Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: robh on 30 October 2018, 06:27:55 PM
-
Not proscribed by army lists from existing rulesets but in general terms: What defines an "XXXXX" army for you?
Where XXXXX is Dwarf, Elf, Ratman, Human, Undead etc be they Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic versions of each (using D&D alignments for familiarity in discussion only)
For example: Are Dwarves always Tough and Slow. Should they display an inability to use magic and are they always Technologically more advanced than other races? Should they be all Infantry or include Cavalry, if so what would they ride? Would a "Lawful/Good" Dwarf be any different than a "Chaotic/Evi"l one in anything other than moral outlook?
I am trying to identify wargame concepts that make a "Dwarf" a "Dwarf" or an "Elf" an "Elf" etc and in such makes him different than a Human. I know it is a bit of an amorphous subject and for each author or game system that says one thing there will be others that say the direct opposite, but if you were to sum up a given racial army type in a sentence or two what would you say?
-
Orcs/Goblins need to have a range of troops from big and tough orc/troll types, through to weak and pathetic gobbos. In general I think they should always have lowish morale and be likely to flee once the influence of their leader is gone from them. The bulk of their forces should also be undisciplined unarmoured or lightly armoured grunts too.
In general I think it should be army that appeals to chancers and those who are happy to win or lose big, depending on the vaguaries of the dice.
-
OK, that is the sort of thought I am looking for. I have never run Orcs so have no idea on the ethos of the forces.
For a historical archetype Ancient Britons/Gauls/Vandals? Warband rank & file with nobles/elites, mixed Inf, Cav and Chariots. Pure Tribal, Professional core with mass Levy or all practiced Warriors?
What about stuff like animosity and infighting, important or not?
-
ORCS: I think the old quote " More than a man at the start of a battle, less than a woman at the end" (or something similar) decribes the orcs. Tough, scrappy, happy to charge in wildly, then melt away. Have some staying power but are prone to being demoralised/panicking when their overlords fail (get killed, don't keep the battlefield under a dark cloud etc). Non Tolkien orcs have all sorts of sizes and can be hulking. Tolkien orcs rely on some big friends - trolls, wargs etc.
ELVES: Kick arse! The uber soldiers. Tall, strong, fast, deadly. But they can be overly rash and emotional. Spontaneous charges, wild pursuits etc can be their undoing. Suffer from a command that is not unified and riven by jealousies. Wood elves are more flighty, lighter armour. Rely on speed, terrain and arrows. Non Tolkien elves have lots of spells.
DWARVES: Immovable rocks. Slow but once they are defending a position are hard to move. Are capable of short devastating charges. Few missiles. GW type dwaves will have technology on their side and weird contraptions.
MEN: These get the worst of all fantasy races. No real special abilities :(. Fantasy writers are racist towards humans! As there are many human cultures it is hard to make any real comments here. In general they have numbers on their side (although not as many as the orcs). Capable of charges and stout defence (possibly not as good as the elves and dwarves respectively, but in the middle ground between the two). Better with command structures, organisation and integrated forces.
-
ELVES: .........Suffer from a command that is not unified and riven by jealousies.......
Now, that is an interesting idea, I had not considered traits as a command aspect.
For humans do you think Armies should be defined, as Warhammer did with discrete Imperial, Bretonnian and Kislev forces or should that be down to player choice? There are thousands of historic human armies to choose from as your basis.
I suppose a related aspect to this is whether fantasy players want to sit and develop armies that are unique to them or just pick units from an XYZ Army list to an agreed points value?
-
OK, that is the sort of thought I am looking for. I have never run Orcs so have no idea on the ethos of the forces.
For a historical archetype Ancient Britons/Gauls/Vandals? Warband rank & file with nobles/elites, mixed Inf, Cav and Chariots. Pure Tribal, Professional core with mass Levy or all practiced Warriors?
What about stuff like animosity and infighting, important or not?
