Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)
Damn. Google was actually working yesterday; still can't get onto
individual.net. Sorry about this...
>>pbowles@aol.com (Philip Bowles) wrote:
>>"Q: Have the Studio put any thought into releasing a list of
non-Human
>>Dogs of War Heroes and Lords? A DoW magic item list?
>>
>>A: Dogs of War are a really big grab-bag of ideas and opportunities
at
>>the moment, and we have no definite plans for them. They will remain
a
>>part of the Warhammer game (hard not to since they are part of the
>>army lists in the books!). There's a series of conflicting ideas
>>present in the Dogs of War at the moment, including DoW, Regiments
of
>>Renown and the Tilean aspects. These need to be separated and dealt
>>with properly. We're not planning any DoW support at the moment, and
I
>>would rather deal with them properly with a specific supplement than
>>nips and tucks here and there through WD."
>>
>>Agreed that a Tilea-based DoW list needs to be separate from the
RoRs,
>>but how hard would it be to simply follow the Ogre model - a
basically
>>Tilean army list in which most units can be taken as DoW, with RoRs
in
>>a separate supplement but otherwise much the same as they are now?
>Because GW hasn't figured out how to release the DoW as a major money
maker?
If they can make Ogre Kingdoms sell they can make DoW sell.
>>Doing a DoW army as the list is at the moment is simply impractical
-
>>it's far too large.
>
>As the WD articles show, the list is fine. It's the model range
that's a
>problem for GW to stock.
That's what I mean - it has more entries than many lists. That being
said, a revised DoW list would be unlikely to be filled with
'placeholder' units designed to allow people to use old models like
Halfling Hotpots and Imperial Dwarfs. I'd be in favour of a wholly
human DoW list (since the Ogre list fulfils the Ogre part of the list
itself), with exotica confined to Regiments of Renown. As I envisage
it, there wouldn't be a Dogs of War list as such, but a variety of
lists such as Ogre Kingdoms, Tilea and Kislev which are designed as
standalone lists but which follow a standard set of mercenary rules
with some or all of their units/characters (as Ogre Kingdoms and the
Kislevite Gryphon Legion do now).
>>"What, if any, direction are the DoW being taken?
>>
>>One idea that I have, and it's only an idea, is to expand the
>>mercenary aspects of armies in larger battles, perhaps using the
>>format of the Allies contingents in a slightly different fashion.
This
>>would allow players to use individual units as they do now, but in
>>larger battles to have a mix of their main army, allies, mercenaries
>>and so on. The important point would be to make them feel more
>>mercenary and not simply allies by a different names. "
>>
>>Nice in theory, but what does he have in mind to make them more
>>'mercenary'?
>
>I'd assume that he'd require any army with DoW to buy a Paymaster
(losing a
>Hero slot) to pay them with, rather than just being able to take the
>Regiment.
From what he says he seems to want to keep the DoW as regiment rules
as they are (in fact he has to - as he points out, that's how the army
list entries are worded in all the army books), but wants to add a
more 'mercenary' feel to DoW as allies. Connected to that I think they
also need to extend the allied contingent rules - Gav's treating them
in his comments here as a universal rule for allies, but so far as I
know they only apply to the Kislevites at present.
>>It's nice to get a definitive answer on the current state of the
>>Chaos Dwarfs; it's a shame that it's that answer.
>
>I was neither surprised nor pleased with the DoW (nor the CD)
declaration.
>Despite the increasing number of DoW, RoR, and For Hire models and
units in
>WFB6. I have the distinct impression that GW is throwing ideas at
the wall >and
>hoping to see something that sticks.
That's fair enough for the RoRs - that's more or less what they're
for, and GW could easily continue with those even if the DoW army list
was on hold (after all there was no DoW army list as such in 5th
Edition, only RoRs), and could carry on adding army list entries that
can double as RoRs (like Malakai Makkaison's Goblin Hewer). I think to
avoid tying themselves in knots GW should simply work on creating a
Tilean army as though it were a 'normal' army list and then add
general DoW-themed rules to it.
