PDA

View Full Version : Should GW Even Create Campaign Armies?



javaguru
07-12-2007, 05:35
I loved the fact I got a proper daemon army in SoC, I played daemons in 5th, but the abandonment of these armies makes me wonder. I know why GW bothered but why should we players bother when the armies we're inspired to collect become obsolete? Yes, I know I'll get my daemon army but I feel sorry for everyone that was inspired to create an army based on lists that were promised to be supported. I was more than annoyed when GW(Gav) promised a fully playable daemon list before the HoC was released in 6th edition....

Noldo
07-12-2007, 07:40
I think that Campaign Armies are great way for GW to try new concepts. Naturally a better choice would be that GW would make the release rate for new armies faster so that new concepts and ideas could be tried in actual products.

However, using the campaing armies as try-out ground also requires that players understand such armies to be temporary and that they can and will be replaced once the next set of armies is published and hopefully usefull and characterfull ideas are then incorporated into main army.

Demon army is actually excellent example of such concept. The 6th ed. Chaos book did not really enable effective demon army. Such thing was then provided during SoC and now rumours indicate that concepts and experience gathered from the Demonic Legions are incorporated into new Army Book: Demons.

Duke Raoul
07-12-2007, 07:46
I think Campaign Armies are great for players with very big armys. In the SoC was the erranty war list, this was a great way to use my army in a different way. In the end the list wasn't balanced but my opponents got to play a different army for a few months.

kroq'gar
07-12-2007, 07:48
I dont like them, they are too topical. Either amend a list or dont. They dont seem quite playtested enough, and, for example, there been a valten and hell cannons running around for years.

snurl
07-12-2007, 07:52
Bah. I have a Slayer army. It was fun to play, and I didn't have to buy too many more models to fill in the list, as I already had a Dwarf army, but when the new Dwarf book came out, the slayer army was called silly.

The Goblin hewer was described as and still is a DOW choice, but Gargarim and the Doomseekers are not mentioned in the newest Dwarf book, although the models are still for sale on the GW website.

I like it when GW comes up with new armies and units but it was dissapointing to see the whole thing nerfed so quickly. My slayers now reside with my "dwarves with spears" regiment and the Warhammer Quest stuff.

I do get the army out for a game from time to time locally, where nobody seems to mind much.

Duke Raoul
07-12-2007, 08:02
I have a Slayer army. It was fun to play, and I didn't have to buy too many more models to fill in the list, as I already had a Dwarf army

That's my point it gives players something new for a few months (Or until everyone cracks it about how unbalanced the lists are) without buying a new army. Maybe they need to become non-legal after the campaign.

snurl
07-12-2007, 08:12
Yes, its nice to have the new list for a few months, but why drop it completely after? WD used to have lots of supplemental rules in it which were "official" until replaced. This is where the earliest versions of the Tomb Kings army and the Mordheim game came from, to name a few. Both were eventually replaced by standalone official books, not dropped like a dead polecat. It's just an issue of information management.

speedygogo
07-12-2007, 08:28
I always liked variant lists because they make games more interesting. I've noticed that there are lots of people who have completely inflexable views about warhammer. Things can't just exist. They have to exist in ways to keep them comfortable and rocking the boat in any way is strictly forbidden.

Along those lines the one of the stupidest things I've heard is that a daemonette is not an accurate one b/c it is the incorrect shade of purple. The army list thing somewhat falls in this area of the hobby. You have some unbalanced lists on one side and the "He's is gonna have a seizure b/c of 'that' list."

The this that legal lists affect is tournament play. I would think that having more people at GW related events would help the hobby grow. However, presently Gw seems more interest in alienating it's gamers. Sure we have periodic cool shiny new pewter toys but who in their right mind wants to spend several hundred dollars on miniature they cannot game with?

Gorbad Ironclaw
07-12-2007, 08:29
but when the new Dwarf book came out, the slayer army was called silly.

Actually, it was called silly when the SoC lists was released as well ;)


However, I rather do like the idea of campaign armies. It's just a question of what people expect them to be. If they expect them to be a permanent addition that will live forever in the Warhammer World, well then they are going to be dispointed. If they seem them as something fun then it should work fine.

