|
I feel like a weirdo but I actually like the Chaos models that have comes out of AoS, even the Bloodbound.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
My money is already in Sigmarines (unlike actual Space Marines, they're still a tough, low numbers army), so Lady Shadespire, Jaw Manslab and Liberator With A Grandhammer will do OK for me. I won't be buying SHADOW WARZ, but that's OK, since the FLGS will have a rulebook as they're buying a set for the terrain (quelle surprise).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Now this has some character! May actually pick this one up, waaaaaay better than the ogre!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Shadow War carries a pricetag of $130 and isn't the real Necromunda reboot. I'll hold off until that comes out next year. It might be totally fine, but I'm flat out not interested at that price, plus the cost of GW models that I don't otherwise have a use for (there's no way in hell I'm using it as an entry point into 40k proper). Has there been any noise about UK pricing for shadow wars? $130 converts to £100+ which doesn't sound right, even for GW. I'd have been surprised at £90 but was expecting to see it around the £70 mark Throw in the usual LGS discount and it might be more reasonable
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
enri posted:Has there been any noise about UK pricing for shadow wars? $130 converts to £100+ which doesn't sound right, even for GW. I'd have been surprised at £90 but was expecting to see it around the £70 mark I've been keeping an eye on Dark Sphere/Wayland, but nothing about pricing has surfaced yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
White Dwarf announcement has already leaked, 90 pounds for the box set.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Well that makes it a harder decision... assuming a 15-20% discount from the LGS', that's somewhere between £72 - 77'ish It seems like a great excuse for conversion work though, this is kinda what kill team should have always been aesthetically speaking. I may yet be able to convince myself to fork out for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
The line of action is all kinds of hosed up. His hand covers his face, his raised foot is doing a terrible job of implying motion. It's not bad, but they need to look at some guides on how to convey movement in a static model.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Yea, the actual model is decent in terms of design/appearance but the motion is wonky. It looks sort of like someone tried to imitate a baseball pitch, only without any references and didn't get the movement lined up properly. Alternatively it looks vaguely like a cricket bowl, but you wouldn't think that is how someone would want to throw a teammate? The whole idea is hazardous enough without introducing an intentional bounce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
It's far more likely that the sculptor would know what a cricket bowl looks like than a baseball pitch. Also, I don't think this needs to be pointed out, but a Troll would probably love to make the Goblin bounce, and the Orks would certainly enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Oh it's a cricket bowl? I thought it was a pitch and he was just covering one eye to help with depth perception.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
So I'm the only one that is a little put off by the model already gripping a goblin holding the ball? It makes for a fun miniature to just look at, but when you put it on a pitch with the rest of your team, his eternally-tossing-a-goblin pose will probably look out of place most of the time. Especially if you bought the troll for your Orcs team and don't even have a goblin rostered. It's an objection I have with a lot of minis intended for use in a game - if you portray them in a more "generic" pose that might not be as visually interesting when you stick them on a shelf to stare at, but in-game, it feels more like a gaming piece that is representing a character doing any of a variety of activities that happen in that game. That's the same reason I don't like e.g. skaven with a ball clutched in their tail. The classic blood bowl troll minis, like this one:  are certainly less dynamic and not as interesting to display. But on the pitch, the neutral pose doesn't imply a specific action, which makes it better to me as a game piece. He could block, or he could just move, or he could try a TTM action, and you won't see anything incongruous about that mini being the piece doing that action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
No you're not, models already holding a ball is one of the more common complaints I've heard about this edition. This one is a little more egregious since it doesn't really make a lot of sense if you use him for a team without goblins. I guess you can paint the goblin as a ref to make it a funny little tableau but I think GW is just kind of over correcting over the concern that they have to make the new models exciting to get people that have been playing the game for 20 years to buy new models.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Totally agree with this argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Shadow War carries a pricetag of $130 and isn't the real Necromunda reboot. I'll hold off until that comes out next year. It might be totally fine, but I'm flat out not interested at that price, plus the cost of GW models that I don't otherwise have a use for (there's no way in hell I'm using it as an entry point into 40k proper). TBH I've always wanted a version of Necromunda that had the other 40K races in it, though I am also interested in the reboot of the classic gang vs gang Necromunda. The price is fairly ridiculous, though, even with the giant terrain piece.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
I agree that models that work for a more generic role instead of being particularly interesting in their pose are generally better, especially when whatever they are doing isn't necessarily a component of their role - as in, I am on the fence about throwers modeled holding a ball because they are going to have the ball at certain times, but a troll throwing a goblin when he might never be on a team with one isn't very appealing. I understand why they're doing it, though, and its less like a 'bad model' result than an aesthetic choice I don't agree with. I don't like the pose because I think its a janky pose, not because I disagree with poses. Lovely Joe Stalin posted:It's far more likely that the sculptor would know what a cricket bowl looks like than a baseball pitch. Also, I don't think this needs to be pointed out, but a Troll would probably love to make the Goblin bounce, and the Orks would certainly enjoy it. Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Oh it's a cricket bowl? I thought it was a pitch and he was just covering one eye to help with depth perception. It's also not great bowling form, but at least in cricket you do actually swing the ball way over your head like that as part of the bowling arc while your foot is in the air, although again its pretty messy if that's what it is supposed to look like. Mostly the way the pose is, it doesn't look like the troll is really putting very much of his weight or strength into the throw at all, when I imagine you would want it to be communicating the huge power involved in slinging teammates.  It's way better than all the stuff coming out for AOS though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
I actually don't mind the body mechanics much. We can assume (and the rules reinforce) that the troll is a really bad thrower, he just as often spikes the goblin into the ground as tosses him, and using a stunty guy as an offensive weapon (that is, targeting a group of opponents and hurling a goblin or halfing at them) is also a legit game tactic. Plus you can imagine he's having to maneuver his throw around defenders up in his grill or whatever. Trolls are also misshapen beasts who might have really odd anatomical mechanics. I expect an orangutan throwing a football would look very different from a human, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Trolls are also misshapen beasts who might have really odd anatomical mechanics. I expect an orangutan throwing a football would look very different from a human, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
I was really disappointed that in this day and age I can't find video of an orangutan slinging footballs, but then I turned up an article that suggests that they can't. Apparently other primates are pretty lovely at fastball, and while some manage a good toss it's usually pretty short/slow compared to (lighter and weaker) humans. So maybe trolls are also just extremely lovely at throwing things, I guess. Mystery solved!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:But on the pitch, the neutral pose doesn't imply a specific action, which makes it better to me as a game piece. He could block, or he could just move, or he could try a TTM action, and you won't see anything incongruous about that mini being the piece doing that action. In fact, being a troll, most likely it will just stand there anyway without tackle zones doing jackshit so the model is accurate. Hurr hurr... I agreed about the ball argument, being a bit of an oldschool player someone with the ball signifies a thrower for me. Same as weird leaning forward /running poses mean blitzers, standing ones mean blockers, and dudes trying to catch something are... catchers. Altho I admit when I convert a non BB figure to use with BB I sometimes toss a ball in their hand to make them look more like Blood Bowl players.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:So I'm the only one that is a little put off by the model already gripping a goblin holding the ball? It makes for a fun miniature to just look at, but when you put it on a pitch with the rest of your team, his eternally-tossing-a-goblin pose will probably look out of place most of the time. Especially if you bought the troll for your Orcs team and don't even have a goblin rostered. Hey man I was the weirdo who said he didn't like his throwers and catchers having balls permanently attached to their hands and is thinking about filing them off. So you know I feel you on this. Macdeo Lurjtux posted:No you're not, models already holding a ball is one of the more common complaints I've heard about this edition. Yeah it drives me batty. Also they put a little hole in the base so you can attach the ball. WHY NOT PUT A LITTLE HOLE IN HIS HAND?! Seriously GW use your loving brains!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
I think GW is maybe aware that a huge percentage of their models are sold to non-gamers and aspirational-gamers who are much more focused on owning a jewel-like object of wonder, and possibly painting it, and thinking a lot about just how cool it's gonna be to play the game, rather than actually playing games with the model a lot. E.g. a staticly posed troll will sell one troll each to Orc and two each to Goblin players, and that's all; but a model of a troll that is awesome because lol look it's throwing a goblin! might sell to those guys and a whole bunch of people who just like it, or who aspire to eventually finish and paint up that orc team they've been meaning to do eventually one of these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
If you want a troll without a goblin I believe there may be options available...
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
I'm confused as to whether shadow war is new necromunda or not. Halp please. If the rules are not awful necromunda is something I could probably actually get my friends to play. I'd just need hundreds of quid/man hours of terrain...