>>"Q: Are there any plans to "put back" Malal into chaos?
>>
>>A: None at all. Aside from any old copyright issues, I personally
find
>>the idea of the anti-Chaos Chaos god inconsistent with the way Chaos
>>is supposed to work. However, the idea of personifying the
>>self-destructive side of Chaos is an interesting one and formed much
>>of the inspiration behind Be'lakor."
>>
>>Translation: Be'lakor is Malal. But then we already knew that.
>
>How lame, as we lose all the stuff about mortal Champions of Malal.
*shrug* It was just fluff - if there had been accompanying figures or
rules then there would be cause for complaint. In any case, we know
that some Norse tribes worship Daemons and Be'lakor is a super-Daemon
- it's no stretch to suppose that there are Champions of Be'lakor out
there. Besides, I don't have any problem with the Mordheim idea that
he used to be a god but the others succeeded in throwing him out, so
there used to be "Malal" Champions but might not be any more.
>>"Q: Will an army of Cathay or Araby ever see light of day?
>>
>>A: As an army? Unlikely.
>
>Which is just as well.
Yep. A whole army with S+1 longswords would be really nasty...
>>Well, we need the Chaos Dwarfs and DoW sorted out for starters...
>
>Nope and Yup, respectively.
The CDs don't need sorting out? You missed the fact that they don't
have a model range or revised army list?
>>I would ask Gav is this: what *is* actually going to be going on in
>>WFB over the next few years, since all the obvious things - Chaos
>>Dwarfs, Dogs of War, Regiments of Renown, 7th Edition, Araby and
>>Cathay, army book updates (and very possibly Wood Elves) seem
>>to be some years away.
>
>I can answer that for you: Practically Nothing. GW will be focusing
efforts
>and resources on 40k4 for the next few years, just as 40k3 was
largely
>neglected while WFB6 was shiny and new.
But they don't seem to be going hell for leather promoting 40k4
either. It's pretty much fallen off the radar since the SM Codex - a
token release a month to remind people it exists, and nothing else
planned for the near future bar the Tyranids. No summer campaign this
year, and even if 2006 is spent on the Eldar and Ork revisions that
doesn't leave much from then one to occupy their time - the Marine
sub-Codices and the Dark Eldar, perhaps, but that's about it.
>>"Q: What are your thoughts on the Storm of Chaos outcome?
>>
>>A: Please see my conclusions on the Storm of Chaos website. On
>>the whole, I was every pleased, and in fact overwhelmed in
>>particular by the response to the background and players
>> participation in creating their own storylines.
>
>Great. Another campaign that will be dominated by stupid Fluff
writing over
>actual gaming.
Well by definition a campaign pretty much has to be fluff-based,
though I don't relish the thought of fan fluff along the lines of
"Helmut the L33T beat the Orcs 'cos he was so k3wl. Th3 3N|)".
>>"Q: Codex: Harlequins. Do you still have any connection with this?
Will
>>it receive a 4th Ed revision?
>>
>>A: The Harlequins' fate is still undecided. It's not a question of
if,
>>but rather how and when."
>>
>>Who cares about that bunch of clowns?
>
>That would be those of us who own the RT-era models.
Bleh. I've got a Khorne Devastator with a conversion beamer but I'm
not going to lobby for the weapon to make a comeback (or World Eaters
with heavy weapons for that matter). I've also got a few Harlies, and
they weren't exactly among the best models of the era for the most
part.
>> What about Exodites and Corsairs?
>
>What about them? It's not like GW sold Exodites or Corsairs as such
with an
>actual army list.
They had Eldar Pirates for years, and with models. In any case they
existed as army list entries in the 2nd Ed. Codex, just as the
Harlequins did.