You can always talk to your mates about using them even if they are not really 'supported' anymore.

silashand
07-12-2007, 08:45
I like *any* excuse for variant armies. That GW has pretty much stopped doing them is a shame IMO because they add much needed variety and fun to the game for those who have (or want) a reason to do a different version of their current army, or even something different than what else is out there in the standard lists as well. I know I allow almost all of them in my events if folks want to play them as they can be quite fun. About the only think I don't like is tying them to some stupid special character as in Lustria. For that we just made a house rule that the two main armies could be led by a normal lord choice appropriate for the army instead.

Cheers, Gary

kroq'gar
07-12-2007, 08:54
The variation should be available within the main list... need the ability to max out themes... my empire for example features ALOT of infantry (no, not shooting) cos of the background i gave it.

silashand
07-12-2007, 08:57
The variation should be available within the main list... need the ability to max out themes...

Agreed. A greater ability to theme armies from the basic list would be preferable, and not have that customizability be due to some idiotic special character either.

Cheers, Gary

kroq'gar
07-12-2007, 09:02
Agreed, the fact a saurus cav army is only available with a special character is rediculas.

It should be more tied in with what the general is/has. He's mounted, then you gain access to core mounted. Hes not, you dont. Similarly i think equipment would be a nice touch as well, eg a scouting army gets a boost for a lightly armoured lord.

Kor Phaeron
07-12-2007, 09:27
I think campaign armies should be variations of the core armies, mess around with their compostition to allow more or less of certain units.

I don't think they should create new units if they're going to drop them within a few months, it's not fair on those that buy the models.

Special characters are always welcome though. Because even if the rules are axed the model can be used as a hero/lord choice.

However, as others have said the army lists should allow as many variations/themes as possible. Restricting the rules to cater to tournament players and reign in the powergamers has been a bad move.

IMO tournment organisers should balance the lists as they see fit and the gaming community should deal with powergamers.

Brother Loki
07-12-2007, 09:39
I'm all for the campaign lists, variant armies and new units. There should be a historical campaign book for each of the games every year. Hell, White Dwarf should have new stuff in every month, like it used to in its heydey (in the low 100's). The variety this engenders in the games is one of the best parts.

It's up to individual tournament organisers to decide what is and isn't 'official' in their events. I don't see why a vocal minority (the tournament scene) should dictate what is and isn't socially acceptable amongst casual players.

Flypaper
07-12-2007, 10:45
Should GW Even Create Campaign Armies?
Heck no. If you've got GW creative or rules staff idling around picking their noses, then put them to work on some blasted FAQS!

'Alternate' armies should be White Dwarf only. That way it's 100% clear to everyone that there'll be no long-term rules or modelling support, and that they're not tournament- or pickup-game- legal. People with insanely large collections and broad-minded playgroups still get the same benefits, and you might actually make White Dwarf worth buying! Oh, and since any meth-addled idiot can write for WD, you're not tying up your core staff. :cool:

Then, if someone comes up with a super awesome mega popular idea that everyone loves and which makes the game better in every way, you can integrate it into the main list next time.

kroq'gar
07-12-2007, 10:54
Flypaper... perfectly put. leave the supplaments to the w/d

zak
07-12-2007, 12:57
I agree totally. The WD has long since become a joke and I only buy it now out of a forlorn hope that it will improve. If they included rules set for experimental armies and campaigns then it might inprove its sales a bit. I still use my Cult of Slaanesh army, but that was only because I got to meld two armies together rather than having to purchase models that went by the way of the Dodo!

druchiianointed
07-12-2007, 14:05
i do think the white dwarf is becoming something a bit silly....
i fact i only read a bit in the local store.... and i always decide to leave it there...

there should be less the same in the WD,
they should really put a lot of rules, and army variations in it...

when i started buying the WD (about seven years ago) it looked like this,
pages 0 t/m 20 - new releases, and a bit of backgroud
pages 21t/m 30 - some 40K rules with a page of models and components you could use
pages 30 t/m 45 - warhammer chronicles, or something similar
pages 45 t/m 55 - golden deamon entries
pages 55 t/m 65 - some Q/a articles
pages 65 t/m 80 - battle report 40k
pages 80 t/m 95 - battle report fantasy
it's not exatly but youd get the idea...
new WDes look like they are becoming some sort of a advertisement leaflet

it should be more about the background, and not about prices of new models!