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:I'm confused as to whether shadow war is new necromunda or not. Halp please. Shadow Wars is being developed by GW proper. It is based on the old Necromunda rules. There is a separate Necromunda product in development by the new Specialist Games branch of Forge World. We don't have any information about that game at this time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
...do we know if they're going to stick with the old 4' x 4' board size format? I'd love for them to ditch it and go to 3' x 3' but how would that help them sell realms of battle boards (or whatever they're called)  the smaller board size has made other games that bit more enjoyable (and deadzone at 2' x 2' was perfect for the kitchen table but I admit probably a bit too small for necromunda sized games)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Okay so it's not necromunda, it's more like a fancier kill team? Might be worth waiting for necromunda proper but it'll be forgeworld so I assume even more expensive than a hundred quid for some scouts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Okay so it's not necromunda, it's more like a fancier kill team? "Fancier kill team" is right. It's somewhere between Necromunda and 2e 40k. If that's your bag, you'll like it. Though I'm giving it a pass because of the price. If they just rereleased the 90s Necromunda kit with the last physical edition of the rulebook, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I don't care that the models are out of date, they were perfectly fine. But I think we're going to get something more in line with how they handled Blood Bowl. The core set will be redesigned models that fans are divided on and the core rules will only have rules for the two gangs in the box. The other gangs along with the campaign rules will be sold separately. At launch, the only team you can buy separately will be a third faction that isn't in the core box and it will be months before you can even buy the teams from the core box on their own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
I dunno how alive FW Necromunda is at this point. I hope the models - if it's eventually going to be released - will be easier to customize and paint than the BB orcs, tho.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
I'd just like a box with lots of cheap terrain, even card terrain would be nice just something multi storied like I understand the old necromunda set had. The shadow war one seems alright but it's still only part of what you'd need to make an interesting and vertical playing space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Okay so it's not necromunda, it's more like a fancier kill team? It is Necromunda, but uses "kill teams" from the larger 40K universe. If you do not like NM, you will probably not like Shadow War. If FW does anything with Necromunda, I am going to assume it will be gang production only, as there would be no point putting out the same ruleset twice. This is a good marketing scheme on the part of GW, as it goes after the existing 40K player base, rather than only relying on people familiar with the old NM game. This leaves FW free to only produce models, which is what they are good at. enri posted:...do we know if they're going to stick with the old 4' x 4' board size format? I'd love for them to ditch it and go to 3' x 3' but how would that help them sell realms of battle boards (or whatever they're called)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:I imagine they'll stick with the 4x4. There is nothing stating that you have to play at 4x4 though - you can scale it down if you want, it's just going to be really lethal a lot quicker. Yea that's the problem, I don't mind playing on a smaller board but like you say, it'll get murderous really quick and benefit the 'up close and personal' types a bit more. 4' x 4' isn't all that practical for me to store at home, but hey ho, will see what I can do with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:It is Necromunda, but uses "kill teams" from the larger 40K universe. If you do not like NM, you will probably not like Shadow War. If FW does anything with Necromunda, I am going to assume it will be gang production only, as there would be no point putting out the same ruleset twice. And less room for maneuver. Like I said, I hope it comes out with fun weapon options for Dire Avengers. I like them the most of all Aspect Warriors, but their gear is boring. My other, totally unrealistic dream would be for them to seriously empower Space Marines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
I don't disagree, but giving Dire Avengers a bunch of weapon options would be pretty counter to the entire concept, so it would be weird if they did that. I know they are doing them because they have a plastic set, but Rangers or Corsairs would be a much better choice for letting you have a bunch of varying stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
JcDent posted:And less room for maneuver. Ashcans posted:I don't disagree, but giving Dire Avengers a bunch of weapon options would be pretty counter to the entire concept, so it would be weird if they did that. I know they are doing them because they have a plastic set, but Rangers or Corsairs would be a much better choice for letting you have a bunch of varying stuff. There's nothing stopping you finding a good fit in the list and modelling it to be a dire avenger, the world is literally yours to play around with ("forge your own narrative, rargh!")
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Dire Avengers use shuriken catapults as part of their path, they can't just trade and swap out to other weapons for the hell of it. That leads to chaos and the fall! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
I bet you'll be able to take other Aspect Warriors as these hired gun-style specialists. Can't wait for some Striking Scorpions sneaking around in the Hive 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
The shop got in the organized play kit for this today, has a full rulebook and a hard copy of everything they will release online. I got about 15 minutes with the book and the necron list. Neat stuff I can confirm: - very necromunda like (pre and post game sequences, xp, leveling dudes, collecting resources) - bloodbowl-like skill chart if you are familiar with it, so types of skills: shooting, str, agility, stealth, etc - overwatch (the 2nd ed version) - hiding, you can hide your guys - ammo rolls, grenades you restock after battle (so limited number during game) - 4 types of troop (leader, troop, specialist, new hires) - different armies can have different number of guys and specialists (SM scouts can have 10 guys max, orcs 20, etc) - shoot closest model unless easier to to hit something else - multiple range bands, short and long range bands, with modifiers - str affects armor penalties, no AP, so negatives to armor rolls from higher str hits - melee is very different, no other gw game uses this new system that i know of 2 guys fight, both roll d6 equal to your attack value, take your highest dice and add your WS this is your combat value. compare combat values, higher wins, the amount it wins by is the number of wounds, now save vs those wounds having more than one guy in the combat, the outnumbered guy has to fight all of them in the order the outnumber person chooses, each person past the first gets +1 attack and +1 combat value (third guys +2/+2, fourth +3/+3, etc) when your last wound is removed you roll on a simple chart, 1 = flesh wound, 2-5 = something, 6 = dead (i think, this one i do not remember exactly) but a injury chart basically. str 7 or higher weapons make the 6 into a 5-6 looks really good imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Mr.Booger posted:The shop got in the organized play kit for this today, has a full rulebook and a hard copy of everything they will release online.  This all sounds like what I want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
Yeah, this is straight NM. If you want a preview, download the NM LRB from Yaktribe. It's going to be pretty close, from what things look like.Mr.Booger posted:when your last wound is removed you roll on a simple chart, 1 = flesh wound, 2-5 = something, 6 = dead (i think, this one i do not remember exactly) but a injury chart basically. str 7 or higher weapons make the 6 into a 5-6 berzerkmonkey fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:40
|
|