Philip Bowles
Damn. Google was actually working yesterday; still can't get onto
individual.net. Sorry about this...
>>pbowles@aol.com (Philip Bowles) wrote:
>>"Q: Have the Studio put any thought into releasing a list of
non-Human
>>Dogs of War Heroes and Lords? A DoW magic item list?
>>
>>A: Dogs of War are a really big grab-bag of ideas and opportunities
at
>>the moment, and we have no definite plans for them. They will remain
a
>>part of the Warhammer game (hard not to since they are part of the
>>army lists in the books!). There's a series of conflicting ideas
>>present in the Dogs of War at the moment, including DoW, Regiments
of
>>Renown and the Tilean aspects. These need to be separated and dealt
>>with properly. We're not planning any DoW support at the moment, and
I
>>would rather deal with them properly with a specific supplement than
>>nips and tucks here and there through WD."
>>
>>Agreed that a Tilea-based DoW list needs to be separate from the
RoRs,
>>but how hard would it be to simply follow the Ogre model - a
basically
>>Tilean army list in which most units can be taken as DoW, with RoRs
in
>>a separate supplement but otherwise much the same as they are now?
>Because GW hasn't figured out how to release the DoW as a major money
maker?
If they can make Ogre Kingdoms sell they can make DoW sell.
>>Doing a DoW army as the list is at the moment is simply impractical
-
>>it's far too large.
>
>As the WD articles show, the list is fine. It's the model range
that's a
>problem for GW to stock.
That's what I mean - it has more entries than many lists. That being
said, a revised DoW list would be unlikely to be filled with
'placeholder' units designed to allow people to use old models like
Halfling Hotpots and Imperial Dwarfs. I'd be in favour of a wholly
human DoW list (since the Ogre list fulfils the Ogre part of the list
itself), with exotica confined to Regiments of Renown. As I envisage
it, there wouldn't be a Dogs of War list as such, but a variety of
lists such as Ogre Kingdoms, Tilea and Kislev which are designed as
standalone lists but which follow a standard set of mercenary rules
with some or all of their units/characters (as Ogre Kingdoms and the
Kislevite Gryphon Legion do now).
>>"What, if any, direction are the DoW being taken?
>>
>>One idea that I have, and it's only an idea, is to expand the
>>mercenary aspects of armies in larger battles, perhaps using the
>>format of the Allies contingents in a slightly different fashion.
This
>>would allow players to use individual units as they do now, but in
>>larger battles to have a mix of their main army, allies, mercenaries
>>and so on. The important point would be to make them feel more
>>mercenary and not simply allies by a different names. "
>>
>>Nice in theory, but what does he have in mind to make them more
>>'mercenary'?
>
>I'd assume that he'd require any army with DoW to buy a Paymaster
(losing a
>Hero slot) to pay them with, rather than just being able to take the
>Regiment.
From what he says he seems to want to keep the DoW as regiment rules
as they are (in fact he has to - as he points out, that's how the army
list entries are worded in all the army books), but wants to add a
more 'mercenary' feel to DoW as allies. Connected to that I think they
also need to extend the allied contingent rules - Gav's treating them
in his comments here as a universal rule for allies, but so far as I
know they only apply to the Kislevites at present.
>>It's nice to get a definitive answer on the current state of the
>>Chaos Dwarfs; it's a shame that it's that answer.
>
>I was neither surprised nor pleased with the DoW (nor the CD)
declaration.
>Despite the increasing number of DoW, RoR, and For Hire models and
units in
>WFB6. I have the distinct impression that GW is throwing ideas at
the wall >and
>hoping to see something that sticks.
That's fair enough for the RoRs - that's more or less what they're
for, and GW could easily continue with those even if the DoW army list
was on hold (after all there was no DoW army list as such in 5th
Edition, only RoRs), and could carry on adding army list entries that
can double as RoRs (like Malakai Makkaison's Goblin Hewer). I think to
avoid tying themselves in knots GW should simply work on creating a
Tilean army as though it were a 'normal' army list and then add
general DoW-themed rules to it.