Finnigan2004
07-12-2007, 14:15
I would say that they are not wise from a business perspective, if they are handled the way that they currently are. I am a very loyal GW customer and I generally love their products. I have to say though that I was extremely annoyed when I spent a whole summer and hundreds of dollars converting a khornate daemonic legion army, only to have it banned at several tournaments.

I realize that people will argue that it is o.k. to use my bloodcrushers for "counts as" models, but I think that those people are missing the point. If I wanted to use bloodcrushers as dragon ogres, I would have purchased dragon ogres (actually, I already have some to be even more accurate). The point is that starting a new army, or even a new unit, is time consuming and expensive in this hobby. If a person is told that something is official, you need to stand behind the product. If it is broken, then fix it by all means. Issue an FAQ, or update it in white dwarf. Do not, however, ban it or make it unofficial because as soon as you do that the utility of the list is compromised. Some people will refuse to allow it at events and some will not let you play it against them. For some reason, the idea of something being "official" can very much curtail the use of that expensive and labor intensive unit.

In short, I probably will not purchase or paint up anything that comes out in any format other than an "official" army book for these reasons. I suspect that many who made storm of chaos lists are in the same boat. Really it comes down to trusting the product, and that has been blown in the case of such lists.

Nephilim of Sin
07-12-2007, 14:21
I want my Zombie Pirates! :cries: The City Guard List, the alternate Hydras, the Undead Lichmaster/Cairns list, the Clan Moulder List... and there are many more that I cannot remember. But, they gave me a reason to go back and reread my White Dwarves. Now, one flip through and done, usually.

But, I digress. It is things like this that breathe life into the hobby. Why should they be illegal? Why can't they make the list and be sure it can't "count" as later on. As said, the ability should be somewhat in the Army Books, with the ideas coming from the hobby magazine. On this site, four or five people can come up with a decent "alternate" list, with alternate rules, and they are not even getting paid for it. Imagine if it were someone's job to do that. Is it that hard to introduce some variety without breaking the list completely?

EDIT: Of course, on a side note, we did have that ability somewhat before. It was 4th/5th edition. Want a Dark Elf on a Spider? Done. Want an all slayer army? Done. All Black Orcs? Well, you get the idea....

Wargamejunkie
07-12-2007, 14:25
I think that they should, but be very clear on it is the event organizer who decides if it will be legal or not.

That is assuming that they take care of other business first. I Would like to see an FAQ/Errata quarterly before I see random armylists.

Or here is a crazy idea, why dont they use some of the ideas I am sure people send in, just give them a one line thank you and bam they have saved the team a couple months of righting and playtesting.

txamil
07-12-2007, 17:42
EDIT: Of course, on a side note, we did have that ability somewhat before. It was 4th/5th edition. Want a Dark Elf on a Spider? Done. Want an all slayer army? Done. All Black Orcs? Well, you get the idea....

Yeah I agree. The lists are too tight now. weapons and armor are another annoyance. Let any unit equip how they want, provided they pay the points.

Creates more variety, more themes, more strategy.

W0lf
07-12-2007, 18:40
it is my honest oppinion (and id say its rather backed up) that GW purposely make these lists for limited time and to be broken (by which i mean over powered).

The idea is they make a list overpowered so that everyone rushes out to collect it then they take it from the game.

Evidence: SoC lists are now non-tourny legal. Daemon, slayer and Grimgor lists comprised mainly of metal models (hint, hint), the lists ARE overpowered.

I dont mind them releasing them, but they should at least be honest about the intentions.