I've always seen Orcs/Goblins as like Ancient Britons in a lot of ways - mostly good going forward but prone to breaking and fleeing, with of course that mix of troop types you list. The animosity and infighting is a good touch, but can get out of hand and ruin a game with a couple of bad rolls! Gotta give them a chance to be bullied into line.
I know there's also different ways of looking at them. I've never liked the GW Goblins and preferred to have an all-Orc force if possible. But I can also see where some would say that goes against the grain and is cheating, and that the Orcs are just the heavy infantry of the Orcs/Goblins force (obviously Tolkein didn't use the two 'races' as separate, it's only in gaming that this split between them has occurred) and that the hordes should be made up of weak Goblins.
I've also always leaned towards the idea that the supreme leader needs to be a non-Orc/Goblin personality, to reflect the fact that they are essentially followers, not leaders. I don't see them as inherently 'evil' in the same way as Undead or Demons, they're just weak-willed, amoral base creatures who are naturally prone to violence, easily led and don't worry overmuch about their master's intentions or endgame. This makes it all the more devastating for them when their general's influence is gone and they are leaderless because they become confused and will just leg it into the hills. I see Orcs/Goblins without a strong willed master as essentially disorganised bandit gangs who might haunt the wilderness until hunted down by the forces of law and order.
-
To define human armies, I'd say they often show the most internal variation across cultures, but their important traits that they are the baseline for physical and magical ability - the other races are defined by how they differ from humans (as that is the standard that the players know best, after all.) But, across all fiction, humans tend to be the ones that when cornered, stand their ground, bring other races together, and hold fast to save the world. Unless they're the weak-willed traitors who side with the force of darkness, of course.
So...I'd say humans are defined as average in everything except their capacity for heroism or villainy - the great ones burn brighter (or exude darker) than other races, but burn out their mortal span quicker. Situational morale: high morale when standing for good/justice/what's right/the survival of our people, but low morale when siding with evil/injustice/corruption/the forces of darkness. Also, humans tend to be the unifiers, for good or evil. A human hero will bring together the elves and dwarfs to stand with the nations of men to hold off the darkness, while a human villain will forge orcs, goblins, trolls, demons, and evil men into the wave of darkness that must be held off.
-
Great idea for a thread!
MEN: These get the worst of all fantasy races. No real special abilities :(. Fantasy writers are racist towards humans! As there are many human cultures it is hard to make any real comments here. In general they have numbers on their side (although not as many as the orcs). Capable of charges and stout defence (possibly not as good as the elves and dwarves respectively, but in the middle ground between the two). Better with command structures, organisation and integrated forces.
Now, I'd say that in most pre-Tolkien fantasy and myth, and even in Tolkien at some points, there's a notion that Men are the best of all species: larger and more vigorous than the older races, and more numerous too. So, Men in folk tales are generally much mightier than dwarfs - which makes sense, when you think about it. But dwarfs are adept in the use of magic.
There's also a common concept that older, more magical races are on the wane - so their lives are more precious (also because they're long-lived or immortal if not slain). Moorcock is good on that in the Corum and Elric books. I think that's best reflected in games by limiting the numbers of elves and dwarfs, and having them highly reliant on magic and magical weapons. So they should be "eggshells armed with hammers": able to deal out lots of damage, but grievously depleted by any damage that comes their way.
Dwarfs are typically cowardly in folklore and myth. They seem to get bullied by human heroes like Sigurd, but they're treacherous and cunning. Some of them can shapeshift, including into dragon form; otters and fish are less militarily advantageous forms. I wonder if their morale might be affected by the success of their magic; there are various instances of dwarfs surrendering after losing their magic cloak/helmet/weapon in legend/myth/folklore.
