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.

Personally I think he's great and a design style that I hope we see Flesheaters following more and more of. Right now they've got the biggest disconnect from their lore. Their models just don't really speak of an army of insane ghouls who think they are people; let alone knights in armour or such.

Meanwhile this king clearly looks like he's thinking of himself as a king, sitting, wearing clothes and acting like a king. Plus its not the Nurgle style of happy insanity, but a more brutal kind which fits the Flesheaters perfectly. They aren't happy in their delusion, they are vicious and insane.

Its kind of sad how GW has missed the mark on them with any of the newer models they released for the FEC. Not that I don't love the Archregent, but it doesn't scream "I am a king."

And tell me why did the Grymwatch just look like regular crypt ghouls? Underworlds was a chance to make really unique models, and instead, it was the gloomspite gitz who got a knightly court, complete with a herald and patchwork armor.

For a holiday novelty model he's not half bad. At least it's not a Sigmarine or another Orc.

 GaroRobe wrote:
Its kind of sad how GW has missed the mark on them with any of the newer models they released for the FEC. Not that I don't love the Archregent, but it doesn't scream "I am a king."

And tell me why did the Grymwatch just look like regular crypt ghouls? Underworlds was a chance to make really unique models, and instead, it was the gloomspite gitz who got a knightly court, complete with a herald and patchwork armor.

Because it's all a delusion. They're not actually draping themselves in rusted and ancient finery and jewels, they see scraps of flesh and bones as something else. To everyone that aren't FEC, they just see Ghouls draped in the remnants of their victims. It's not even really a cruel mockery of actual courtly appearance. Read the interchanging POVs in Ghoulslayer, their actions don't even match up with what they think they're doing at that moment. There's a moment in the book where the "king" thinks he backhands someone and then wonders why the man is dead, covered in blood and slashes.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 GaroRobe wrote:
Its kind of sad how GW has missed the mark on them with any of the newer models they released for the FEC. Not that I don't love the Archregent, but it doesn't scream "I am a king."

And tell me why did the Grymwatch just look like regular crypt ghouls? Underworlds was a chance to make really unique models, and instead, it was the gloomspite gitz who got a knightly court, complete with a herald and patchwork armor.

Because it's all a delusion. They're not actually draping themselves in rusted and ancient finery and jewels, they see scraps of flesh and bones as something else. To everyone that aren't FEC, they just see Ghouls draped in the remnants of their victims. It's not even really a cruel mockery of actual courtly appearance. Read the interchanging POVs in Ghoulslayer, their actions don't even match up with what they think they're doing at that moment.

Yeah Ghoulslayer does a fantastic job of showing how insane they are. I just feel like model wise they need some visual guides to how they think they are in how they dress and appear, just enough that you can see a bit of their delusion in the model. From those that are totally feral in appearance to those draping themselves with a courtly garb which just happens to be a decaying skin of something they killed. In my view GW needs to get it just right and balance the fully feral with the slightly more "regal feral".



Also GW REALLY needs to give us the bone dragons that feature in Ghoulslayer.

I'm just wondering why they're still painting them that dreadful green. Didn't GW do a red and white studio army for their first or second battletome? Whatever happened to that?

There are four major subfactions, the green is one of them while the pale flesh white is another. Then there's a burnt (literally) sunburn-orange, and a bluish grey.

I like this new mini, it is nice to have a regular GK available outside the big box and he looks great to magnetize on top of their terrain piece.

Thanks. Now that you mention it I think I ever so dimly remember Flesheater Courts getting named subfactions at some point. Still, it's a shame what they have for poster boys. I've disliked that color scheme even back in Fantasy and was happy to see something else feature so heavily in the earlier battletome.

 Geifer wrote:
Thanks. Now that you mention it I think I ever so dimly remember Flesheater Courts getting named subfactions at some point. Still, it's a shame what they have for poster boys. I've disliked that color scheme even back in Fantasy and was happy to see something else feature so heavily in the earlier battletome.

FEC had nice subfaction system in AOC in that if you didn't take named subfaction you had other rule(customizable at that) instead.

Gave reason to not go for named subfactions. Wish they had went that route rather than remove all reasons to NOT take subfaction free bonuses.

Yeah, sadly.

They don't seem to know what to do with named subfactions in any game, to be fair.

I think the problem is that GW marketing and management kind of wishes that every other army's subfactions would take off with popularity like the Space Marine subfactions did. Ergo generating enough sales and free marketing that they'd be armies in their own right.

In reality they either end up themed so that players playing the army a certain way always take a certain themed subfaction (one does close combat, one does ranged, one does tanking etc....); or they have one that's just outright better than the rest and everyone goes with that.

In the end its a few lines of themed rules and a few adjustments here and there. The biggest variations are the few that have specific model restrictions for what you can take.


In the end I do agree, GW doesn't really know what to do with them. If they make them weak people don't care about them and if they make them strong they tend to be broken (because its GW balance); and eveyone goes for the same one.

