Sgt. Cortez wrote: I feel like T5 is a very handy change for a horde army. Orks needed something, FNP or +1wound would have been fiddly, 6++ wouldn't be useful really (and hey, some of them got that, too ).
"orkstodes", really? Forgive me but I must have overlooked the 3 wounds or the 2+ save...
With all the firepower and abundance of AP Orks will rarely use their saves, at least give them something.
As a custodes player, I am really feeling my army's 8th editionitis and am eager to see where they take the golden boys, but always with the fear that my faction is the one that gets the edition's miss
Tyran wrote: Your calcs seem consistent, t4->t5 is a 33% survivality increase vs s4.
Against s5 it is a 25% increase and vs s8-9 it is a 20% increase.
I actually dislike orks getting wounded on 3s vs str 8/9, but this is a common dislike for how the wound matrix works. It feels even worse on a horde though
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: I'm just sad that there's so much bolterporn people can't believe that ork heads live off the body for a few hours, and that with their fungal soup type organs they can have a hole blown through em and be fine.
See that isn't toughness though--toughness would be taking the shot and it failing to cause significant damage. That's never been what orks do; they take damage quite readily but it takes an inhuman amount of it to bring them down. That's multiple wounds.
Says who? I don't mean to offend, but you really are just applying your head-canon to abstract numbers. Orks, as a whole army, currently doesn't function as portrait in the fluff on the tabletop. If changing any of the numbers makes the army as a whole feel and play like orks again, what does it matter whether a model has a 4 or 5 in its statblock? It's also worth noting that 2 wounds means that a boy is *guaranteed* to survive the first lasgun or bolter shot, while T5 is not. How is that not killing your suspension of disbelieve?
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I feel like T5 is a very handy change for a horde army. Orks needed something, FNP or +1wound would have been fiddly, 6++ wouldn't be useful really (and hey, some of them got that, too ). "orkstodes", really? Forgive me but I must have overlooked the 3 wounds or the 2+ save... With all the firepower and abundance of AP Orks will rarely use their saves, at least give them something.
As a custodes player, I am really feeling my army's 8th editionitis and am eager to see where they take the golden boys, but always with the fear that my faction is the one that gets the edition's miss
I really think that custodes are going to get an additional wound and maybe an extra toughness on top of that. Four wounds is a rather powerful place to be, since nothing but dedicated anti-tank weapons can kill you easily.
Ork resilience would be better represented via Feel No Pain, but that's tons more dice rolling. The next best way to show that is multiple wounds, but that's almost as time consuming.
T5 is an elegant solution that abstracts their resilience further than the other two, but will save everyone a lot of time in the long run. It was the best choice.
Ork resilience would be better represented via Feel No Pain, but that's tons more dice rolling. The next best way to show that is multiple wounds, but that's almost as time consuming.
T5 is an elegant solution that abstracts their resilience further than the other two, but will save everyone a lot of time in the long run. It was the best choice.
Yeah, I agree. 6+++ on units that can have 30 models is a pain, not to mention that there may also be the 6+ t-shirt save or 5++ KFF invuln to roll, and FNP is a roll in addition to one of those saves.
Ork resilience would be better represented via Feel No Pain, but that's tons more dice rolling. The next best way to show that is multiple wounds, but that's almost as time consuming.
T5 is an elegant solution that abstracts their resilience further than the other two, but will save everyone a lot of time in the long run. It was the best choice.
Yeah, I agree. 6+++ on units that can have 30 models is a pain, not to mention that there may also be the 6+ t-shirt save or 5++ KFF invuln to roll, and FNP is a roll in addition to one of those saves.
One reason I have never liked facing dark eldars was precisely all that dice rolling with FNP. Even with fixed damage weapons vs 1W it still adds up extra steps. If multiple wounds are involved or random damage then...uuuugh.
And then people wonder why games take longer to play.
Nazrak wrote: Something that's pretty apparent from the discussions around this are that various people have their own ideas of what Toughness and Wounds represent, when they're both really just abstract variables that can represent resilience in different ways. Personally, I don't think there's any way one can argue that one or the other is *objectively* the wrong stat to be using.
Particularly when it comes to Wounds, the W characteristic has always had something of a flexible "meaning", ranging from "this is a big, resilient thing" or "this guy arbitrarily has more wounds so you don't lose your heroes etc too fast, in-game"
On this I certainly agree, and I do not mean to frame my argument as anything other than one of subjective flavor. Which, looking back, I could have done better. Ultimately it's kind of the straw breaking the camel of my suspension of disbelief. I think it also seems worse for me personally because my narrative brain is still attempting mental gymnastics to get around AoS zombies
Still more complicated (and more record keeping) than T5.
I guess? We deal with that from marines all the time though and it's never been considered an issue. Yeah less models, but the only time it actually matters is damage d3 weapons where they must be individually rolled in case of a 1. It just isn't that big a deal, negligible compared to the time spent on rolling h/w/s in the first place. FnP is actually adding a whole extra step to that (and then must be rolled individually in the case of multi damage weapons) and is a whole order of severity worse. But I do completely agree that a fnp would be too impractical to be worthwhile.