Orcs/goblins are really just a Tolkien and post-Tolkien thing (you can go back to George MacDonald's goblins if you want, but they're largely the prototype for Tolkien's). In Tolkien, the big thing that comes through is that they're relatively ineffectual against shieldwalls because they're small. They're hardy and fast-moving (and all seem to be archers as well as close-combat troops), but they're simply not as big as Men. I think Cubs and Elthered have covered their morale very well: they run howling when their champions or non-Orcish leaders fall (as in Moria, when the huge chieftain is killed, or after the death of Bolg). Their main advantages are speed of movement (more a campaign/big-battle thing than for skirmishes, perhaps), archery and numbers. They're individually strong, but not big enough to bring that strength to bear in a massed battle. Obviously, the size observations evaporate in the post-Tolkien milieu.
I think Cubs' notion of non-Orcish leaders for Orcs (etc.) is extremely 'resonant'. There are so many examples: the balrog (maybe); Sauron; the ringwraiths (and presumably the Witch King when he was still mortal); the Mouth of Sauron; Saruman; David Bowie in Labyrinth (OK, so he's the goblin king, but he looks very different); Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty; even Jabba the Hutt and his Gamorrean guards.
For Chaos armies, Moorcock's really the motherlode. The most obvious aspect is that the bulk of the army is composed of beastmen. And these beastmen are wretched rather than powerful, GW-style, and there are loads of them. As with orcs, the leader is most likely to be very different: Prince Gaynor the Damned or whoever.
The game that does all this best, I think, is Hordes of the Things. It's explicitly designed to reflect literature and myth rather than other games, and its army lists are all the better for it. They all draw on the same 20 troop types, but the combinations are really interesting and give the armies very distinct characters.
-
I think by definition chaotic and human forces can take any form - even good guy malal chaos. So that makes racial archetypes the conversation. So just word associating it:
Dwarves - robust, hardy, gritty, intractable, stubborn, resilient, xenophobic, materialistic, inflexible, ingenious, mechanical, structured, selfish
Elves - alien, ineffable, inscrutable, fast, flighty, elite, uncooperative, ethereal, ancient, unpredictable, disdainful, arrogant, ephemeral, factional, fragile
Greenskins - spontaneous, single-minded, unplanned, primal, violent, strong, tough, cunning (but not strategic), uncontrollable, uncoordinated, argumentative, horde
Undead - mindless, inexhaustible, inevitable, inexorable, relentless, silent, slow, flimsy, cold, dispassionate, unrelatable, ancient, external
-
I like the idea of Orcs as bandits, a tribal or clan society without strategic aims but willing legions for a manipulative non orc leader. I follow the view of Goblins as being smaller/lesser orcs rather than a distinct development.
The core of the army being an evil Human (or Elf?) with a small unit of like minded trained elite evil warriors/knights and wizards while the bulk is tribal warbands of mixed size/ability Orcs with various weaponry (so no neatly organised bowmen, axemen and 2 sword units). Degenerate human outcast units fighting as allies.
Dwarves as cowardly fighters but powerful users of magic breaks the common stereotypical image (where does the inability to use Magic actually come from?.........is that pure Warhammer?) and while it is certainly a viable idea it would probably be quite a hard sell as an army list......not to mention the dearth of suitable figures.
The vision as a not tall, technically proficient cross between a Viking and an Ozark Mountain Man seems too well established.
The defining traits of "Elf" seem fairly well established and the views expressed so far are broadly aligned. What are your thoughts on splitting "Good" elves between High and Wood as is commonly done post Tolkien (whose distinction was more racial than practical IMHO). Two linked aspects of the same thing rather than two distinct species/races?
Undead are an interesting one for me (When I used to play Warhammer it was always Vampire Counts). I am leaning towards undead warrior types not being inherently evil, taking them as mindless and devoid of will in the service of true evil leaders. I still like the original Warhammer idea that every undead unit has to have a commanding non-undead to keep it active.
-
Hi there
For my project "A Fantastic Saga" (see my signature) I had to ask myself these exact questions.
My thoughts were also influenced by Warhammer, because I wanted to make the factions in AFS so that they are "compatible" with Warhammer factions, but I mostly used what I thought of as typical archetypes in Fantasy as base for the factions....
I try to keep my answer short and just do a quick list with keywords...