Malorian
07-12-2007, 18:53
I think they should release them and keep them. The best why to do that is have all the rules you need for them in the one book. So no 'X can be taken as troops from Y army book' have the stats and rules right there so an updated army book doesn't nulify your army.

yabbadabba
07-12-2007, 19:09
Flypaper... perfectly put. leave the supplaments to the w/d

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but WD don't do that - these experimental rules/armies still have to be tested and OK'd by the studio and it takes more time to do it that way. When WD publish it, I can guarantee that if a designer hasn't designed it, then they have spent a fair amount of time looking at it.



Evidence: SoC lists are now non-tourny legal. Daemon, slayer and Grimgor lists comprised mainly of metal models (hint, hint), the lists ARE overpowered.

I dont mind them releasing them, but they should at least be honest about the intentions.

I agree with the second part of you quote. It's the first part that makes me shudder.

Not everything has to be tournament legal. And this is why SoC armies were dropped pretty quickly from tournaments - GW finally realised you cannot trust people to play an army with the intent with which it was created. Unfortunately the tournament crowd have too loud a voice because a) the tournaments take place at GWHQ and b) the bean counters have proved tournaments make money, so GW want to exploit that.

If GW spent as much time developing campaign environments for their armies as they did out and out competitive play, the SoC armies would still be around. Remember just because GW has said you cannot use these armies at their tournaments, doesn't mean you should stop playing them and updating them for each rules version.

W0lf
07-12-2007, 19:14
maybe, my point reamins.

As it stands these lists are a quick cash injection into GW. Suddenly they seel hundreds of black ork, slayer and daemon armies, all mostly metal models.

Gw then milks the lists for all the money and disbands any support for them.

GW makes the lists broken in order to maximise the number of people who will buy them.

Thats my take anyway.

dodge33cymru
07-12-2007, 20:14
I don't see the problem with campaign-specific armies. GW doesn't usually make any pretense that they will specifically be a long-term thing. I have an Ulrican army now that can play by the last edition's rules with a bit of 'counts as' logic but it's no longer a supported army by any means.

The one thing I have a problem with is that they often seem to suffer from Power Creeping in a more irritating way than most, due to them often coming after most books have been released.

I would far prefer the lists to be weaker than the normal list for the corresponding army so that it doesn't replace the list so much as give an option for veterans who want to experiment a bit. Otherwise you end up with lists like the 6th edition SeaGuard that are just plain wrong.

W0lf
07-12-2007, 20:35
I would far prefer the lists to be weaker than the normal list for the corresponding army so that it doesn't replace the list so much as give an option for veterans who want to experiment a bit.

Yes and thats how it should be. But then less people would buy them and GW are a business not your best friend.

javaguru
07-12-2007, 23:42
I thought the Sylvanian list was fairly well balanced and the Daemonic Legion seemed very fair as well.

txamil
08-12-2007, 04:15
I would far prefer the lists to be weaker than the normal list for the corresponding army so that it doesn't replace the list so much as give an option for veterans who want to experiment a bit. Otherwise you end up with lists like the 6th edition SeaGuard that are just plain wrong.

And I would prefer they were balanced.

They can choose any number they want so maybe in 8th they'll make the average troop cost 20 instead of 10 (and the army then 4000 instead of 2000). This would fine-tune balancing, particularly in the equipment options and especially in the armour options.

Anvilbrow
08-12-2007, 05:47
I am surprised by the number of people who blast the campaign armies. I for one love variety above all else. This is a fantasy game after all. Cookie cutter lists are for historical games. Don't get me wrong, I love Flames of War, but I play Warhammer to escape the limits that history places on what I can field.

So they are not tourney legal. Oh no!

I play and regularly play against SOC lists, Southlands armies, Chaos Dwarfs, gnoblar armies, etc. In fact I played a campaign game with Slayers two nights ago. I suppose I am lucky that few, if any of my regular opponents complain about the armies they face.

As far as I am concerned, I'll play a pick up game against any army without complaint and I hope GW continue to release campaigns if only for the new armies that are typically a part of the release.

Bring back the drunk dwarfs!