I think 2W with no save (well, a 7+) for basic boys would be more thematic and also save way more time than it would add. *sigh* but it is what it is. I think I would be more accepting if it wasn't piled on top of other crap like DG's resilience to small arms fire being represented by literally the exact opposite.
Which funny enough makes them tougher vs bolters than orks, tougher vs autocannons.
And of course they are still without codex. At least last time I checked tyranids haven't yet got 9e codex. It's pointless to compare 9e codexes to 8e codexes since GW decided to up the power scale to 11th with new codexes. Just be happy your book is later. Power creep ensures tyranids will stomp orks when they come up.
Not my book, and I could care less about winning. Ensuring that Tyranids will stomp Orks because their book will come out later ignores the evidence of earlier editions, and is not a good thing either: What's the point of winning of it wasn't in question in the first place?
Tyranid Warriors are mostly fine at their current point cost. 17 points for T4 W3 4+ is quite decent IMHO. My only real issue with them is that their upgrades are poorly balanced (no reason to take devourers when deathspitters are vastly superior, same with rending claws vs boneswords).
Tyran wrote: Tyranid Warriors are mostly fine at their current point cost. 17 points for T4 W3 4+ is quite decent IMHO. My only real issue with them is that their upgrades are poorly balanced (no reason to take devourers when deathspitters are vastly superior, same with rending claws vs boneswords).
As an avowed member of the Sad Old Git Brigade, I want Tyranid Warriors to be proper scary again.
Whilst never that hard to deal with, they need to be a thorny prospect. Something you could leave to Infantry weapons and Heavy Bolter equivalent weapons, but Killy enough that you were better off properly blatting them.
That’s my memory of them from 2nd Ed certainly. And I’d say it’s a gap they need to fill all the more urgently because Nids have seriously diversified since then (as in 2nd Ed, your biggest and nastiest critter was the Carnifex. Or Screamer Killer as it was).
Right now, at T4 they’re too handily dealt with by infantry level weapons to really be worth hitting with stronger weapons. And they’re simply not deadly and therefore scary enough to overly worry me as an opponent.
Yes there may be dusty memories and rose tinted glasses in this post. But I stand by it. They need to be an awkward middle ground. And I think T5 W3 (maybe 4?) might tickle that pickle.
I basically have nostalgia for the 'just wait for your codex update' statements at this point. It reminds me of hearing it during better times. Just as bull back then as it is now, but the field in which the gak lay was nicer.
I don't think Tyranid Warriors would be a problem at all if they weren't $65CAD for three vs $70CAD for ten Intercessors. I mean, maybe if Tyranid Warriors were 33 points each and you could just keeping recycling them onto the board or something interesting.
Replacing their terrible Instinctive Behaviour with a reversion to 2nd editions Tyranid Attack would be cool.
Further edit: This comes back to Orks needing to be able to get across the field in a big horde and still have a fighting chance to defeat an army equipped to shoot them all off the table. Leafblowers make for bad games, and so does only playing with 1/2-1/3 of the models you deployed after the first turn. It would be better if ten bodies were ten bodies, and the rules enabled them to do different things to represent their various proclivities and backgrounds, and did so along more than the lethality/survivability axis. Giving Orks T5 was something of an inevitability where that's the only change you can make (and we know they weren't going to revert to BS4+ to make them shootier).
I wish the game had progressive penalties to hit rolls based on range. But then I also wish tacking hit penalties back again so dense cover can do something other than enabling my opponent's heavy/assault weapons to move/run without penalty, render my venomthropes obsolete, and make hit debuffs only useful against melee. The problem was only ever that 6s didn't auto-hit but GW went in with a hammer instead of a scalpel. Now there is a very finite limit on how rebuffed shooting can be, so why not go all-in?
Ork resilience would be better represented via Feel No Pain, but that's tons more dice rolling. The next best way to show that is multiple wounds, but that's almost as time consuming.
T5 is an elegant solution that abstracts their resilience further than the other two, but will save everyone a lot of time in the long run. It was the best choice.
Yeah, I agree. 6+++ on units that can have 30 models is a pain, not to mention that there may also be the 6+ t-shirt save or 5++ KFF invuln to roll, and FNP is a roll in addition to one of those saves.
I'm not entirely sure the painboy and KFF are gonna survive unchanged.
The painboy especially seems to be wierd if he can hand out mass FnP still since that kin of defeats the point of not just giving orks a FnP
Tracking wounds on a 2 wound 20+ model unit of boyz would be a pain once the enemy started firing D3 or D6 damage weaponry at it. I'd prefer the 1 wound T5 honestly.
cody.d. wrote: Tracking wounds on a 2 wound 20+ model unit of boyz would be a pain once the enemy started firing D3 or D6 damage weaponry at it. I'd prefer the 1 wound T5 honestly.