Undead: relentless, inducing fear in the enemy/lowering the enemy's morale, can take a lot of damage, regenerate, slow
Dwarves: disciplined, can take a lot of damage, inflict a lot of damage in close combat, slow
Wild Tribes ("evil" Barbarians): lightly armoured, get into a "frenzy", then they inflict crazy amounts of damage
Elves: disciplined, fragile, fast, very precise in their movement and shooting
Nocturnelves (Dark Elves/Evil Elves): disciplined, fragile, fast, very precise in their movement and charges, use a lot of "tricks"
Orcs: I based them on Dacians, use a lot of heavy weapons (falx), are hard to manage/don't have the best discipline, are keen to fight, can get themselves into a frenzy
Kobaloi (Goblins): bad morale, rely on numbers and a lot of "trickery"
Satyroi (Beastmen): are chaotic in their abilities, damage-output can vary, as well as the damage they take, their equipment is very basic
Empire (typical human faction): rely heavily on synergies, they are allrounders with solid infantry and solid cavalry... no extreme strengths but also no extreme weaknesses
Troglodytes (nasty dungeon-crawlers/Skaven/Nightgoblins etc.): rely on numbers, very weak troops, rely on mechanisms that weaken the enemy greatly
-
The defining traits of "Elf" seem fairly well established and the views expressed so far are broadly aligned. What are your thoughts on splitting "Good" elves between High and Wood as is commonly done post Tolkien (whose distinction was more racial than practical IMHO).
Personally I like the approach taken in the latter stages of WFB and in Elder Scrolls (a fantastic alt world) where high/wood/dark elves are a spectrum (wood elves being neither good or evil, more other) and may have started as one race but have definitely diverged (perhaps as far as Falmer, Dwemer). Alien otherworldliness is the defining even trait for me, of any flavour.
-
Hobgoblin, there are a few figures around for more of the traditional mythical dwarves.
http://www.mirliton.it/product_info.php?pName=dworgar-with-sword-and-shield&cName=fantasy-2528mm-dwarfs
I suppose Tolkien's petty dwarves were a nod to the more traditional dwarves of Norse myths. I presume Mim the petty dwarf got his name from Mime in Wagner's Siegfried.
Some of the more human looking orcs might pass as dwarfs in this context.
-
Look at the real world. Each nation has a warfare style that represents it's character. Like I always do when planning an army list, look at the background, look at the available troops/weapons and the army/gang will write itself down, as will the tactics used best for it/them.
-
For my project "A Fantastic Saga" (see my signature) I had to ask myself these exact questions.
Yes, it is a familiar journey for many of us. My interest is in advancing the earlier fantasy expansion of Impetus now that the "official" version is pretty much abandoned.
Leaving the rules (which are a superb mass battle game) but adding in the required Fantasy elements (Magic and Creatures/Monsters mainly).
All good fun...... :?
-
Dwarves as cowardly fighters but powerful users of magic breaks the common stereotypical image (where does the inability to use Magic actually come from?.........is that pure Warhammer?) and while it is certainly a viable idea it would probably be quite a hard sell as an army list......not to mention the dearth of suitable figures.
The vision as a not tall, technically proficient cross between a Viking and an Ozark Mountain Man seems too well established.
I think there's a question for any fantasy game: do you take your stereotypes from myth/folklore/legend/literature, or do you take them from other games? The latter is the more common, but the former is the more interesting, I think.
There are actually plenty of dwarfs out there that would fit the mythical bill. The ones Ethelred linked to are good, but then there are the old Ral Partha ones from Iron Wind:
(http://ironwindmetals.com/store/images/chaoswars/98-113.JPG)
And, if you actually look at the physiques of most dwarf miniatures, they wouldn't be great at fighting: too stubby, too little reach, too stunted in the leg. Oddly enough, if you compare the physiques of (say) a classic Kev Adams goblin and a classic Citadel dwarf from the same period, it's the goblins who have the better physiques for fighting - they tend to be longer in the leg and much longer in the arm, and are pretty muscular with it. Fighting the goblin would be like fighting a very large chimpanzee; fighting the dwarf would be like fighting a severely overweight, albeit steroidal ten-year-old.