Just Tony
08-12-2007, 06:38
The way I see it, and the way most of the people in my gaming groups see it, is if it has seen print (In either WD, Chronicles, a campaign book, a back of the book army list) then it's playable unless there has been a new army book released that totally invalidates it. For instance, the guys would probably not sit well with a Lothern list with all the changes to the High Elf army book, and the abilities of said units. But once attempted, I think they'd be more than willing to allow such things if it is shown to not be an all out H Bomb. I don't think the changes in the Orc and Goblin book warrants the elimination of the Grimgor list. If anything, it makes it a little more interesting to look at.

I say, keep playing them until official rules FOR those specific appendix armies come out. ie Esher Skaven appendix list replaced by SoC Esher list. That way you don't collect an army pointlessly, and you can enjoy some fun games at your club.

Me personally, I see all the financial woes and mismanagement costing GW it's business. In which case I'd say that if we plan on playing the game after the company's demise, we'd best use ALL the resources that have seen print.

505
08-12-2007, 06:58
I'd agree mostly with Just Tony. hoever I would say using SOC lists use the armybooks that was official when it was released.

as SOC lists are harder then average adding in armed to the Teef and speed of the Asur really adds to the power. but thats my mind. Honostly Id play anyways cause I just like to play

Chadjabdoul
08-12-2007, 18:45
I believe the variety campaign lists provide should have been provided by the official army book in the first place. Like another poster said, 4th/5th edition army books did that. Then you got all those competitive players fielding stuff like goblins on dragons and GW decided to tighten up the lists. Bad idea. To stay on topic, campaign specific lists are nice, but shouldn't be needed to add variety. A good army book has to feed a player's imagination, not limit it.

Flypaper
09-12-2007, 03:44
Or here is a crazy idea, why dont they use some of the ideas I am sure people send in, just give them a one line thank you and bam they have saved the team a couple months of righting and playtesting.They can't do that for legal reasons. Most creative departments don't even allow their staff to look at things like rules development forums, because there's always some idiot who sues over the company "stealing their ideas". Even if you write a signed affidavit saying "you can use these ideas and I won't sue, honest!" I doubt any legal department worth it's salary would allow their guys to read 'em.

Just Tony
15-12-2007, 04:38
Quick note on this potentially dead subject. On the GW High Elves page, which I believe is current and updated, are several PDFs for characters and most importantly a PDF for the Albion list magic items. Perhaps doing it this way instead of incorporating them was comparable to the fact that they were found in the first place, and the fact that you have to go to GW's website to get said rules to get them instead of putting them in the book is to represent a "gimme" to all the loyal customers that still surf their pages looking for rules gubbinz and the like. I'd like to think so. Same reason the Chaos Dwarfs are still on there. As are the DOW PDFs and the now quite defunct special characters for several armies. If you show up to your club with a printed off errata that is automatically revered as law, why can't these items/lists/characters?

cornixt
15-12-2007, 06:36
Up until very recently, they did use submitted ideas and armylists, and they even paid the writers (I think the standard rate varies between 400-800), and GW gets all rights and profits. Now that they don't actually put any content in WD, this doesn't seem to happen anymore.

There seems to be a culture that has formed in many gaming clubs where people aren't willing to play a game unless it uses "official" rules. A lot of people shy away from a non-standard scenario, let alone a WD list. This is partly GW's fault for having so much ambiguity between official and everything else that people feared everything that wasn't in an armybook. Even special characters became so rarely used that GW had to put them in the actual armylist! The lines are being redrawn, but unfortunately it seems that they are cutting back so much on the unofficial stuff that there will probably only be official rules left. Some people don't even think that Chaos Dwarfs and DoW are even legal armies anymore. This "everything official" culture is killing the hobby - go out and play against a crazy character that someone has made up, don't even wait for it to go into print because the way things are going, there won't be anything like it in print.

Rant over, women and children can come back out of their hiding places.

truthsayer
15-12-2007, 11:52
Games Workshop have been very cunning with the storm of chaos and lustria variant army lists.

I believe everything in the lists has been to test additions to the then upcoming normal army lists. Things like the free volley for the high elves, the slayer skills and single hero choices for black orcs.

other things include adding slaanesh influences into dark elf armies, the whole of the daemon army list, what a chaos mortals army would look like without beasts and daemons and where it needs more. The Helcannon was to test the water for how new Chaos Dwarfs would be recieved.

