goblin types.

Which is an indication of GW's laziness and lack of creative depth when it comes to the range. Would you have the same opinion of the release if it was a winged/avian themed elf that was added to the Idoneth battletome? You know seagulls eat crabs, so bird-elves fit with fish-elves if I use that logic. Why expand the resources to create a new product that only shares superficial similarities to the existing range when something with closer ties would garner a better reception (potentially).

It could also be argued that a single kit does not constitute or justify a faction. Unless there are additional kits to be revealed, you cannot field a Snarlfang only army, which I would consider a basic requirement of being a faction. At least with Spiderfang, it is possible to field a complete army composed of just that faction regardless of tabletop viability.

Lumineth have different looking elves that hardly look same. Slaves to darkness ditto. Why gobbos should look all same? Guess you just want gits to be one dimensional joke army...so remove spiders, trolls and squigp as well? If not you have no logic in your arqument.

Ogors beastclaw and gutbusters separate.

You really want to split books to 1 dimensional mini-factions...

Lumineth look different, but are all Lumineth.
Ogors the same. Khorne book isn’t called Mortals of Khorne or Daemons of Khorne. And so on.

The difference for Goblins is they are all in the book named after one part of it, the night goblins.
So if the Ogor one was still called BCR, or if Lumineth was named after one “group” or whatever they’re known as.

So just call the book Gitmobz or whatever and people can’t complain as much.
I feel like the lore side of the book is what’s jarring with people.
Trolls fit in with them anyway still.
Forest and regular goblins don’t fit Gloomspite. So if Gloomspite was just one part of the Gitmob book all would be fine (and then ideally after enough new units and expansion, you could have two books - Night Goblins and Trolls. Then Spider Goblins And Common Goblins once they got more stuff. Sorted).

New Metawatch article up! I always enjoy these and rarely hear something that makes me scratch my head in bewilderment.

Tsagualsa wrote:
guess that once the foundation of each Grand Alliance is established an furnished with a kit, they will start to recombine subfactions into larger tomes along the lines of the old Orks&Goblins army book, but for now the need to newly define all the aesthetics and their legal outlook on trademarks and stuff pretty much dictates baby steps and thin subfaction ''splash books''.

That certainly won't happen. How many books does Chaos have now? Undead? They won't re-combine anything that has a new and significant model range. Black Orcs and Savage orcs were recombined since their model ranges were too anemic to support full books. Ditto Ogres and Skaven.