So there's this odd thing with miniatures whereby "dwarfs are tough and good at fighting" in rules, but the miniatures themselves portray physiques that might be muscular, but would have a real job swinging an axe to much effect.
There's an honourable exception here for Nick Lund's Fantasy Warrior dwarfs (the ones that Mirliton produce now). They have more similarities with Citadel goblins, in that they combine robust physiques with long arms and relatively long legs. So they do look like they'd be able to swing a skeggox fairly fearsomely. That's why I reckon they make the best Tolkien dwarves.
It's worth noting that Tolkien indicates that dwarves have a tough time fighting Man-sized opponents: at Helm's Deep, Gimli prefers to fight the Uruk-hai (who are presumably around dwarf-sized) rather than the Hill-men. That echoes the Isengard orcs having problems with the Rohirric shield-wall at the Isen.
I think the "not good at magic" trope comes D&D (building on hints in Tolkien) and then into Warhammer. Dwarfs in the Eddas are very good at magic. Oddly enough, I think Tolkien largely transfers the ability that dwarfs have with making magic items in Norse sources to his elves - probably in line with the fact that dwarfs are sometimes called "elves" in the Eddas, etc. So Tolkien has enchantment-working elf-smiths that are probably based on Eddic dwarfs.
Ethelred: yes, I was thinking of Regin in Volsungsaga, who becomes Mime in Siegfried.
-
I should add that the "dwarfs are hard" trope seems to begin with the Battle of the Five Armies in The Hobbit, when Dain and co. are described. Before that, the dwarves of Thorin's company seem more like folkloric dwarfs than under-sized tanks. Even then, though, the dwarves are described only as "very strong for their size" rather than very strong in absolute terms. And the dwarves of the Iron Hills are noted as particularly tough veterans rather than representatives of dwarf-kind.
-
This is a great thread!
I like the idea of a split among the elves as well. Gygax codified it a bit in AD&D, where the High or Grey Elves were more disciplined and cultured, and the Wood elves were wilder and more fae, while both maintained their mystical heritage. 3rd edition D&D established it a bit more, if I recall, by making high elves have Wizard as a favored class (intelligence-based magic) and Wood elves have Sorcerer as a favored class (Charisma-based magic).
-
Yeah, I think hobgoblin is right with dwarves' non-magical nature getting started with D&D. They could not be magic-users (though there were NPC Clerics) and they got bonuses to their saving throws against spells and magic-like abilities.
-
D&D is an excellent source of traits and racial distinctions, it also provides a lot of useful ideas on attack resistance and the alignment categorisation is a very good way of building unusual army themes.
Much like the old WotC Chainmail warband game.
-
Not much discussion yet on Ratkin/Verminkind/Skaven et al.
What are peoples thoughts on the uber tech that dominates in Warhammer? Personally I hate it and see Ratkin as completely different, but do concede that it gives them something unique to give another army a theme. Unlike Lizardmen who seem to have nothing interesting about them at all.
-
I should add that the "dwarfs are hard" trope seems to begin with the Battle of the Five Armies in The Hobbit, when Dain and co. are described. Before that, the dwarves of Thorin's company seem more like folkloric dwarfs than under-sized tanks. Even then, though, the dwarves are described only as "very strong for their size" rather than very strong in absolute terms. And the dwarves of the Iron Hills are noted as particularly tough veterans rather than representatives of dwarf-kind.
They were alo damn tough at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad in the Silmarillion. You are correct about their stumpy physique. Conqueror probably have the right idea with most of their figures being spear armed. D&D and Warhammer loom large over our perception of fantasy races :'(
Perhaps a dwarf is like a rugby hooker. They are usually one of the shortest people on the field but built like a tank and not someone you would want to run into.
-
What are peoples thoughts on the uber tech that dominates in Warhammer? Personally I hate it and see Ratkin as completely different, but do concede that it gives them something unique to give another army a theme. Unlike Lizardmen who seem to have nothing interesting about them at all.
I remember being really excited when I saw Skaven for the first time in the Citadel Journal. The way they swarmed out of the underground tunnels, ambushing the guards in a horde was great and I really liked seeing them have an awe-inspiring, terrifying new weapon in the flame throwers. Sadly, everything GW did with them after that seemed to move away from what was so interesting about them. They weren't small scuttling things, they were man-sized creatures all of a sudden, with gigantic Rat Ogres in tow. They didn't scuttle around through tunnels and sewers ... well, they did, but somehow they were also able to construct enormous machines and devices and tow them around with them. For no apparent reason, these rat beastmen were technologically advanced beyond the most arcane Dwarf or Empire engineers and apparently had gigantic forges to create their inventions.
Lizardmen suffered from being geographically isolated out in Lustria and not being developed enough in the fluff. They would make great infiltrators and secret societies in the style of disguised serpent people and the like. If even the addition of dinosaurs to thier ranks couldn't make them interesting, then something has gone wrong somewhere.
-
They were alo damn tough at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad in the Silmarillion.
Yes, though I was thinking more about publication history here (so The Hobbit is where the idea of tough dwarven fighters is first introduced to the public). One thing about Tolkien's descriptions of heroic warfare is that "everyone's tougher than everyone else". I think that's a feature, not a bug, as you get the same sort of thing in chivalric legend (e.g. The Nibelungenlied). But it makes it quite hard to parse the text in game terms. Take orcs, for example: when we see them close up, the big ones are quite formidable: the big chieftain in Moria, the bodyguard of Bolg, the Isengarders in Rohan. But when we 'zoom out', they become faceless hordes that die in their droves at Helm's Deep and the Pelennor. Gamers nearly always try to rationalise this by suggesting that the bulk of those armies were 'lesser orcs', not Uruks. But the text suggests otherwise: most of those armies were Uruks, and they die in their droves in the big set-pieces because that's what the story demands that they do.
Or to look at it another way: the Uruk-hai are fast, strong, brave, fairly well disciplined, heavily armed and armoured and equipped with powerful bows. The only disadvantage is that they're smaller than Men. But they still die in their droves against our heroes, because that's what the narrative requires. So statting them out in wargame terms can't be an exact science, because the needs of stories and games are very different.
-
I remember being really excited when I saw Skaven for the first time in the Citadel Journal. The way they swarmed out of the underground tunnels, ambushing the guards in a horde was great and I really liked seeing them have an awe-inspiring, terrifying new weapon in the flame throwers. Sadly, everything GW did with them after that seemed to move away from what was so interesting about them. They weren't small scuttling things, they were man-sized creatures all of a sudden, with gigantic Rat Ogres in tow. They didn't scuttle around through tunnels and sewers ... well, they did, but somehow they were also able to construct enormous machines and devices and tow them around with them. For no apparent reason, these rat beastmen were technologically advanced beyond the most arcane Dwarf or Empire engineers and apparently had gigantic forges to create their inventions.
Yeah, exactly that. When they first appeared in Warhammer (in that great monastery scenario), they were unique: no cavalry, but loads of very fast-moving infantry, sneaky assassins and a few bizarre weapons.
Lizardmen suffered from being geographically isolated out in Lustria and not being developed enough in the fluff. They would make great infiltrators and secret societies in the style of disguised serpent people and the like. If even the addition of dinosaurs to thier ranks couldn't make them interesting, then something has gone wrong somewhere.
Their original Warhammer fluff had them popping up everywhere via secret subterranean tunnels. So they were a threat from below to dwarves and orcs. I think their Lustrification made them less interesting, though they worked quite well as a small part of a Slann army, as in second- and third-edition Warhammer. The Slann were interesting tactically, because they could make good use of water terrain and had nicely varied infantry: well-armed palace guards, frenzied braves, cold-one riders, blow-piping scouts and lumbering lizardmen and troglodytes. But yes, the serpent-people pulp thing is very interesting and is the 'natural' role of humanoid reptilians. I guess chaos cultists/mutants/beastmen have that role in Warhammer, though.