I "almost" think its an idea we coudl do without, but some armies run them really in a fun way - eg Skaven - so there's value in them.
I think perhaps in bigger armies like Skaven where they can vary unit restrictions they work well as flavour and theme; whilst in most other armies there just isn't the model count to really do that.

Generals' Hanbook looking like January?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/12/21/generals-handbook-2023-a-time-for-galletian-champions/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=warhammer-age-of-sigmar&utm_content=ageofsigmar21122022&fbclid=IwAR3zVx53wR3C1zw1w-Gtl0P27WX5-7OpRb9fzNnMZntOuwwAFesCvtYLfbs

Well that's a possible point for the rumour/wishlist. Let's see if the bone spider thing pans out

Well january pretty much had to be if they don't want very long & short gaps between 2 books. If you were faking rumours this would be good odds

Rumours regarding 9w foot heroes being thing so armies without those might struggle with bt's(especially if no battletome bt's style becomes more popular)

Christ that's a lot of rules they've written to basically re-do the old Independent Character and retinue rules, but in a way that is more clunky and more wordy than ever thought possible.

Independent Characters got a whole page in 7th edition and 30k 2.0. Nearly 2 pages in 5th edition.

If one even takes the leap to consider this attempting to recreate those, how is it more clunky and wordy than that?

Or like, did 3rd edition do in 1 sentence what 5th edition took nearly 2 pages to explain?

Out of curiosity, is the character protection rule a seasonal rule strictly to spice things up for the duration or has shooting in the game become so potent that it creates issues for characters and this is a fix that may last beyond the season or is a trial for 4th ed? Any opinions on that?

What a fun and interesting/different mechanic for IDK heroes...

oh wait

 Geifer wrote:
Out of curiosity, is the character protection rule a seasonal rule strictly to spice things up for the duration or has shooting in the game become so potent that it creates issues for characters and this is a fix that may last beyond the season or is a trial for 4th ed? Any opinions on that?

Well bit of both.

Whether that shows on 4th remains to be seen.

What I will be interested is might the fight in 2 ranks be incorporated to infantry rule in this GHB. Or is stuff like Bladegheist Revenants going to be worse again.

In my games it's less the durability in most games that been issue and more of they not having all that much punch in melee so unless it's wizard hero better be owner of good buff to sit at back. This at least gives them bit role in combat as well and not just sit at back behind as many friends as possible(not exactly heroic...)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EldarExarch wrote:
What a fun and interesting/different mechanic for IDK heroes...

oh wait

Like soulrender, thrallmaster, lotann and tidecaster?

You are like what an interesting mechanic galletian veterans was for varanguard, chaos knights, blood knights etc...

EldarExarch wrote:
What a fun and interesting/different mechanic for IDK heroes...

oh wait

Do you mean cause of companions? If so, then it's been confirmed by a WarCom fb comment (not 100% believable, granted) that for the sake of GCs companions do not count as mounts.

IDK allegiance makes it so enemies can only shoot the closest target, so this change will do nothing for them most of the time.

Anyways, I am happy with a rules update since I am not a fan of the current season's rules, but I am disappointed by the precedent it sets of a new GHB every 6 months. I'll have to see the quality of the update to really judge though.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
IDK allegiance makes it so enemies can only shoot the closest target, so this change will do nothing for them most of the time.

Step 1: Put Galletian Champion IDK hero in front of Battleline unit.
Step 2: IDK hero cannot be targeted because it is within 1" of a friendly Battleline hero as a Galletian Champion. Battleline unit cannot be targeted because it is not the closest unit.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit

tneva82 wrote:
What I will be interested is might the fight in 2 ranks be incorporated to infantry rule in this GHB. Or is stuff like Bladegheist Revenants going to be worse again.

Yeah, I skimmed over the article looking mainly for word about that rule making the transition to the next GHB.

 Rihgu wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
IDK allegiance makes it so enemies can only shoot the closest target, so this change will do nothing for them most of the time.

Step 1: Put Galletian Champion IDK hero in front of Battleline unit.
Step 2: IDK hero cannot be targeted because it is within 1" of a friendly Battleline hero as a Galletian Champion. Battleline unit cannot be targeted because it is not the closest unit.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit

The IDK states you have to shoot the closest eligible target. The character can't be a target because of GC rule, so accompanying battleline is the only eligible target. No real confusion there.

Boo :( Should've read closer lol

 silent25 wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
IDK allegiance makes it so enemies can only shoot the closest target, so this change will do nothing for them most of the time.

Step 1: Put Galletian Champion IDK hero in front of Battleline unit.
Step 2: IDK hero cannot be targeted because it is within 1" of a friendly Battleline hero as a Galletian Champion. Battleline unit cannot be targeted because it is not the closest unit.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit

The IDK states you have to shoot the closest eligible target. The character can't be a target because of GC rule, so accompanying battleline is the only eligible target. No real confusion there.

To be fair, GW had to learn that wording the hard way. A space marine subfaction rule or strat created that exact situation.

I believe it was an artifact that made the user untargetable for a turn, so if he was closest...

New Squigboss:

So is this the untimely end of skarsnik and gobbla?

 Kanluwen wrote:
New Squigboss:

Solves a rumour engine pic: