 |
|
 |
|
Next: Looking for swing....
|
| Author |
Message |
External

Since: Feb 20, 2006 Posts: 297
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:35 pm
Post subject: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? Archived from groups: rec>games>miniatures>warhammer (more info?)
|
|
|
Radical suggestion for RGMW these days, to be sure, possibly
particularly for me in recent days. And so it is that I've visited the
GW site for the first time in goodness knows how long to see some new
releases to comment about (although, needless to say, they include
nothing new for Epic Chaos):
First up - they're back. And I still haven't seen the new Codex to
know what they actually do. My impressions of the Harlequins weren't
so great from the preview shots I'd seen, but I'm starting to have a
change of heart about some of them and there are figures here I hadn't
seen before. Of the boxed set contents I'm underwhelmed by the fusion
pistolier (they're calling it a fusion blaster? Does that mean it's a
Tau meltagun?) waving his sword around and the troupe master (why only
one pose for each of the character models?), but I'm a fan of the
rest, including both with the Harlequin's Kiss. The Shadowseer's
pretty anonymous. I really like the Death Jester, actually - the
clownish death mask really does look quite creepy. Don't know about
the high collar - he seems to be auditioning for the von Carsteins.
With the Harlies, are there actually any old-time non-Squat figures
left to bring back? This almost feels like the conclusion of a 20-year
waiting game (yes, this year is 40k's 20th anniversary, I believe).
For the first time in nearly that long GW shops are stocking a 40k
range that includes Inquisitors, Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle
(okay, they're more recent) and now Eldar Harlequins among others.
There's even a Genestealer Patriarch of sorts. Bring back IG Beastmen
and we might just be there.
And with that backlog cleared, *then* they can bring back the Squats,
sorry <Ranter mode> BRING BACK THE SQUATS!...</Ranter mode>
No other news Eldarwise, save that the new packaging for the Guardian
box is finally here - the delay hasn't bothered me since I'm not
collecting at the moment (and have plenty of Guardians back home). No
surprises whatsoever - a heavy platform and 10 Guardians, but it's
good to get a basic squad unit with all the options at long last.
Plasticise the Warlock and throw one in and we'll be all set. When's
the Megaforce coming out again?
Hmm, wait. There are more Eldar? No, hang on, these are ... *Dark*
Eldar? What are Dark Eldar? Actually it's just another repackaging job
- ten Wyches from a more or less random assortment of the current
range, annoyingly including one of each special weapon type rather
than two blasters, replacing the current five-set with shredder. You
know, I never had a problem with these models at the time when others
were slamming them, but boy do they look dated these days. Nothing new
here, it's just worthy of comment that for some strange reason as it
starts to repackage its 40k range into squad boxes it's started with a
race that's been forgotten so long it's effectively extinct, and a
squad that already has a squad box for that matter.
Okay, the Dark Angels are old hat, but I haven't actually commented on
the jetbiker, so here I will.
He seems ... overdone, I think is the word. The basic bike I rather
like; okay so it is a BFG ripoff and they probably should have filed
away the torpedo tubes before using the old component, but while it
looks nothing like a Space Marine vehicle I like it as it is. But
who's meant to be reading that book he has facing away from him
redundantly on top of it (strange that the air speed is causing his
cloak to billow out but the pages of his book are steadfastly
unruffled)? But again the cloak's on the over-the-top side, and the
dynamism of the billowing cloak doesn't sit all that well with what is
otherwise a completely static pose.
The Eldar may not have a Megaforce yet, but the Orcs and Dwarfs do.
Being interested in getting the BfSP pass and building up the
attendant armies I could be quite interested in these.
Dwarfs: New Miners are another long-delayed release. The 3rd Ed. ones
have been dreadfully outdated and pretty dismal figures since, well,
since they were first released, actually. Which means scraping
together a lot of 8-somes from the BfSP set or waiting on these. Shame
the picture is too small to make them out well, but they seem at least
as capable as the BfSP ones and so an improvement on the ones
presently on general release. For an army like Dwarfs, a set that
contains 100 infantry and two war machines (and a cart) looks a pretty
good deal on the face of it, especially with GW's latest every-set-can-
be-built-as-either-X-or-Y model. The strange numbers on the Dwarf side
in the BfSP set makes this a bit odd as a complement to it (52
Warriors, 28 Miners...), but with characters, 50 gunners, three
artillery pieces and a decent bulk of core close combat infantry it's
a solid start and a good defensive firebase.
Orcs and Goblins: From the looks of it the new plastics do a good job
of cloning the current metal Black Orcs, the good ones with two-handed
weapons rather than the older Robo-Orcs. And it's not a unit I suppose
you can complain about for its inclusion in an army set. But just how
desperate is GW to shift Spider Riders these days? They're in the
boxed set, they're in the Battalion, they're here. GW, please. That
alone is a disincentive for me to pick this up - the blurb on the
store itself states that this is meant to complement the boxed set, so
why duplicate what's already in there when I'd rather have Wolf
Riders, say, with a unit of Spiders already to hand? The rest is
serviceable - you get enough Orcs (Black and otherwise) to give a bit
of punch to the lightweights of the boxed set, so by that measure it's
a good complement, and there are a few excess Gobbos thrown in in case
you need them. I'm just pissed that, since GW presumably wants players
to start with the box, upgrade with the Army and, one supposes,
supplement with Batallions, they seem intent on drowning us in a
plague of spiders. With Dwarfs it's okay - they don't have a huge base
of plastic sets to begin with, the core infantry boxes are always
useful, and you can never have too many big guns. But there's enough
variety in the sets that GW could put in an O&G army or batallion set
that they don't need to duplicate everything, especially surplus
specialist units that you'll only ever want one or two of.
With GW rounding its 16-strong sets to 20s in these boxes, I'll admit
that you more than break even even if you don't use the Spiders
(bought separately, two Orc heroes - 12 pounds, 32 Orcs - 36 pounds,
20 Night Goblins - 18 pounds, 3 Fanatics - 8 pounds, 10 Spider Riders
- 18 pounds, 16 Black Orcs - presumably 18 pounds and a chariot - 15
pounds, actually make this set a good deal, netting you the equivalent
of a free squad box and 12 extra Orcs), I just don't like having
surplus models I won't use, and simply for theme reasons where are the
vanilla Goblins of any sort?
Phil >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 07, 2006 Posts: 50
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:48 am
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Personally, I think the Hop-Splat gun would be great to see again. The
orks have always been a comic-relief element of the game, and the Hop-
Splat was a perfect example of that.
Then again, the liabilities of the weapons of other races have been
thankfully written out (missile launchers used to explode on
catastrophic failure, etc.), so I guess the Hop-Splat would bee a bit
out of place.
Oh, and the Orks used to have real vehicles, too. >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Apr 07, 2006 Posts: 50
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:13 am
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mar 11, 11:59 am, Birchenwald <"birkwood at birkwood dot net">
looked up from his cup of tea and spouted the following:
>But: I can see how weapons that blow up frequently would be out of place
>for anything else THAN orks, they are after all pretty much pulling
>their technology out their a.. And anyone who appreciates Scrapheap
>Challenge/Junk-yard wars should be able to picture how Orkish stuff
>would (almost) work
The reason the Hop-Splat was a liability was its unpredictability. It
would fire, the shell would land, and then a second shell would fly in
a random direction from the blast point, then a third would pop out
from THAT blast point. If you've ever played the old DOS game Scorched
Earth, it was quite like the Funky Bomb. >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Mar 11, 2007 Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:57 pm
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Seamus skrev:
> Personally, I think the Hop-Splat gun would be great to see again. The
> orks have always been a comic-relief element of the game, and the Hop-
> Splat was a perfect example of that.
>
> Then again, the liabilities of the weapons of other races have been
> thankfully written out (missile launchers used to explode on
> catastrophic failure, etc.), so I guess the Hop-Splat would bee a bit
> out of place.
Sorry, I'm kinda new-ish to this warhammer thingy (Long time hobby,
haven't played yet)
But: I can see how weapons that blow up frequently would be out of place
for anything else THAN orks, they are after all pretty much pulling
their technology out their a.. And anyone who appreciates Scrapheap
Challenge/Junk-yard wars should be able to picture how Orkish stuff
would (almost) work
But yes, Orks are a bit dull now...
/Birkwood
>
> Oh, and the Orks used to have real vehicles, too.
> >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Mar 11, 2007 Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:57 pm
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Seamus skrev:
> On Mar 11, 11:59 am, Birchenwald <"birkwood at birkwood dot net">
> looked up from his cup of tea and spouted the following:
>
>> But: I can see how weapons that blow up frequently would be out of place
>> for anything else THAN orks, they are after all pretty much pulling
>> their technology out their a.. And anyone who appreciates Scrapheap
>> Challenge/Junk-yard wars should be able to picture how Orkish stuff
>> would (almost) work
>
> The reason the Hop-Splat was a liability was its unpredictability. It
> would fire, the shell would land, and then a second shell would fly in
> a random direction from the blast point, then a third would pop out
> from THAT blast point. If you've ever played the old DOS game Scorched
> Earth, it was quite like the Funky Bomb.
>
Ah, ok. Exactly something to expect from at least some Orks. >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Jan 12, 2005 Posts: 17
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:44 am
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Dec 31, 2004 Posts: 313
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:26 am
Post subject: Re: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Feb 20, 2006 Posts: 297
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:19 pm
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 12 Mar, 20:26, jockelinde <nou....TakeThisOut@notmydomain.se> wrote:
> On 2007-03-11, Phil Bowles <pbow....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Orcs and Goblins: From the looks of it the new plastics do a good job
> > of cloning the current metal Black Orcs, the good ones with two-handed
> > weapons rather than the older Robo-Orcs.
>
> I have some of the newer great weapon Black Orcs, and some of the
> older double choppa ones. I'd say they're very similar, and that the
> main downside of the older ones are the lack of variation in pose.
Oh, yes, the newer ones are Robo-Orcs too, just better-looking ones.
These new ones look decent enough, though they don't seem hugely
variable in pose either.
> Night goblin boss on giant squig:http://us.games-workshop.com/news/sneakpeek/Warhammer/image2.jpg
Hehe. This is not a good model by any stretch, but it's exactly what
it ought to be - so overdone it's funny. Nice idea, though. I'd like
to see the new Forest Goblin Gigantic Spider, though.
> Troll:http://us.games-workshop.com/news/sneakpeek/Warhammer/image3.jpg
> Better than the one in the Skull Pass box, but I still dont like the
> nose.
Too derivative of LotR Trolls and too much of a departure from the GW
Troll style - where are the giant triangular ears? At least if it's
consistent with the style of the boxed set one that model can be used
in a unit rather than just as a scenario piece. River Trolls and Stone
Trolls are still in the book, right, so they're still going to be part
of the range?
Phil >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 142
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:27 pm
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mar 10, 10:35 pm, "Phil Bowles" <pbow....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> Radical suggestion for RGMW these days, to be sure, possibly
> particularly for me in recent days. And so it is that I've visited the
> GW site for the first time in goodness knows how long to see some new
> releases to comment about (although, needless to say, they include
> nothing new for Epic Chaos):
I was looking at the new devastators and was wondering if there are
seperate shoulder pads or not (ie: can you use the metal chapter
specific shoulder pads on these guys?) >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 142
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:19 pm
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mar 10, 10:35 pm, "Phil Bowles" <pbow....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> Radical suggestion for RGMW these days, to be sure, possibly
> particularly for me in recent days. And so it is that I've visited the
> GW site for the first time in goodness knows how long to see some new
> releases to comment about (although, needless to say, they include
> nothing new for Epic Chaos):
>
only thing i've really looked at is the new Space Marine Devs and I'm
wondering whether or not they are compatible with the metal chapter
specific shoulder pads.
granted I only really look at that kind of stuff during slow periods
at work in between stupid questions from my coworkers and realizing
that it doesn't much matter due to my current life situation and how
that only has the potential to get worse before it gets better.