While I do personally prefer the move to T5, tracking wounds has never been hard for 8th and 9th edition. Since you allocate to one model and once it dies you go to the next.
cody.d. wrote: Tracking wounds on a 2 wound 20+ model unit of boyz would be a pain once the enemy started firing D3 or D6 damage weaponry at it. I'd prefer the 1 wound T5 honestly.
While I do personally prefer the move to T5, tracking wounds has never been hard for 8th and 9th edition. Since you allocate to one model and once it dies you go to the next.
As an example, firing a battle cannon at a unit of boyz. After hitting and wounding he has to roll each damage roll separately to see if a boy is killed outright or not. Throw in a painboy and even more rolling just to keep pretty cheap, throwaway infantry alive. As apposed to with 1 wound. Cannon wounds, it kills.
cody.d. wrote: Tracking wounds on a 2 wound 20+ model unit of boyz would be a pain once the enemy started firing D3 or D6 damage weaponry at it. I'd prefer the 1 wound T5 honestly.
While I do personally prefer the move to T5, tracking wounds has never been hard for 8th and 9th edition. Since you allocate to one model and once it dies you go to the next.
Never faced d3 damage weapons before?
Especially with fnp to mix?
You roll to hit, you roll to wound, you roll save, you roll damage, you roll fnp. you determine did you die. With multi wounds and fnp you can't even fast roll damage and fnp but have to do those...one...by...one.
With flat multi damage at least then you can skip roll for damage but still...fnp is one by one 2/3/4/5/6 dice at a time.
With the changes, this makes an Ork Nob almost have Ogryn stats, but he has access to better wargear. Even with the recent points drops Ogryn are still 25 points each. I suspect Nobs will be going up in price.
I’m guessing this will also make things like Ork bikers and Warbosses T6? Maybe the Defkilla will become T7? I’d also be very interested in what (if any) stats increase they make to Deff Dreads if basic Orks are now tougher
Bosskelot wrote: The stat increases for bikes and vehicles are what I'm interested to see, yeah. T6 bikes? The same T as a buggy?
Yes, it makes sense actually. Buggies were paper things with AV10-10-10 once, same as trukks, which is basically the equivalent of T6 now. Tougher dudes on bikes and light vehicles sound like they could easily have the same T and armour values. Wounds of course would be very different.
Ive played orks competitively for so much time, this is my opinion.
Orks needed the AP- 1 with the same cost or +1p. No way 5 marines can tank 30 orks and even win the fight. And dont even try to charge the 5 bladeguards bubble with a justicar, because you wont kill even 1
The point is, T5 changes the meta. No way a standard tournament list not adapted to hordes can face 120 T5 guys with a warboss, painboy and invulnerables. Not even a vehicle oriented list can stop them. Orks invade the whole board 4 turns, and when you kill them you have no longer available troops to do missions.
No way they will make boyz cost 9 or 10p, it will be free win for us, orks will cost like 13 or 14p so lists with 120 orks with painboy, weirdboy and warboss will cost like 1800p, so you will be limited to play like 60 orks and it means much less attacks (maybe thats why they gave us a - 1). So less ofensive power.
13 or 14 pts....roflmao. So 75% point increase for less increase in durability. You hate orks or why you want to make them SOFTER per points? You realize right 14 pts T5 would make them easier to kill than 8 pts for T4?
Thats why theyll do it, because people stack too much boyz. No way anyone can deal with 120 T5 6++ 6+++ obscured turn1 advancing and charging for 2000 attacks ap-1 and resurrecting after the combat.
They must nerf it in any way, maybe no more invul, maybe high costs, maybe anything, but saying theyll cost 10 points is objectivity 0. Free win for any ork in any tournament (people cannot adapt)
I think at T5 and AP-1 they finally worth their 8ppm price tag. 9 at most, definitely not 10+, unless they also get other rules/interactions that justify that. I'd remove buffs and shenanigans to enhance them though, starting with the Green Tide and Skarboyz stratagems.
Anyone can deal with 120 1W T5 t-shirt saves models, they just need to adjust their lists. Which is one on the reasons why Drukhari do so good in tournaments: typical tournament list is overly tailored against elites.
Number of attacks in combat is also off, typically 30 boyz will get 10-15 dudes within range which means 40-60 attacks. Same as 10 blood claws, except those SW dudes strike on 2+ pretty much everytime and from turn 3 they also gain AP-2 and 6 to hit grant double hits. Goffs exploding 6s on 40-60 attacks aren't extremely significant, Skarboyz costs 1CP per mob and Ghaz is 300 points.
My casual SW lists have 48 assault cannons shots, plus tons of bolters, chainswords and claws. Killing 45+ orks per turn was pretty much guaranteed, with the new codex it may be 30ish which is still a lot. Anti horde tailored lists can definitely delete 60 boyz in one turn.
Kebabcito wrote: No way anyone can deal with 120 T5 6++ 6+++ obscured turn1 advancing and charging for 2000 attacks ap-1 and resurrecting after the combat.
