GW News: BIG N' SMALL WAAAGH! COMIN'

No, No. You are mistaken, this is NUlamiah. Everything is different in AoS.

 

Why do you think I said "successor"?

Insofar as I'm concerned, they're the LOLmians, a pale shadow of what came before.

 

If the point is to sell me the model, then I assure you that the design is not working!

 

I'm not saying I don't agree with you. I do however like to judge each model on its own merits and based on the execution of the design (based on what lore they give us. That's my big gripe with AOS right now - characters get snippets instead of stories.)

If I ever had the money to afford GW's now ludicrous prices (as my recent post about a single character costing $60 USD shows) I'd get 3 of her. 1 to build normally, 1 conversion into a weird TK esque Khalida reforged, and 1 conversion into a slanneshi lord-level character.

 

Honestly, there's been very little in GW's recent release cycle that I've found to be worth buying in the first place. Much of that is due to a pre-existing pile of plastic shame that I've got stashed in storage bins, but I'll also point out that since I generally don't play at GW or at GW-officiated venues I'm not exactly beholden to buying GW products beyond rulebooks to play their games.

Hell, when the new Cities of Sigmar battletome dropped I almost immediately started a Living City army... most of which being models from one third party or another, and in no small part because I would rather be using Armoured Celt infantry models from Victrix over the official GW Steelhelms.

It's really only the Horus Heresy content that GW has me invested model-wise these days, and even then that's only when I specifically need it for an army project.

 

Meh, it's only called a Lahmian vampire to have a call-back to WHF/the world that was.
Honestly wouldn't put too much value on them using old names for factions or organizations.

 

Emphasis on the bolded part. You can't tell me that there's little value in GW using old names for things when a prominent chunk of AoS as a whole is propped up with nothing but callbacks to The-World-That-Was, be it in the form of name drops or ported characters.

Neferata herself is one of those characters, and we have little reason to believe that she's no longer of Lahmian origin, not least of which since she set out to make Nulahmia in the image of the old one. I can buy distortion from hazy memory and vampiric insanity, but the point still stands that the link remains.

 

So I've reread the article a few times and I've thought more on it. It is definitely a combination of 5th edition and 8th edition composition rules, with some hint of 6th/7th in there with the restrictions on lord level characters. The Duke's stat line reminds me of some of the stats for lords in 5th edition, though it was usually lord level wizards/wizard equivalents with 4 wounds. I definitely have a suspicion that they're going to portray Brettonian lords as being more martially adept than Empire equivalents, I'm expecting Empire lords to top out at WS6 for their 0-1 option, with WS5 being the default for their other options. I'm very curious as to how they're going to maintain a distinction between mercenaries and allies functionally. I also wonder what options there will be for mercenaries and if they will expand on that in the future (very easy way to reintroduce Dogs of War here later).

 

The face, proportions and helmet really put me off but I will say I like the fantasy Greco-Egyptian style armor. Looks like something a God Of War boss would wear. Something about the model's posture/proportions brings images of her having a cartoonish run reminiscent of Shaggy from Scooby Doo.

 

All exciting stuff!

8th Edition army selection percentages, but with Lords and Heroes merged into one, new percentages for Allies and mercenaries adding some structure to that aspect of the game and some 6th Edition-style minimum requirements and caps for specific units.

Lord-level characters will now be divided into ordinary versions, as per the Bretonnian Baron, and a particularly powerful version as per the new Duke profile (though the latter is limited to one per army, quite rightly I think).

Bretonnians now seem to have a peasant character (the Sergeant-at-Arms) as a new option, which can now make largely peasant-oriented armies a reality.

The horde special rule has returned in some form, but seems now to just apply to sword-fodder units that deserve the accolade, as it should have done from the beginning. I wouldn't be surprised if the new version of this rule simply allows the unit to make an additional rank's worth of attacks (as per 7th Edition Giant Rats' 'Wave of Rats' special rule), which should be fine. Shieldwall is now a universal special rule rather than a Dwarf-specific rule, but of course most Dwarf units should be able to benefit from it. It no longer refers to Parry Saves now though, so it sounds as if that's now going.

Great Weapons now seem only to give a +2 Strength bonus in the first turn by the way they've worded the article . I seem to recall this might have been the case in 7th, but I hope this isn't true for TOW as well and that they've worded it wrongly in the article. But at least they haven't included the daft rule in 7th that claimed Shields only worked in close combat.

Armies of Infamy sounds fun, and looks to be a way for them to incorporate specialist army roster variants like Slayer armies, a nice throwback to 6th where the earlier army books used to talk about alternative army list structures one could implement in friendly games. Indeed they've pulled out a fair few stops when it comes to the fluffiness of the game, because one thing I particularly like is how they've now written specific rules for the armoured monk model included in a Men-at-Arms kit. That's a lovely touch that really echoes the sort of thing that the GW of old might have done if they'd thought of it. It certainly shows that the ruleset for TOW has been a labour of love for whoever's been writing it.

Also, it sounds like we might be seeing something else Tomb King-oriented on Boxing Day (Off-White Christmas, i.e. bone-coloured Christmas? Hint-hint-nudge-nudge).

 

Doubling up? ....

 

Have to spread the word on both forums!

For the record, I always compose my post on Lustria first and copy-paste it over to EEFL, because of the former's glorious superior text editing.

 

I mean that with the exception of a handfull of specific characters/factions which properly survived the end-times (e.g. Kroak, the Seraphon as a whole, Sigmar, Nagash) most of the callbacks only exist to name drop things in a hopeless effort to convince people like @NIGHTBRINGER to come over to AoS. But aside from pointless pandering to an audience which won't be convinced anyway the names really don't hold much value within AoS.

Stuff like the Lahmians, and Neferata herself, should really have been left dead and buried when they blew up the old world and commited to a new setting.

 

There is still hope the Dawi Zharr will return,

 

If that Vampire is a taste of things to come, then maybe the Dawi Zharr are best left in Warhammer Proper.

I doubt GW are using the name drops to try to bring people like me back into the fold. I think TOW is their attempt to do so.

 

If the name drops or callback doesn't serve an actual story purpose within AoS, then yeah it's at least partially an attempt to draw you in from WHF.
It's essentially GW going "Look, your favorite faction/character/thing is also in AoS!, You'll like it!"
It's not a particularly effective strategy, but that's part of the reason why they're there.

In the case of Lahmians, there's really no reason for them to exist in AoS. Hell, Neferata shouldn't really exist, GW just didn't want to dump their shiny new models for Manfred, Arkhan & Neferata, plus this way fans of those three might stick around. But purely looking from AoS fluff those three just polute the story. We could've just immeadiatly moved on to the proper AoS characters (Olynder, Ushoran, Katakross, the various named vampires with their own new dynasties, Kurdoss, Reikenor & Awlrach, etc.) without really losing anything of significance.

 

So you're saying their strategy is:
"You remember that character that you liked in that complex and interesting wargame we used to sell... well aren't you in luck, this character in our simple watered-down bastardized game has the same name!"

Bingo!

 

Minus the smartass remarks, sure.

 

The "smartass remarks" are the point. Those that would have ported over to AoS have already done so, while those of my mindset will never be swayed by nostalgic naming. Classic names are great and all... but ultimately trivial, as they don't change the fact that AoS is a far less tactical game. It's a different game aimed at a different audience. Even as a diehard WHFB player, I have to admit that AoS is far better suited to reach the younger TikTok generation.

TOW on the other hand is a genuine attempt to recapture WHFB purists (though ultimately not me).