> First up - they're back. And I still haven't seen the new Codex to
> know what they actually do. My impressions of the Harlequins weren't
> so great from the preview shots I'd seen, but I'm starting to have a
> change of heart about some of them and there are figures here I hadn't
> seen before. Of the boxed set contents I'm underwhelmed by the fusion
> pistolier (they're calling it a fusion blaster? Does that mean it's a
> Tau meltagun?) waving his sword around and the troupe master (why only
> one pose for each of the character models?), but I'm a fan of the
> rest, including both with the Harlequin's Kiss. The Shadowseer's
> pretty anonymous. I really like the Death Jester, actually - the
> clownish death mask really does look quite creepy. Don't know about
> the high collar - he seems to be auditioning for the von Carsteins.
>
they're stupidly overpowered, so anything that will make munchkins
think twice about loading up on them is a good thing.
> With the Harlies, are there actually any old-time non-Squat figures
> left to bring back? This almost feels like the conclusion of a 20-year
> waiting game (yes, this year is 40k's 20th anniversary, I believe).
> For the first time in nearly that long GW shops are stocking a 40k
> range that includes Inquisitors, Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle
> (okay, they're more recent) and now Eldar Harlequins among others.
> There's even a Genestealer Patriarch of sorts. Bring back IG Beastmen
> and we might just be there.
>
IG Bikes, jetbikes and Land Speeders, Space Marine jetbikes, Orks (the
whole farking army), IG Beastmen, Ratlings, Squats, Chaos Robot (the
khorne thing), Genestealer Cult, IG Rough Riders, Mole Mortar, thudd
Gun, IG Santioned Psykers.
I'm sure I can think of more if I took some time and went through
books.
> And with that backlog cleared, *then* they can bring back the Squats,
> sorry <Ranter mode> BRING BACK THE SQUATS!...</Ranter mode>
>
still won't ever happen.
> No other news Eldarwise, save that the new packaging for the Guardian
> box is finally here - the delay hasn't bothered me since I'm not
> collecting at the moment (and have plenty of Guardians back home). No
> surprises whatsoever - a heavy platform and 10 Guardians, but it's
> good to get a basic squad unit with all the options at long last.
> Plasticise the Warlock and throw one in and we'll be all set. When's
> the Megaforce coming out again?
>
probably won't be.. they don't seem too interested in giving 40K the
super push they used to.
> Hmm, wait. There are more Eldar? No, hang on, these are ... *Dark*
> Eldar? What are Dark Eldar? Actually it's just another repackaging job
> - ten Wyches from a more or less random assortment of the current
> range, annoyingly including one of each special weapon type rather
> than two blasters, replacing the current five-set with shredder. You
> know, I never had a problem with these models at the time when others
> were slamming them, but boy do they look dated these days. Nothing new
> here, it's just worthy of comment that for some strange reason as it
> starts to repackage its 40k range into squad boxes it's started with a
> race that's been forgotten so long it's effectively extinct, and a
> squad that already has a squad box for that matter.
>
i guess they have some left over at the warehouse and thought it migh
tbe easier to flog them then to just melt them down and make something
that will actually sell.
> Okay, the Dark Angels are old hat, but I haven't actually commented on
> the jetbiker, so here I will.
>
meh.. another overpowered special character from our Munchkin obsessed
friends at GW.
> He seems ... overdone, I think is the word. The basic bike I rather
> like; okay so it is a BFG ripoff and they probably should have filed
> away the torpedo tubes before using the old component, but while it
> looks nothing like a Space Marine vehicle I like it as it is. But
> who's meant to be reading that book he has facing away from him
> redundantly on top of it (strange that the air speed is causing his
> cloak to billow out but the pages of his book are steadfastly
> unruffled)? But again the cloak's on the over-the-top side, and the
> dynamism of the billowing cloak doesn't sit all that well with what is
> otherwise a completely static pose.
>
typical for GW
*snip fantasy because I don't care about it right now >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 142
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:49 pm
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mar 10, 10:35 pm, "Phil Bowles" <pbow....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> Radical suggestion for RGMW these days, to be sure, possibly
> particularly for me in recent days. And so it is that I've visited the
> GW site for the first time in goodness knows how long to see some new
> releases to comment about (although, needless to say, they include
> nothing new for Epic Chaos):
I was looking at the new devastators and was wondering if there are
seperate shoulder pads or not (ie: can you use the metal chapter
specific shoulder pads on these guys?) >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Feb 20, 2006 Posts: 297
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:04 pm
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 13 Mar, 14:19, "Blackheart" <blackheart666_2....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 10:35 pm, "Phil Bowles" <pbow....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Radical suggestion for RGMW these days, to be sure, possibly
> > particularly for me in recent days. And so it is that I've visited the
> > GW site for the first time in goodness knows how long to see some new
> > releases to comment about (although, needless to say, they include
> > nothing new for Epic Chaos):
>
> only thing i've really looked at is the new Space Marine Devs and I'm
> wondering whether or not they are compatible with the metal chapter
> specific shoulder pads.
>
> granted I only really look at that kind of stuff during slow periods
> at work in between stupid questions from my coworkers and realizing
> that it doesn't much matter due to my current life situation and how
> that only has the potential to get worse before it gets better.
>
> > First up - they're back. And I still haven't seen the new Codex to
> > know what they actually do. My impressions of the Harlequins weren't
> > so great from the preview shots I'd seen, but I'm starting to have a
> > change of heart about some of them and there are figures here I hadn't
> > seen before. Of the boxed set contents I'm underwhelmed by the fusion
> > pistolier (they're calling it a fusion blaster? Does that mean it's a
> > Tau meltagun?) waving his sword around and the troupe master (why only
> > one pose for each of the character models?), but I'm a fan of the
> > rest, including both with the Harlequin's Kiss. The Shadowseer's
> > pretty anonymous. I really like the Death Jester, actually - the
> > clownish death mask really does look quite creepy. Don't know about
> > the high collar - he seems to be auditioning for the von Carsteins.
>
> they're stupidly overpowered, so anything that will make munchkins
> think twice about loading up on them is a good thing.
The Codex was finally in my local games store today - shame I didn't
have the money to pick it up since I haven't done a review for a
while.  Plus there seems a little new Craftworld fluff I could add
to my series on Craftworld backgrounds (which I was thinking of
reviving recently), though I only read the Saim-Hann one.
I like the approach taken with condensing the Harlie entries into a
formation that mirrors a core squad - heavy weapons trooper, champion,
psyker (well, a core Eldar squad then), simplifying and toning down
the Harlequin's kiss, hallucinogen, shrieker cannon. It looks the sort
of entry GW designed with an eye to making it expandable into a full
CA army list at some stage (though in that case they dropped the ball
by not making extra poses for the Troupe Leader and Shadowseer that
could stand in for Great Harlequin and High Shadowseer). Why else make
the fusion pistol S8? These Harlies won't be hunting tanks, but a full
list would need to.