At one point there were rumours that black orcs would generate dispel dice in the normal army list, this was tested in Grimgors army but was then obviously dropped in favour of the spirit-totem as it was more fitting.

The last things are the skaven night fighting rules, the assassin trio and testing master assassins as lord choices. most recently we have heard rumours of necromancers having bound spells instead of power dice, this was kind of tested in the army of sylvania through grave markers. I also believe that skeleton crossbowmen were tested again through that list to see how well they went down with a view of being re-entered into the vamps army list.

This is of course all personal speculation and ill probably get ripped apart for my heresy but ive typed it now and wont look back.

Truthsayer - conspiracy theory extraordinaire!

Nephilim of Sin
15-12-2007, 15:59
.....Truthsayer - conspiracy theory extraordinaire!

Oooh, I love a good Conspiracy Theory. However, this one really makes sense, in an abstract way. From a business perspective, how much better could it be?

As stated, we have armies that require a heavy amount of metal to accomplish, and are then invalidated. Not to mention that a waning army like Dark Elves is given more attention. This definately helped to increase sales. That means that Dark Elves have been given special attention twice in 6th (once for the update) to give them more "lifeblood".

Add on to it that you would have your customers playtest the balance issues of the army for you! That would have to be the largest playtest group they could have ever done, and were it done this way, it would be brilliant!

I like this theory....

(It reminds me of a segment of "Knights of the Dinner Table", where the 'evil greedy game designers' actual set up different playtest camps. Camp A was given incomplete rules, camp B was given A's revisions, ad nauseum until the camps had actually written all the material for the game. Classic.)

truthsayer
15-12-2007, 17:50
Oooh, I love a good Conspiracy Theory. However, this one really makes sense, in an abstract way. From a business perspective, how much better could it be?

As stated, we have armies that require a heavy amount of metal to accomplish, and are then invalidated. Not to mention that a waning army like Dark Elves is given more attention. This definately helped to increase sales. That means that Dark Elves have been given special attention twice in 6th (once for the update) to give them more "lifeblood".

Indeed, made a lot of people go out and buy a lot of new bits for their armies including special characters who would mostly never be used again.

I must admit it was good at the time, i bought some chaos stuff, more undead and some empire bits to mix with the undead to make zombie spearmen. plus the book and a couple of the characters. imagine if everyone did that.


Add on to it that you would have your customers playtest the balance issues of the army for you! That would have to be the largest playtest group they could have ever done, and were it done this way, it would be brilliant!

Customers whinging is more precise.. remember when people played against the high elf sea guard list, my god how we moaned about all that free shooting! they also tested having more than one dragon in the list with the merwyrm thingy. can you imagine if that was put in the new book!!!?


I like this theory....

cheers! nice to see people still like a good theory!


oooh, a couple of other things I thought of include that giant rat nurglich rides in the lustria campaign as a mount, those skaven cavalry we saw in white dwarf, the undead cairns list and alternate mounts for aspiring champs in the lustria campaign. Makes me think chaos mortals are going the way of the barbarian marauder armies from the cold cold north. bit like vikings.

Just Tony
15-12-2007, 17:53
However, if this theory holds, it may be validated by the fact that we now have plastic Black Orcs. Something that was tested in the Grimgor army in bulk, is now something that made the transition to plastic kit. Hopefully that'll help some of the OTHER metal things find their way into plastic kits. And if it's something as peculiar as slayers, or something as nice as Ironbreakers, then all the better....

truthsayer
15-12-2007, 18:05
Made sense with the black orcs, heres a prediction for dark elves.

I wouldnt be completely surprised if GW got rid of independant units of spearmen and repeaters and made the default unit city guard. thus the price of the basic model goes up, GW release plastic corsairs and everyone goes back to making raiding armies as corsairs would be cheaper pointswise!

That would make them a mint!

Things that will be plastic in a dark elf release... Noble/Highborn, Sorceress, corsairs (box set 10), dark riders (boxset 5), cold one knights (boxset 5), plastic hydra and chariot. probably not all in one go although if they did I would go straight into debt.

you heard it here first ;-)

scarletsquig
15-12-2007, 19:16
There's nothing stopping you just continuing to use the army anyway, regardless of what GW wants you to do or buy.

