The Irontooth
Bloodclaw
Tale of Gamers: 3 units, 4 pieces of terrain
Posts: 387
|
Post by The Irontooth on Apr 26, 2014 8:52:36 GMT
So Wood Elves are coming, but Bretonnia should be following, don't you think, once the Knights of the realm know there squire is dead.
|
|
The Irontooth
Bloodclaw
Tale of Gamers: 3 units, 4 pieces of terrain
Posts: 387
|
Post by The Irontooth on Apr 26, 2014 10:15:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lord Draconiroth on Apr 26, 2014 11:15:52 GMT
Shadowdancer is new. I picked up White Dwarf today.
|
|
The Irontooth
Bloodclaw
Tale of Gamers: 3 units, 4 pieces of terrain
Posts: 387
|
Post by The Irontooth on Apr 29, 2014 9:03:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lord Draconiroth on Apr 29, 2014 9:12:42 GMT
Those all looks ace! I really didn't like the old Wild Rider models.
|
|
|
Post by Geifer on Apr 29, 2014 9:33:04 GMT
Oh deer!
Well, nothing in there for me, I think. Nice deer, though. Although the riders are odd holding those daggers in the left hands, with those arm poses.
Spear guys could pass for High Elves if you don't fancy the old spear elf models.
|
|
|
Post by Harkon Greywolf on Apr 29, 2014 12:19:54 GMT
VENISON CAVALRY! LOL
|
|
The Irontooth
Bloodclaw
Tale of Gamers: 3 units, 4 pieces of terrain
Posts: 387
|
Post by The Irontooth on Apr 29, 2014 12:26:15 GMT
I want a Wood Elf army!! But then again, I have too many armies of grey models already. Not starting a new WE army before I have painted at least 1500p of Dwarfs. Next year, new tale of fantasy gamers?
|
|
|
Post by Geifer on Apr 29, 2014 12:41:21 GMT
No problemo, senor. Next edition you'll just be able to ally a small detachment of hippies to your grumpies.
|
|
The Irontooth
Bloodclaw
Tale of Gamers: 3 units, 4 pieces of terrain
Posts: 387
|
Post by The Irontooth on Apr 29, 2014 12:51:43 GMT
No problemo, senor. Next edition you'll just be able to ally a small detachment of hippies to your grumpies. Isn't that already true now? EDIT: Or are allied armies only allowed with multiple players? I actually don't like allies. For most people they only seem an excuse to make up the weirdest, most unfluffy armies for the sake of pure power raise, based on an idea that actually should enhance the background based on certain allied forces during epic battles.
|
|
|
Post by Geifer on Apr 29, 2014 13:11:01 GMT
The current rules are for multiple people per side. They don't deal with including armies from a different book in your army. They are quite fun, though. I play two versus two quite often, and having a bit of army interaction (and deterioration if Skaven and Dark Elves are involved) is fun.
Me, I don't have a problem with allies, for purely selfish reasons. I like to include several factions in my armies if the background allows it and the idea appeals. I don't care if the same rules that allow me that freedom also allow other people to find the most disgusting army builds, because frankly, that kind of person will try to break the system regardless of its exact specifications. 5th ed 40k had Draigowing, Leafblower and Nob Bikers. Allies weren't required to make nasty lists. 4th ed had Nidzilla Slaanesh Daemon Bomb and Iron Warriors. 3rd ed has Blood Angels Rhino Rush. 2nd ed, which also had allies, didn't even need these because a single Librarian was enough to break the game. That cannot be helped, unless you cut down any freedom people have when building their army. Even then you still have the problem of people trying to break the system, and succeeding, and the only ones that suffer are the ones that care about the narrative and depth of background.
Some people giving their Warriors of Chaos some Dark Elf fire support in a possible future edition doesn't concern me if that's what it takes to allow more flexibility for people looking to shape their armies to a certain background idea.
So as far as I'm concerned more freedom is better.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Draconiroth on Apr 29, 2014 13:33:51 GMT
Well there is a degree of that with Storm of Magic, hiring random beasties from other armies. When it came out there was a WD battle with a Lizardmen Salamander team in a High Elf army.
Plus the way Treason and Treachery works does sound like silly fun, bidding and bribing the other players to help you. Or just get stabbed in the back by the others.
|
|
The Irontooth
Bloodclaw
Tale of Gamers: 3 units, 4 pieces of terrain
Posts: 387
|
Post by The Irontooth on Apr 29, 2014 13:39:12 GMT
Yeah, but the truth is that is that fluffy players for some reason as good as never use allies. It is also hard to within the point maximum have two armies that make sense together backgroundwise. For example say you want IG and SM (nice allies) wthin one army. Well it's quite hard actually if you also want both parts to make sense. Unless you minmax the ally it will quite fast take up half your allowed points which means you don't have enough points left for your guard. In real life (in contrast to the what is possible life ) I only ever faced powergamers using allies. At first they said allies would tone down powerbuilds as the top armies wouldn't want to ally and the weaker armies now slowly could add some units of those top armies and so become better themself. But reality has showed us that top armies are combined with top units of other armies and now become even more horrible, while the fluffy player doesn't want to ally because (well the matrix doesn't make sense for a big part from a fluff view and) they don't want to collect models from a top army just because it would make their army stronger. So the top armylists are now even harder to win from. I think too much freedom all too often leads to chaos and abuse, and this leads to frustration with others, and this leads to people dropping out of the hobby. If more freedom is all we want, believe me, the hobby won't get more popular if you would allow people to choose from all armies when making their list, trusting them with the fact they will only combine units that make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Geifer on Apr 29, 2014 13:46:08 GMT
Yeah, Triumph and Treachery is good fun. I only played it once but it was a blast. And I think that Salamander was part of the Triumph and Treachery battle report I don't think it was in a High Elves army, though. Ironically that was one of the things Irontooth talked about, grabbing a good model for your army to increase its power even though there's precious little in the background to support those factions teaming up.
Storm of Magic has two allies systems built in. You have scrolls of binding that have the distinct disdavantage that the big beasties they allow you to use can be dispelled in some fashion, as well as proper allies in the shape of hired undead (both factions, although given how the Tomb Kings book is written you may as well not bother) and summoned Daemons. Storm of Magic is fun, too, but it takes one of the things considerined imbalanced in this edition and boosts it even further. In my experience people are relunctant to play it for this reason, which is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Draconiroth on Apr 29, 2014 14:15:46 GMT
Yeah I'm not bothered about Storm, with the silly "here's my wizard, I'll put him up high and paint a target on his face" towers but Treachery seemed like a laugh. But at £50 couldn't justify getting it when it came out... And now with the constant is there/isn't there a new edition coming out...
|
|