But overall it looks like an entry they haven't really thought through
- the sort that looks as though most things (except flip belts) are
balanced on paper, removing deep strike etc. to tone them down, but
without considering them all together. And before you know it you have
a FoF infantry unit that can't physically be shot from further away
than 14" if the opponent's really lucky, a distance it can reasonably
expect to assault, and which has the nice side benefit that it can go
around pinning units with no one able to shoot back.
I don't think the Harlequins are overpowered. I think one Harlequin is
overpowered. The Shadowseer's power is just too over the top - the
Harlies' weakness is meant to be that they get killed on the approach,
and granted that made them too weak last edition. But making them
completely unkillable at range while doing little to tone down their
close combat abilities (which are rightfully good) is not thinking
things through. The unit can be easily fixed - drop Furious Charge
from the flip belt rule and change the Shadowseer's power to giving
the night fight spotting distance (as ever, halved in a real night
fight).
I'll still be picking up a unit though - I do quite like the models
and it's good for completeness.
Phil >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 142
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:22 pm
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> > On Mar 10, 10:35 pm, "Phil Bowles" <pbow....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> The Codex was finally in my local games store today - shame I didn't
> have the money to pick it up since I haven't done a review for a
> while. Plus there seems a little new Craftworld fluff I could add
> to my series on Craftworld backgrounds (which I was thinking of
> reviving recently), though I only read the Saim-Hann one.
>
I need to get it only because I'm planning on reviving my Eldar army.
> I like the approach taken with condensing the Harlie entries into a
> formation that mirrors a core squad - heavy weapons trooper, champion,
> psyker (well, a core Eldar squad then), simplifying and toning down
> the Harlequin's kiss, hallucinogen, shrieker cannon. It looks the sort
> of entry GW designed with an eye to making it expandable into a full
> CA army list at some stage (though in that case they dropped the ball
> by not making extra poses for the Troupe Leader and Shadowseer that
> could stand in for Great Harlequin and High Shadowseer). Why else make
> the fusion pistol S8? These Harlies won't be hunting tanks, but a full
> list would need to.
>
I think that, considering how overpowered they are, alot of people are
going to load up on them. I plan too, and both of the Eldar players
that were playing at the now ex-FLGS were loading up on them. So in
that respect, yeah, they're going to need tank hunting ability.
although they have fricking -rending-.
> But overall it looks like an entry they haven't really thought through
> - the sort that looks as though most things (except flip belts) are
> balanced on paper, removing deep strike etc. to tone them down, but
> without considering them all together. And before you know it you have
> a FoF infantry unit that can't physically be shot from further away
> than 14" if the opponent's really lucky, a distance it can reasonably
> expect to assault, and which has the nice side benefit that it can go
> around pinning units with no one able to shoot back.
>
more like "pin, charge, RENDRENDREND, pick that unit up and put them
away"
> I don't think the Harlequins are overpowered. I think one Harlequin is
> overpowered. The Shadowseer's power is just too over the top - the
> Harlies' weakness is meant to be that they get killed on the approach,
> and granted that made them too weak last edition. But making them
> completely unkillable at range while doing little to tone down their
> close combat abilities (which are rightfully good) is not thinking
> things through. The unit can be easily fixed - drop Furious Charge
> from the flip belt rule and change the Shadowseer's power to giving
> the night fight spotting distance (as ever, halved in a real night
> fight).
>
it's the only way they could sell them in the current 40K climate.
> I'll still be picking up a unit though - I do quite like the models
> and it's good for completeness.
>
I have more than enough old ones, and I intend to use as many as
possible. In fact I think I may prime a bunch up in the morning since
it's going to be nice here for a day or so... >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Dec 31, 2004 Posts: 313
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:57 am
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 2007-03-13, Phil Bowles <pbowles.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On 12 Mar, 20:26, jockelinde <nou....DeleteThis@notmydomain.se> wrote:
>> On 2007-03-11, Phil Bowles <pbow....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Orcs and Goblins: From the looks of it the new plastics do a good job
>> > of cloning the current metal Black Orcs, the good ones with two-handed
>> > weapons rather than the older Robo-Orcs.