The only thing stopping you would be if your opponent was one of those annoying "NOT TOURNEY LEGAL! WHINE WHINE YOU'RE NOT USING CURRENT R.A.W.! WHINE WHINE CHEESE!" types. Most casual players don't really care.

As long as your "out-of-print" army isn't an absolute cheese monster on the battlefield, most normal people will be fine with it.

There's not much out there that physically stops old rules from being played.
Hell, I once used a 5th edition campaign in 6th edition.. with a few mutually-agreed tweaks it worked out fine.

Just Tony
15-12-2007, 20:32
Which reminds me, I want to chase down all those boxed campaign sets from 5th. Tears of Isha, Grudge of Drong, and the like...

truthsayer
15-12-2007, 21:08
Which reminds me, I want to chase down all those boxed campaign sets from 5th. Tears of Isha, Grudge of Drong, and the like...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Warhammer-Game-Supplement-The-Grudge-Of-Drong_W0QQitemZ270175968649QQihZ017QQcategoryZ2557 QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem

found a grudge of drong for ya

Just Tony
15-12-2007, 22:37
SWEET

Was hoping for something a tad cheaper, and with the international shipping, it'd cost an arm and a leg for something I wouldn't even be able to set eyes on for about another 8 months or so. Thank you for looking though, if I had a Christmas card list, you'd be on it.

A couple of shops back home have them, and I doubt they'll move anytime soon, so maybe I'll get home and make them and offer they can't refuse.

AND give myself time to figure out how I'm going to reinforce those card buildings.....

truthsayer
15-12-2007, 22:45
SWEET. Was hoping for something a tad cheaper, and with the international shipping, it'd cost an arm and a leg for something I wouldn't even be able to set eyes on for about another 8 months or so. Thank you for looking though, if I had a Christmas card list, you'd be on it......

you can send me one anyway! ;-)



AND give myself time to figure out how I'm going to reinforce those card buildings.....

cut up some plasticard and put it on the inside of the buildings, should do the trick.

Just Tony
16-12-2007, 13:52
FURTHER conspiracy theories:

It is well documented that Chaos is the favored son of both systems. In fact, there was a White Dwarf article about how when they started GW, the financier had a major hard on for Chaos, so they were prominent in everything. Over the years, Chaos has enjoyed FAR more freedoms with their lists, including being the ONLY list that could score a perfect comp score with elite infantry/cavalry for both systems. What is my point? Here is my point...

Do people still run hellcannons? Aren't they one of the few SoC nuggets that is still allowed to be used in tourneys? If not, then I'm now informed. If SO, then I'm not a bit surprised. Chaos has always been kinda forcefed to us fluffwise and gameplay wise. "All things fall to Chaos, there's no stopping it"

Well, great. You've convinced me....

So from now on, these are going to be my paint schemes:

Beasts of Chaos: Tzeentch (Which they already are)
Bretonnians: Khorne (Makes sense with the martial prowess)
Dark Elves: Slannesh (Duh)
Dogs of War: Undivided (Individual units will have the marks)
Dwarfs: Nurgle (Tough little blighters)
Empire: Undivided (Once again, individual units)
High Elves: Tzeentch (No brainer, I figure)
Hordes of Chaos: Tzeentch (Not repainting them)
Lizardmen: Tzeentch (None of the others "feel" right)
Ogre Kingdoms: Nurgle (Somehow, this fits)
Orcs and Goblins: Khorne (WAAAAGH FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!!!)
Skaven: Undivided (Basically a Chaos army anyway)
Tomb Kings: Tzeentch (For the saved up knowledge)
Vampire Counts: Nurgle (Rotting zombies, seems about right)
Wood Elves: Khorne (Once again, about the best fit)

There, now ALL my armies are Chaos, maybe now I can build my forces however I see fit, cross pollenate if I choose, and the powers that be won't throw away all the extras from the campaign books.

Sheer brilliance....