Monday, 12 April 2021

Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3rd Edition Goblins - 'The Stuntie Spikers': part one.

After painting Agrat the Goblin Fanatic last month as test model I thought it would be good to start painting a Goblin regiment.

Over the last few months, years really, I have been sorting out my miniature collection into 3,000 point armies based on the lists in Warhammer Armies. Some of these armies are based on armies used in scenarios and sample army lists. One of these is the Orc and Goblin army used in the Warhammer Fantasy Battle 3rd Edition scenario 'The Valley of Death', found in White Dwarf #97, January 1988. 

Without going in deep details (which I will do at a later date) the scenario consists of four armies, two Dwarf, one Orc, and one Goblin, all meeting up for a jolly good time (well, bloodbath really!) in a valley. Like all the Warhammer scenarios of the time the forces involved have a colourful back story and details.These armies were not designed to do anything other than be the forces involved in the scenario.

Now I have had the idea of converting many of these armies, some from 1st and 2nd Edition, into usable 3,000 point 3rd Edition armies. For many this isn't difficult, and only really requires the addition of a few extra troops or magical items. By combining the Orc and Goblin armies in this scenario straight from the pages, you end up with a 2,565 point army. I have been doing this for several armies, not just Orc and Goblin ones. So I am making a start with the Stuntie Spikers. If one is to start anywhere, I feel Goblins are the best place to start. :) 

Enjoy :)

White Dwarf #97.
The Valley of Death.
The Stuntie Spikers army list entry.
The 40 little Goblins themselves.
They are 40 Goblins with spears, but on armour. In order to keep the spikey/hedgehog look of the unit I have moved the Standard Bearer and Musician back into the middle/rear of the unit. In theory this negates their usefulness in the rules, but hopefully I would play someone who appreciates aesthetics over rules pedantry!
Converted standard bearer.
I have converted the standard bearer from an old broken Goblin Fanatic.
A very rude Goblin. :)
One of the Character in the scenario is a Goblin Hero named 'Zitpicker'. He has no specific miniature to represent him, but as he has light armour and spear, and he's a character model, I thought this Goblin would fit perfectly.
Another Goblin hero is 'Blackhead'.
Both he an 'Zitpicker' are known as the spot brothers, due to their awful complexions. Blackhead is mounted on a wolf, and so I thought I would make him look more characterful by mounting a normal wolf rider Goblin on a spare 1980s Lord of the Rings range Warg. He is a WIP, but I thought it would be nice to see him so far.

Next update will be Goblins!


  1. Great use of that original list to update into a 3 rd edition list Lee, should have loads of character

    1. Thank you. I wanted to have an army with a depth of background to it, and to see if it was possible to do this via some of the old army lists and scenarios. I have done this for several other lists, but all are WIP at the moment.

  2. Interesting stuff and one of the scenarios I still haven't gotten around to playing. Love that fanatic/standard bearer conversion!

    1. Thank you, I was wondering what to do with the broken goblin and thought he would make a good enthusiastic looking standard bearer. I've never played the scenario either, but I am enjoying building the armies and fitting them into the Warhammer Armies lists.

  3. Brilliant idea! We too love that behind the military units we paint there is a story that makes them more alive and gives them more personality. We would like to have more information from the "White Dwarf" pages about the scenario. We also agree that the aesthetics of a unit is important and the way you have arranged the goblins with the spears is very effective. We are not players and maybe we are wrong, but is this unit designed as skirmishers, with spaces between the bases of the goblins?

    1. Thank you.
      It's always nice to have a background to an army and the regiments in it. You are correct, I feel that it does give an army more of a personality. I will look at putting the scenario details on the blog, although I don't have a working scanner at the moment.

      The Goblins aren't meant to be skirmishers. I am using slightly bigger movement trays to allow more room for the miniatures. Too often you can't see some of the lovely miniatures as they are cramped together.

    2. Thanks for the reply. Maybe this is not the right place for a discussion, but we too are planning a beastman unit (you can see some preliminary photos on the blog: and we are torn between the demands of the game and the aesthetics. Having more space between the miniatures for scenery and not necessarily having to put the champion, the flag and the musician in the first line would be ideal, but how can this be compatible with the game rules of WHFB or T9A?

    3. I prefer having that extra space between the miniatures as it allows you to see them better and not be so bunched up. It also means that you are not having to work out which miniature have to go where in order to fit a closer order. It allows you place the miniatures where you want them to go.

      With regard the placement of standards bearers and musicians, although the rules do state they have to be in the front rank, as long as you let your opponent know you've placed them somewhere else for the look of the unit, then it shouldn't be a problem. If they do have a problem, then it's down to their lack of consideration for the hobby aesthetics of a fine looking regiment of miniatures!
      By the way, I like the Gnoll/dog man themed Beastman regiment which you are building.

  4. Thanks again for your opinion and appreciation of my Nuthgnawers. I hope to be able to move forward with my project soon.