>>
>> I have some of the newer great weapon Black Orcs, and some of the
>> older double choppa ones. I'd say they're very similar, and that the
>> main downside of the older ones are the lack of variation in pose.
>
> Oh, yes, the newer ones are Robo-Orcs too, just better-looking ones.
> These new ones look decent enough, though they don't seem hugely
> variable in pose either.
I've seen photos of the BO sprues somewhere (can't find them now). It
looks like the plastic set is the same type of plug in set as the new
chaos warriors, and in that case there won't be much variation in
pose for the new black orcs either.
<snip>
> River Trolls and Stone
> Trolls are still in the book, right, so they're still going to be part
> of the range?
Yes, River Trolls and Stone Trolls are in the new book.
--
Joakim >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Feb 20, 2006 Posts: 297
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:08 pm
Post subject: Re: How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 15 Mar, 14:22, "Blackheart" <blackheart666_2....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 10, 10:35 pm, "Phil Bowles" <pbow....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > The Codex was finally in my local games store today - shame I didn't
> > have the money to pick it up since I haven't done a review for a
> > while. Plus there seems a little new Craftworld fluff I could add
> > to my series on Craftworld backgrounds (which I was thinking of
> > reviving recently), though I only read the Saim-Hann one.
>
> I need to get it only because I'm planning on reviving my Eldar army.
>
> > I like the approach taken with condensing the Harlie entries into a
> > formation that mirrors a core squad - heavy weapons trooper, champion,
> > psyker (well, a core Eldar squad then), simplifying and toning down
> > the Harlequin's kiss, hallucinogen, shrieker cannon. It looks the sort
> > of entry GW designed with an eye to making it expandable into a full
> > CA army list at some stage (though in that case they dropped the ball
> > by not making extra poses for the Troupe Leader and Shadowseer that
> > could stand in for Great Harlequin and High Shadowseer). Why else make
> > the fusion pistol S8? These Harlies won't be hunting tanks, but a full
> > list would need to.
>
> I think that, considering how overpowered they are, alot of people are
> going to load up on them. I plan too, and both of the Eldar players
> that were playing at the now ex-FLGS were loading up on them. So in
> that respect, yeah, they're going to need tank hunting ability.
> although they have fricking -rending-.
I forgot to check the upgrade limits in the unit entry, but how many
models are allowed to take the kiss upgrade? When they have to pay for
it per model and only have two attacks each it doesn't seem over the
top, given that they have no power weapon access (unlike most of the
other cc units in the list).
Phil >> Stay informed about: [WFB/40k] How about we talk about this Warhammer thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
| Related Topics: | (Warhammer 40k) Marine Army List - Here is an army list I wrote up based on models I actually own. I'd like to know what people think about it. Thank you for your time. The Chapter Traits of this Chapter, the Iron Cross, are Suffer not the Works of Heretics and Death Before Dishonor 10...
[40k] Tarantula rules - Which of the varies books are rules for Tarantula's in? (I'm thinking of using the Tarantula I've re-discovered in my old Space Crusade bits)
infantry markerlight[40k][model] - I'm thinking of giving at least one of my FCW shas'uis a markerlight. Is there one on the FCW sprue? At the moment I don't have access to my Tau bit-box, and I can't remember if there is one on the sprue. If there isn't one on the sprue it should be..
[40K] 2006 Grand Tournament RulesPack Question - Good Day All, I am a frequent lurker and rare poster to this group, but I have been doing searches for awhile and can't find some information that I know was on here not too long ago. Someone had noted that there were army lists/units that were not..
[40K] Revised Target Priority - I've been working on some ideas for reworking the Target Priority rules for 40K, which I find pretty lacking. I've posted the file on genbus in the files section (Target Priority 2.1 pdf). I look forward to any comments. Tim -- ---------------- I can... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|