Page 2 of 5
Re: Early Warhammer armies explained.
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:43 pm
by Jeremy
WoE = Wanking over Everywhere?
Re: Early Warhammer armies explained.
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:32 pm
by Purple
There’s a video here for those of you that fanny about with goblins
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OSS7UzUEqTU
Re: Early Warhammer armies explained.
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:43 pm
by Buff Orpington
What a fine figure of a wargamer.
Re: Early Warhammer armies explained.
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:14 pm
by Zenbadger
It seems to be out but I don't know anyone who has played it. It isn't making much of a splash around Nottingham anyway. I am more interested in the forthcoming Oathmark rules anyway.
Re: Early Warhammer armies explained.
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:16 pm
by Jeremy
Not big here either. I’m holding out for SoTK
Re: Early Warhammer armies explained.
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:18 pm
by Zenbadger
SoTK?
Re: Early Warhammer armies explained.
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:20 pm
by Jeremy
Sword of the King. A set (hopefully) soon to be released by Mike Hobbs, Ade Deacon and Jim Ibbotson
Re: Early Warhammer armies explained.
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:27 pm
by Zenbadger
Can't find anything on it but I'll have a look out for that, thanks.
Re: Early Warhammer armies explained.
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:32 pm
by Jeremy
It’s in test play at the moment and will be released under the TFL banner. It uses the Sharp Practice core engine with a lot of tweaks apparently
Re: Early Warhammer armies explained.
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:59 pm
by Buff Orpington
One thing that it could be in its favour is that it shouldn't be figure prescriptive. Mantic may have picked up the ball that GW dropped but it still ties your army choice to their range or a usable proxy. I assume Oathmark is similarly tied to their own range.
It's about time that someone did a massed battle system that was as freeform as Dragon Rampant. Why should a system tell you that you can't field dwarf cataphracts just because their company don't make any.