>>"Q: Are there any plans to "put back" Malal into chaos?
>>
>>A: None at all. Aside from any old copyright issues, I personally
find
>>the idea of the anti-Chaos Chaos god inconsistent with the way Chaos
>>is supposed to work. However, the idea of personifying the
>>self-destructive side of Chaos is an interesting one and formed much
>>of the inspiration behind Be'lakor."
>>
>>Translation: Be'lakor is Malal. But then we already knew that.
>
>How lame, as we lose all the stuff about mortal Champions of Malal.
*shrug* It was just fluff - if there had been accompanying figures or
rules then there would be cause for complaint. In any case, we know
that some Norse tribes worship Daemons and Be'lakor is a super-Daemon
- it's no stretch to suppose that there are Champions of Be'lakor out
there. Besides, I don't have any problem with the Mordheim idea that
he used to be a god but the others succeeded in throwing him out, so
there used to be "Malal" Champions but might not be any more.
>>"Q: Will an army of Cathay or Araby ever see light of day?
>>
>>A: As an army? Unlikely.
>
>Which is just as well.
Yep. A whole army with S+1 longswords would be really nasty...
>>Well, we need the Chaos Dwarfs and DoW sorted out for starters...
>
>Nope and Yup, respectively.
The CDs don't need sorting out? You missed the fact that they don't
have a model range or revised army list?
>>I would ask Gav is this: what *is* actually going to be going on in
>>WFB over the next few years, since all the obvious things - Chaos
>>Dwarfs, Dogs of War, Regiments of Renown, 7th Edition, Araby and
>>Cathay, army book updates (and very possibly Wood Elves) seem
>>to be some years away.
>
>I can answer that for you: Practically Nothing. GW will be focusing
efforts
>and resources on 40k4 for the next few years, just as 40k3 was
largely
>neglected while WFB6 was shiny and new.
But they don't seem to be going hell for leather promoting 40k4
either. It's pretty much fallen off the radar since the SM Codex - a
token release a month to remind people it exists, and nothing else
planned for the near future bar the Tyranids. No summer campaign this
year, and even if 2006 is spent on the Eldar and Ork revisions that
doesn't leave much from then one to occupy their time - the Marine
sub-Codices and the Dark Eldar, perhaps, but that's about it.
>>"Q: What are your thoughts on the Storm of Chaos outcome?
>>
>>A: Please see my conclusions on the Storm of Chaos website. On
>>the whole, I was every pleased, and in fact overwhelmed in
>>particular by the response to the background and players
>> participation in creating their own storylines.
>
>Great. Another campaign that will be dominated by stupid Fluff
writing over
>actual gaming.
Well by definition a campaign pretty much has to be fluff-based,
though I don't relish the thought of fan fluff along the lines of
"Helmut the L33T beat the Orcs 'cos he was so k3wl. Th3 3N|)".
>>"Q: Codex: Harlequins. Do you still have any connection with this?
Will
>>it receive a 4th Ed revision?
>>
>>A: The Harlequins' fate is still undecided. It's not a question of
if,
>>but rather how and when."
>>
>>Who cares about that bunch of clowns?
>
>That would be those of us who own the RT-era models.
Bleh. I've got a Khorne Devastator with a conversion beamer but I'm
not going to lobby for the weapon to make a comeback (or World Eaters
with heavy weapons for that matter). I've also got a few Harlies, and
they weren't exactly among the best models of the era for the most
part.
>> What about Exodites and Corsairs?
>
>What about them? It's not like GW sold Exodites or Corsairs as such
with an
>actual army list.
They had Eldar Pirates for years, and with models. In any case they
existed as army list entries in the 2nd Ed. Codex, just as the
Harlequins did.
Philip Bowles
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram