The Lord-Veritant Joins The Stormcast Eternals Of Age Of Sigmar
October 16, 2016 by brennon
Games Workshop has added another character to the world of Age of Sigmar for the Stormcast Eternals. See what you think of the Lord-Veritant...
"Witchfinder of the Stormcast Eternals, the Lord-Veritant is the eye of Sigmar, the inescapable wrath of the heavens. The blazing light of his Lantern of Abjuration is the terror of evil magic-users across the mortal realms, as he hunts out and systematically destroys them and their vile, corrupting influence.
Leading the faithful to battle, the Lord-Veritant cuts a ruthless path through cultists and daemons until the land is cleansed of their presence.
You can find the rules for this particular unit HERE. It's neat to see a Stormcast Eternal with another of the mighty Gryph-hounds and more cloth and drapery across their armour.
The Lantern Of Abjuration allows the Veritant to unbind spells in the same manner as a Wizard does. He can also 'sanction' an enemy wizard allowing him to deal Mortal Wounds to those that would dare to use magic against his kinsmen.
It's interesting that this has popped up now as a new hero but it would be fun to see if he gets dropped into Silver Tower as well.
What do you think of him?
"He can also 'sanction' an enemy wizard allowing him to deal Mortal Wounds to those that would dare to use magic against his kinsmen..."
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
With each new stormcast release I look with hope that it’ll fill in the vacuum of personality they have, something that makes me see what I’m missing, but alas, this looks like every other model in the range. Competent models, nicely made, but they just don’t “pop”. Feels like a quick conversion.
By Sigmar, Finally! a way of dealing with the enemies Wizards.
Now I can’t help but wonder if this is a precursor to another wave of releases for the Stormcast Eternals, maybe the Sacrosanct Chamber, we shall see.
Oh look, another Sigmarine. They were not even trying to make this one look any different than others which is shame because this line badly needs some models that pop among mass of similar looking models.
Yup, just like all the others. It’s time for GW to hire some sculptors… not minimum wage tweens who can use CAD.
Stupid question, but for those who complain that the the Stormcast have no personality or individuality; What exactly are you asking for? Someone scratching their Gryphon hound under the chin? Smoking a stogie with their left hand on his hips? Turning your head up to the sky and winking? These aren’t the Birdmen of Catrazza or Mengil Manhide’s Manflayers. They’re Terra Cotta warriors that actually work. Expecting them to have personality or individuality is like going to a ramen shop and asking for a burger and fries. Bretonnian Peasants had personality, the Dogs of War had personality, Tomb Kings had… Read more »
Are you saying that the Sigmarines aren’t meant to have personality so don’t criticise them for not having any, that they don’t have any but GW should have given them some, or that armies with personality don’t sell, so GW are just responding to what people buy?
Ironic that you mention Terra Cotta warriors. From what I know they are all unique and have personal differences like real people do. Some have mustaches, others not. They were made to mimic real life as each one was based on a real person. I do see what they were going for as in a united force that follows a template that they all come from. But that can confuse people that try to figure out what each model is. The model above in truth confused me, as the model looks very much like the other model with the gryph-hound.… Read more »
Um… yeah, same here. I saw the gryph hound and thought- Wait, that Stormcast is already available.
@Redben: Kind of wondering that myself. I guess I was trying to say… “Non stercore?” I wasn’t trying to say the people complaining were wrong, but that they WERE stating the obvious. For better or worse (definitely worse in my opinion) GW has given up on personality. I don’t claim to know what people buy, but I doubt GW care to respond anyway. I DO wish the figures/armies had personality. I miss the poxy peasants, and crazed mercenaries flying with Da Vinci- esque wings, and seeing a Chaos Hero actually smile (when I first saw Sigvald, I thought his expression… Read more »
Many of the new models have loads of character. You just have to pay through the nose for them compared to the rank and file.
Nice to see that they can come out with a leader type that’s not riding a humongous, elephatine beastie.
Crap models for a lot of money IMO
@cpauls1 from here on in, i’d appreciate it if you expand on these statements with the reasoning behind them.
Otherwise this is just flamebait, and I think this community deserves better, more reasond disscussion that we can absorb and engage with.
I like the clean computer sculpts. I even like the sigmarines but all the characters look the same its true.
I think the computer sculpts are too busy looking, too hard to put together, and designed to be as hard to convert (or strip) as possible.
That’s actually a small complaint I have about some of the new minis too. they have really unusual assemblies with unique fittings and it makes them extremely difficult to convert without going mad with modelling knives and green stuff. I can only assume it’s to make it harder for other companies to design conversion pieces.
Ah, and you were doing so well GW. But this is just a lazy CAD alteration of the Lord Castellant. And disappointing, the Made to Order service seems to have a time window, rather than providing access to their older sculpts on an individual customer basis.
Still, the Burning of Prospero, Daemon Primarchs and Thousand Sons will make up for this later…
Some times I can’t tell if this is an actual Age of Sigmar model or just a parody someone cooked up on photoshop.
Unashamedly, I love these guys as a concept and I love the way they play. I even love the way they look as an army on the table. I just can’t get along with yet another expensive character mini that looks the same as all the others.
IMO GW should leave the Stormcast alone for a while and concentrate on filling out some other factions.
Having played a few small games with @mage I have to say I liked the minis up close and with a non-gold colour scheme. They do look great on the table. But the characters really blend in, unless their mounted on something dastardly they look a bit rank & file.
True- these guys look pretty nice when they aren’t all in gold.
The trouble with the characters on large beasties is that they’re mostly variants in a kit for a rank and file storm-dude on large draconic beasty (you know, slightly different head and he gets a hammer on his shield instead of a meteor).
It really is hard to give the right one that ‘oomph’ to make him really stand out.
There are some models in the Stormcast range I quite like, but ultimately I’m more interested in seeing the older races getting updates. I think it might be the colour scheme that doesn’t quite jive with me.
Personally I thought the updated Orks, Dwarfs, and Wood elves were infinitely more interesting and thus I’m more excited to see what will roll out for the other factions (I’ll go in hard on any new Skaven stuff tbh).
I actually rather like the mini, but like fleetey I’d like to see some attention to the other races now.
As much as I’d like to see the Steamhead Duardin I think the Aelves need some love now.
As many have mentioned before, this whole range feels so monotone. The Gryph Hounds are cool, but their handlers all feel so identical.
With names like Lord-Castellants and Lord-Celestants and such, with the variation only the head of their weapon and the amount of scrolls bedecking their armour, how does anyone keep anything in this army straight?
Maybe I’m getting old but I have a very hard time keeping any of these releases straight. Bloodletters and Bloodthirsters were easy enough names to mix up in the middle of a game. This army takes it to 11.
It’s nothing original… but it’s a good sculpt, at least.
Wasn’t going to bother as its not something that interests me but decided to look as it was drawing a lot of comments. The one thing I would add is a number of people picking up on CAD as part of the design. Think it is worth saying that a model being designed in CAD is no different to a traditional sculpt. Duplication if elements is easier but there are not inherant limitations with the medium, any issues of simularity or appearance are design decisions or limitations of the sculptor.
@irredeemable: I’m pretty sure it’s to make stripping the paint off the model as difficult as possible (and pretty much impossible to strip without damaging it). After all, why strip the paint off a model you didn’t like when you could buy another one? Of course, I may just be getting cynical and cranky in my old age… @greyhunter88: you think the Stormcast are bad about this? Check out the Chaos Grand Alliance book. You not only have to worry about mixing up Bloodletters with Bloodthirsters and BloodCRUSHERS, you have to be careful not to confuse the Bloodsecrator with the… Read more »
“Bloodsecrator with the Bloodstoker”
Are they real? It sounds like a parody of GW’s naming strategy in recent years.
@redben:
They’re real alright. Pages 247-248 of the Age of Sigmar Rulebook
I’ve made the point before that Bloodletters and Bloodthirsters have names that make sense. Bloodletting refers to killing people in conflict and to be bloodthirsty is to have the desire to kill and maim. Therefore those two types of daemons have names that sound good, make sense, and actually reflect what they are. I thought Bloodcrushers had the stupidest names (do they actually crush blood?), but these two surpass that. I’m assuming Bloodsecrator is a portmanteau of ‘blood’ and ‘consecrator’, and presumably means something like ‘one who consecrates blood’. It sounds terrible but at least I can make some sense… Read more »
He whips friendly units into a frenzy so they run into combat faster and reroll failed wound rolls. Funny thing is the model’s right arm ends in a stump with a blade jammed into it, implying his abilities can backfire but there are no rules for that.
Which is mainly what I’m getting at. The stoker bit makes sense and reflects what the model does, but for some reason GW creative are sticking ‘blood’ where it doesn’t belong. It’s like they’ve seen Bloodletter and Bloodthirster and not understood what its presence there is doing. Bloodletters do let blood, Bloodthirsters do thirst for blood, but Bloodstokers stoke people, not blood, and Bloodcrushers crush people, not blood. Neither are blood themselves either, so the word has no meaning. Bloodsecrator is different. I don’t know what they do but if it involves consecrating blood then it at least makes sense.… Read more »