-
There's an illustration in the Dragon Rampant book that shows the Lizardmen as iguana-like in appearance and (apparently) quite lithe and agile. That would have been a good take on it.
-
There's an illustration in the Dragon Rampant book that shows the Lizardmen as iguana-like in appearance and (apparently) quite lithe and agile. That would have been a good take on it.
Yes: one oddity of early Warhammer was that it used the same profile (two wounds and all) for the lean and lithe Tom Meier lizardmen and the burly crocodilian Trish Morrison ones. I suppose the skinks (after my time!) are a bit like that. There were originally lesser lizardmen too, but I don't think they survived first edition.
Hordes of the Things has lizardmen with hordes (low-quality but endlessly replaceable) as infantry, supplemented with various beasts 'n' priests. In some ways, that's more interesting than the big, tough D&D-style lizardmen that Warhammer adopted. It's certainly more pulpy.
When I was a kid, the Trish Morrison lizardmen were staples of our 40K games as tough but primitive natives.
-
Hordes of the Things has lizardmen with hordes (low-quality but endlessly replaceable) as infantry, supplemented with various beasts 'n' priests.
But that army theme fits better with Ratmen/Skaven. Rats do swarm (as do Crabs and Beetles and Turtles etc) but Lizards don't. I admit to struggling to find any defining traits of Lizardmen as they are now that are not better suited to other armies.
They have some great figures and the MesoAmerican background should be a rich source of ideas but as an army it is pretty dull really.
Imagine if the Tech of the Skaven had been given instead to the Slann as an Outsider/Alien race viewed as Gods with the Lizards as subjugated local tribes there would at least have been something unique about them.
-
But that army theme fits better with Ratmen/Skaven. Rats do swarm (as do Crabs and Beetles and Turtles etc) but Lizards don't. I admit to struggling to find any defining traits of Lizardmen as they are now that are not better suited to other armies.
I think the effect that the HotT authors are going for is a pulpy feel: endless scaly natives pouring out of jungle ruins. I'm certainly tempted to get another box of these guys (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=77384.msg1411278#msg1411278) to make some cheap HotT hordes.
They have some great figures and the MesoAmerican background should be a rich source of ideas but as an army it is pretty dull really.
Imagine if the Tech of the Skaven had been given instead to the Slann as an Outsider/Alien race viewed as Gods with the Lizards as subjugated local tribes there would at least have been something unique about them.
That's kind of how it was in the early Slann army lists, from memory. The lizardmen (and trogs) were optional extras, as vassal tribes, while the Slann had well-equipped soldiers of various casts as well as their own tribal sorts. And lots of wizards - though, as you say, it would have been better if they had had the same sort of high-tech weapons that the Lustrian Amazons had.
One thing that did give a lot of flavour to lizardmen in early Warhammer was simply their combination of high points and high wounds and toughness. We played a lot of satisfyingly asymmetrical games in which small bands of lizardmen (the Morrison sort, chiefly) advanced steadily to engage much larger numbers of orcs or whatever. Song of Blades and Heroes gets the same effect with its tough, high-cost lizardmen - and that game has the delightful added detail of the Tailslap rule, which allows lizardmen to knock down their foes more often than other troops.
-
A good primary source for "Ratmen" is Fritz Leiber's Lankmhar series of books. I'm fairly confident they are the concept that was eventually turned into the Skaven. They certainly fit the model of the sewer-dwelling, scheming creatures that many of us have come to know.
-
A good primary source for "Ratmen" is Fritz Leiber's Lankmhar series of books. I'm fairly confident they are the concept that was eventually turned into the Skaven. They certainly fit the model of the sewer-dwelling, scheming creatures that many of us have come to know.
Yes - the Lankhmar rats even have a Council of Thirteen, if memory serves!