They must nerf it in any way, maybe no more invul, maybe high costs, maybe anything, but saying theyll cost 10 points is objectivity 0. Free win for any ork in any tournament (people cannot adapt)
Troll detected.
1) I assure you, lots of armies can deal with 120 T5 6++/6+++ bodies. Assuming all your weapons are affected by the toughness change in the worst possible way, instead of losing 60-90 boyz per turn, orks will now lose 40-60 boyz per turn. Or in other words - "I kiLL 10 LeSS boyZ PeR tURn, thE SKy iS faLLIng!" 2) No board ever can obscure 120 boyz. And if it can, maybe you should not put an entire tournament's worth of ruins on one table? 3) If ork boyz advance and charge you turn 1, you helped them do it. 4) Usually no more than 10-12 boyz per mob get to strike. 5) Only one unit gets to resurrect per game, and the stratagem will likely see a nerf/disappear.
I’m interested to see how this changes up Orky lists.
Whilst Green Tide does seem a laugh, with the T boost, you now need fewer Boyz than before to accomplish the same goals (as in, put crudely, start here, get over there, with enough ladz to do the job).
If we perhaps see people reducing down the size of their Mobs, that’s a fair amount of points freed up. I’m looking forward to seeing what people spend them on (assuming Boyz don’t jump in price)
Kebabcito wrote: Thats why theyll do it, because people stack too much boyz. No way anyone can deal with 120 T5 6++ 6+++ obscured turn1 advancing and charging for 2000 attacks ap-1 and resurrecting after the combat.
They must nerf it in any way, maybe no more invul, maybe high costs, maybe anything, but saying theyll cost 10 points is objectivity 0. Free win for any ork in any tournament (people cannot adapt)
This is a situation that might happen in some optimal, everything going the ork player's way, dream scenario. Realistically, it's a giant pain the butt to move that many ork boyz across the table without somebody getting in somebody else's way, even more so once you factor in even a bare minimum of terrain. And as others have said, you have a very low chance of ever getting all 30 boyz close enough in a melee to use all of their attacks. Nevermind the casualties that all the units will face due to shooting and morale losses as they footslog across the table.
I think T5 ork boyz is the bare minimum that they could have done to make ork infantry a tiny bit more effective. I'm curious to see if bikers, warbosses, etc will all go up in Toughness as well, and if so, if that means that various ork vehicles will also gain a small increase. If the Warboss and the bikers are T6... that's the same as a trukk right now if I remember correctly. And trukks die to a stiff breeze.
Whilst Green Tide does seem a laugh, with the T boost, you now need fewer Boyz than before to accomplish the same goals (as in, put crudely, start here, get over there, with enough ladz to do the job).
If we perhaps see people reducing down the size of their Mobs, that’s a fair amount of points freed up. I’m looking forward to seeing what people spend them on (assuming Boyz don’t jump in price)
Hell yeah. That's my mood too. New codex means new nonsense to slap down on the board and go wild with.
If I can play a green tide with 30 less models and have it just as if not more effective than before then i'll call that an absolute win. If a swarm of trukkboyz becomes viable again because they'll actually survive a round or two and kill something in return then i'll be a happy ork. Or even trukknobz! There could be some damn fun times ahead.
Because wounds don't carry over FnP is always going to be a pain on multi-model units, which is why it bogs down gameplay in 40k so much as opposed to AoS. They could mitigate that by making damage carry over from model to model but making it so a weapon can never deal more damage than a model's wounds characteristic. It would simplify and speed things up but also be a (small but notable) boost to random damage weapons that I am unsure they or players particularly want.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Because wounds don't carry over FnP is always going to be a pain on multi-model units, which is why it bogs down gameplay in 40k so much as opposed to AoS. They could mitigate that by making damage carry over from model to model but making it so a weapon can never deal more damage than a model's wounds characteristic. It would simplify and speed things up but also be a (small but notable) boost to random damage weapons that I am unsure they or players particularly want.
Because right now if I hit a 2-wound unit with a d3 damage weapon and roll a 1 then a 3 I do 2 damage total, whereas if it were as I said above it would be 3. Personally I would be quite happy to deal with that in exchange for the added convenience and practicality. After all, even without FnP multi-damage needs to be rolled one at a time in cases like the above and it slows things down. But I can also understand if someone preferred what we have now.
If one wanted to just address FnP the most direct solution would be doing it like Nurglings; it only works against a damage characteristic of 1. By GWs own description this how disgustingly resilient SHOULD work rather than the bizzaro-opposite DG has now.
Yeah, right now Disgustingly Resilient is ass-backwards, working against higher damage weapons but giving no extra resilience against low damage weapons.
It's a bit like how shooting at someone in cover is hard, but because they're in cover I can move and shoot my heavy weapon with no further penalties.
GW doesn't really understand how to scale rules correctly.
It's a bit like how shooting at someone in cover is hard, but because they're in cover I can move and shoot my heavy weapon with no further penalties.
GW doesn't really understand how to scale rules correctly.
Right? it should have been something like
1) Attacking units positive hit modifiers
2) defending units negative to be hit modifiers, cannot reduce total below -1
3) attacking units negative to hit modifiers, no cap
4) if final number is a positive number reduce to +1
IF gw ever brings back things like bonus's to be hit on defending target (large size back in warhammer fantasy) could make that step 5 with no positive cap, but thats another topic on adding negatice accuracy modifiers to anti tank weapons and +to be hit modifiers to large sized targets.
that way enemy negaitive effects could reduce the modifier to as low as -1, but then any self inflected negatives to hit could drop it lower, none of that gak of free advancing/shooting assault weapons or move/firing heavy weapons when enemy already has -1 to be hit.
It's a bit like how shooting at someone in cover is hard, but because they're in cover I can move and shoot my heavy weapon with no further penalties.
GW doesn't really understand how to scale rules correctly.
Right? it should have been something like
1) Attacking units positive hit modifiers
2) defending units negative to be hit modifiers, cannot reduce total below -1
3) attacking units negative to hit modifiers, no cap
4) if final number is a positive number reduce to +1
IF gw ever brings back things like bonus's to be hit on defending target (large size back in warhammer fantasy) could make that step 5 with no positive cap, but thats another topic on adding negatice accuracy modifiers to anti tank weapons and +to be hit modifiers to large sized targets.
that way enemy negaitive effects could reduce the modifier to as low as -1, but then any self inflected negatives to hit could drop it lower, none of that gak of free advancing/shooting assault weapons or move/firing heavy weapons when enemy already has -1 to be hit.
Couldn’t this be even more simplified to something akin to the DND advantage system? Attacking unit has advantage (+1), unless there’s something that would give disadvantage (terrain, defensive grenades, etc.)
Optional: Call the rule “I have the high ground” for the lolz
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, right now Disgustingly Resilient is ass-backwards, working against higher damage weapons but giving no extra resilience against low damage weapons.
It's a bit like how shooting at someone in cover is hard, but because they're in cover I can move and shoot my heavy weapon with no further penalties.
GW doesn't really understand how to scale rules correctly.
To be fair, DG as a whole package feel perfectly right. T5 + 2/3 wound + good armor already makes them very resilient against small arms, the -1 damage makes sure that a plague marine or terminator remains a night unstoppable juggernaut and doesn't suddenly pop like a balloon because someone hit the overcharge switch on their plasma gun.
People need to start looking at the whole picture and drop the mindset that each number or bespoke rule represents a specific trait. This clearly hasn't worked well in the last two decades, so it's good the start breaking those arbitral restraints now.
Kebabcito wrote: Thats why theyll do it, because people stack too much boyz. No way anyone can deal with 120 T5 6++ 6+++ obscured turn1 advancing and charging for 2000 attacks ap-1 and resurrecting after the combat.
They must nerf it in any way, maybe no more invul, maybe high costs, maybe anything, but saying theyll cost 10 points is objectivity 0. Free win for any ork in any tournament (people cannot adapt)
So how they deal with equilavent point t4 boyz? That would be harder to kill. T5 14 pts would be lot easier to kill.
Do you think orks are op now because you are saying gw are nerfing them...
Also you assumn 6++ 6+++ arb still available. Green tide is also likely going.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Yeah, right now Disgustingly Resilient is ass-backwards, working against higher damage weapons but giving no extra resilience against low damage weapons.
It's a bit like how shooting at someone in cover is hard, but because they're in cover I can move and shoot my heavy weapon with no further penalties.
GW doesn't really understand how to scale rules correctly.
To be fair, DG as a whole package feel perfectly right. T5 + 2/3 wound + good armor already makes them very resilient against small arms, the -1 damage makes sure that a plague marine or terminator remains a night unstoppable juggernaut and doesn't suddenly pop like a balloon because someone hit the overcharge switch on their plasma gun.
People need to start looking at the whole picture and drop the mindset that each number or bespoke rule represents a specific trait. This clearly hasn't worked well in the last two decades, so it's good the start breaking those arbitral restraints now.
I'd still rather they have just given DG stuff 50% more wounds. It works out the same as the old FNP against most things, doesn't require the slow rolling that one did, and doesn't generate unintuitive break points like the new one does. D2 still works, it just takes a little more, and D1 things aren't weirdly efficient.
I'm down for the T5 orks, though, as it's just another combination of the (probably too) many "durability" stats that 40k has. If we're going to have them, why not use them? And certainly an ork's physiology can represent that as much as anything. Even a marine needs his various organs to live, after all, but orks aren't really bothered by a short stint without lungs.
Thanks to this discussion I'm thinking of T5 orks not so much as being super tough outright but rather 'T4+fnp rolled in=T5' which is making me no longer dislike it. Still wish it had been an extra wound, but I'm cool with it now. Thanks Dakka!
Rogerio134134 wrote: When are we thinking for the release? O heard spikey bits saying it could be end of June but I'm doubtful tbh.
After today's preview the rest of June is now taken up with AOS. Preview next Sunday, then two-week preorder on the 19th.
I'm expecting the Beast Snagga box to come out sometime in July, with the GK/TS books in August, and Ork main release in Sept/Orktober. Just like how they left a couple of months gap between the Sisters box and full army release.
Rogerio134134 wrote: When are we thinking for the release? O heard spikey bits saying it could be end of June but I'm doubtful tbh.
After today's preview the rest of June is now taken up with AOS. Preview next Sunday, then two-week preorder on the 19th.
I'm expecting the Beast Snagga box to come out sometime in July, with the GK/TS books in August, and Ork main release in Sept/Orktober. Just like how they left a couple of months gap between the Sisters box and full army release.
Don't forget we also have the Stormstrike Chariot, Beast-Skewer Killbow, etc. releasing "...hard on the heels..." of Dominion so that will take up another week of releases at the minimum.
Bought my first Battlewagon in anticipation today. Lets hope that the new Codex makes filling it with green brawn a good choice. If not I should've bought that Trukk+Skrapjet. Or Snazzwagon and Skrapjet.
And an idea I just had: squigs and squighoppers as Grotz. Mount a few guns on them and I'd have use for all the cheap squig herds I bought as sprues. Or would they be better as choppa boyz?!
Binabik15 wrote: Bought my first Battlewagon in anticipation today. Lets hope that the new Codex makes filling it with green brawn a good choice. If not I should've bought that Trukk+Skrapjet. Or Snazzwagon and Skrapjet.
And an idea I just had: squigs and squighoppers as Grotz. Mount a few guns on them and I'd have use for all the cheap squig herds I bought as sprues. Or would they be better as choppa boyz?!
I run:
Squigz as choppa boyz
Squig Hoppers as Stormboyz
Snotling Pump Wagons+Fanatics as dual-choppa or big choppa+choppa nobz
gobbapalooza as 2 runtherds, 2 weirdboyz, 1 painboy
mangler squigs as bonebreaka
Binabik15 wrote: Bought my first Battlewagon in anticipation today. Lets hope that the new Codex makes filling it with green brawn a good choice. If not I should've bought that Trukk+Skrapjet. Or Snazzwagon and Skrapjet.
And an idea I just had: squigs and squighoppers as Grotz. Mount a few guns on them and I'd have use for all the cheap squig herds I bought as sprues. Or would they be better as choppa boyz?!
I run:
Squigz as choppa boyz
Squig Hoppers as Stormboyz
Snotling Pump Wagons+Fanatics as dual-choppa or big choppa+choppa nobz
gobbapalooza as 2 runtherds, 2 weirdboyz, 1 painboy
mangler squigs as bonebreaka
MajorWesJanson wrote: What are the odds on the Stompa finally costed appropriately, either by dropping a couple hundred or getting some serious buffs?
I'm cautiously optimistic, given that quite a lot of stuff in the newer Codices seems to have had a bit of thought into making it at least viable, if not great. But ultimately, who knows?
Seems like they don't want the superheavies to be too powerful, so most of them got real expensive points-wise. GW seems to have no problems with very powefrul special characters, but are wary of vehicles.
But the FW killtanks seem to be ok for their cost, so hopefully the Stompa gets looked at. It's not exactly like they are unaware of the ridiculous points cost - ork players constantly point it out. So if it's still heavily overcosted in the new codex, it is definitely intentional - they don't want us to use it. Would be a shame though, because it's such a cool and unique model.
Binabik15 wrote: Bought my first Battlewagon in anticipation today. Lets hope that the new Codex makes filling it with green brawn a good choice. If not I should've bought that Trukk+Skrapjet. Or Snazzwagon and Skrapjet.
And an idea I just had: squigs and squighoppers as Grotz. Mount a few guns on them and I'd have use for all the cheap squig herds I bought as sprues. Or would they be better as choppa boyz?!
I run:
Squigz as choppa boyz
Squig Hoppers as Stormboyz
Snotling Pump Wagons+Fanatics as dual-choppa or big choppa+choppa nobz
gobbapalooza as 2 runtherds, 2 weirdboyz, 1 painboy
mangler squigs as bonebreaka
Hmm, I like the squig hoppers as stormboyz.
Can also have Doom divers as mek guns.
I mean i just use mek guns and big gunz as mek gunz. dont need more of those! mostly, just looking for excuses to use the wonderful squig units from the gloomspite gitz (they have truly infuriating rules in age of sigmar, just the worst kind of 'lolrandom', so I run them with my already hilariously overstuffed all grots all day long 40k army.)
Just out of curiosity - does anyone remember if the 8th ed Sisters codex had pictures of old models that would then be replaced by new ones after the book's official release?
The pics of the old boy sculpts in the most recent 'ere we go article killed my hopes of new Boyz models or snaggas (when released separately) being a dual kit, but now I'm thinking that they used the old photos because they still haven't revealed new ones.
Dreamchild wrote: Just out of curiosity - does anyone remember if the 8th ed Sisters codex had pictures of old models that would then be replaced by new ones after the book's official release?
It had pictures that were mostly just the stuff in the preview box. Beyond that they showed off the characters that had been revealed, the basic multi-part SoB squad, and the vehicles. They didn't even show off the new Repentia, Archos or Retributors. It was very strange.
Dreamchild wrote: Just out of curiosity - does anyone remember if the 8th ed Sisters codex had pictures of old models that would then be replaced by new ones after the book's official release?
It had pictures that were mostly just the stuff in the preview box. Beyond that they showed off the characters that had been revealed, the basic multi-part SoB squad, and the vehicles. They didn't even show off the new Repentia, Archos or Retributors. It was very strange.
Thanks! This kinda gives me hope that some of the 5-6 yet unrevealed ork kits might be reworks of existing ones.
Ofc this is just a personal preference and I completely understand that some current ork players might be disgruntled by the prospect , but I personally don't feel like rebuying the same kits I had as a kid, and things like a potential dual snagga/boy kit may be the solution that doesn't step on anybody's toes. I'd still be happy with just focusing on newer models if snagga boyz do end up being troops though.
So a grot will be the same toughness as a power armoured SOB, an Eldar Aspect warrior/trooper, IG & tau warriors all which are at least twice the size?
I hope this is a WC error.. its beyond dumb..
I get orks going to T5 makes sense tbh... but grots.. Cmon GW..
Argive wrote: So a grot will be the same toughness as a power armoured SOB, an Eldar Aspect warrior/trooper, IG & tau warriors all which are at least twice the size?
I hope this is a WC error.. its beyond dumb..
I get orks going to T5 makes sense tbh... but grots.. Cmon GW..
So you're ok with gretchin at T2, S2, with range 12 guns and t-shirt saves at 5ppm? Because honestly at that price points it's almost even worth unpacking them for deployment, they'll die in droves to, well, anything. I think T3 is the least bit of upgrade they could get.
Grots have almost always been tough (most editions they were T3), they're still greenskins and used to being trod on and kicked.
It's ork toughness in a small package.
Gretchin have been Toughness 2 since 3rd edition, actually. (I checked my codexes a few days ago because someone else here on Dakka was asking about it.)
Argive wrote: So a grot will be the same toughness as a power armoured SOB, an Eldar Aspect warrior/trooper, IG & tau warriors all which are at least twice the size?
I hope this is a WC error.. its beyond dumb..
I get orks going to T5 makes sense tbh... but grots.. Cmon GW..
So you're ok with gretchin at T2, S2, with range 12 guns and t-shirt saves at 5ppm? Because honestly at that price points it's almost even worth unpacking them for deployment, they'll die in droves to, well, anything. I think T3 is the least bit of upgrade they could get.
Grots have almost always been tough (most editions they were T3), they're still greenskins and used to being trod on and kicked.
It's ork toughness in a small package.
Gretchin have been Toughness 2 since 3rd edition, actually. (I checked my codexes a few days ago because someone else here on Dakka was asking about it.)
Argive wrote: So a grot will be the same toughness as a power armoured SOB, an Eldar Aspect warrior/trooper, IG & tau warriors all which are at least twice the size?
I hope this is a WC error.. its beyond dumb..
I get orks going to T5 makes sense tbh... but grots.. Cmon GW..
Size is represented by wounds. Power armour, being an armour(hint is in the name), with armour save(weird that. ARMOUR providing ARMOUR save)
Yeah I get all that that. The pts and save of course plays a part. But making grots the same baseline toughness as your average humanoid just seems really really stupid. The entire toughness chart is needlessly capped at 8 so there is very little room for granulity. That's a whole separate issue along with pts costs and save values.
But Grots are essentially something you can squish with your foot..
I dunno, a grot and a regular baseline human feel like they would have a messy scruffle on the ground, wrestling like a pair of teens who have no idea what they're doing. A catachan would squish em for sure. Maybe even a cadian? But a regular human i'm not so sure.
Argive wrote: Yeah I get all that that. The pts and save of course plays a part. But making grots the same baseline toughness as your average humanoid just seems really really stupid.
The entire toughness chart is needlessly capped at 8 so there is very little room for granulity. That's a whole separate issue along with pts costs and save values.
But Grots are essentially something you can squish with your foot..
I don't really agree.
In 1st and 2nd ed, gretchin were s/t 3 and orks were s3 t4. Gretchin were basically short human orks.
In 3rd ed they were dropped down to s/t 2, for some reason to make them completely useless.
orks have gone through a couple of stat revisions:
1st-7th: s3 t4
8th: s4 t4
9th: s4 t5
Gretchin:
1st-2nd: s3 t3 (also BS3 and carried autoguns, making them a cheap guard chaff squad for orks)
3rd-8th: s2 t2 (8th put them back to BS3/ 4+)
Orkoids are very tough and resilient. As they're pushing orks up to be tougher (the toughest they've ever been - they've NEVER been tougher than a space marine), it makes sense for gretchin to go back to a toughness they used to have.
Nah, a grot isn't much weaker than a space elf or a guardsman, it's basically a little troll. T3 is appropriate. T2 could have made sense in ages in which models that worth 3ppm existed, now thankfully GW is trying to counter hordes of useless but ultra annoying to delete weak bodies. 5ppm for the cheapest/weakest creature is something I like, but then of course those models need an appropriate set of stats and rules.
In fact I think basic orks should always have been +1T compared to SM or other T4 infantries, they look like culturists in comparison. And gretchins -2T compared to regular orks.
Yeah, grots may look like goofy little goblins, but they're nasty little buggers and the way that ork society works, the grots that survive long enough to even make it to the battlefield are gonna be hard as nails.
A baseline human wouldn't stand a chance in a straight fight, and even a veteran guardsman would struggle, I'd say. You just know that these little buggers are gonna fight dirty (and gang up on you if they get the chance).
I'm fine with grots being just as tough as a human, especially if they are going to cost the same as a cultist.
Grots are tough little buggers, and it makes sense to make them T3 for them to be worth 5ppm. It would make less sense to give them a better armor or invulnerable save.
T3 grots makes sense. It's pretty disingenuous to argue that models which share a single stat are somehow equivalent. Wraithlords and Reaver Titans are both T8, doesn't mean they're equally easy to kill.
All orks are tough on a scale that makes the average 40k human, hell the average humanoid of any other race look like plywood.
Makes sense to me one of the weakest of the Ork race (Grots) are still surprisingly tough buggers. I would somewhat expect S2 T3 on their statline in a way.
Onto another question - Snaga beast riders. Any thoughts on statlines/Weapon profiles? I just... Need that rocket spear in my life to shank Marines with
Speaking of the weakest of the orkoid race... I highly doubt it would happen, but I would LOVE to see swarms of snotlings come back. They used to have this super fun rule that they would mimic what units near them would do. Actual game play it was a little annoying, but so flavorful.
So my wishlist is actual units of playable squig herds and snotling swarms!!
They look about the size of the BS boyz, so I wonder if these are from a multi-part kit with the option for shootas, rather than the fixed-pose ones we’ve seen already.
I think they're new boyz. If you look at the beast snagga teaser video you'll see boyz squads with heavy weapons carried on the shoulder. You also see a meganob with a chain axe. Given how the other things in the video were exact copies of minis I expect these to be too.
Could be a new boyz kit. There looks like aspects of the old boyz kit in there, the guns look very similar. But none of the torsos look similar. The one on the far left has a rather dynamic pose by the looks of things.
If it is a new boyz kit i'll likely get at the very least one copy, have some fun with it and sprinkle the new models in an old boyz mob to kick up variety, like the handful of squigs filling out the unit and making things look unique. Unless the new kit turns out to be everything an ork could want, then my boyz horde may get at least partially updated.
Though sadly those necks don't look like ball joints, so low possibility in all likleyhood. Maybe separate shootaboyz units/kits?
First on the Necron Warriors and now on the Ork Boyz.
Both my main armies getting new regular Troops models. Now my old Necron warriors look fine next to the new ones, but I'm a bit more worried about my old Boyz - the new ones look bigger and more buff.
But since I'm still on 25mm bases and was planning to rebase all of them anyway, maybe it's just easier to get the new ones instead and update the paint scheme a bit... depends on the price though...
On the other hand, those might just be Snaggas with Shootas, which would save me a lot of effort...
Well now I'm looking forward to seeing new Boyz! If they are good, I'll buy at least a box or two to compliment my existing Boyz. (I have just purchased base adapters for them).
Jidmah wrote: Someone on the ork thread pointed out that these might be two old boyz and a beastsnagga.
Personally I think this is highly unlikely. The one on the top right is definitely something new (bare chest), while the one on bottom right has a pose too dynamic for current boys if anything.
The one on the front is the most difficult to tell, but I think that left arm looks more buff than the boyz' current ones (the legs seem different too but I can't be sure).
Jidmah wrote: Someone on the ork thread pointed out that these might be two old boyz and a beastsnagga.
Personally I think this is highly unlikely. The one on the top right is definitely something new (bare chest), while the one on bottom right has a pose too dynamic for current boys if anything.
The one on the front is the most difficult to tell, but I think that left arm looks more buff than the boyz' current ones (the legs seem different too but I can't be sure).
It just looks that way because it's the more angled shoota arm that is cleverly hidden by the shoulder pad and well painted. The head of shoota boyz forced to look in the direction of their gun and you can see that angle on both those models.
That said, I re-watched all the videos and looked at all the pictures and there is no beast snagga boy like the one in the back - all of them are wearing shoulder pads and fur on their backs, none of them have similar gun. So I guess there still is a chance that these are new sculpts that are modeled very closely to the current models.
Oguhmek wrote: Yes those are definitely not the current Boyz. Poses are different, arms are thiccer, the hands holding the Shoota look different, naked torso etc.
The helmet on the right one looks like one of the current ones, but that's fully in line with an updated kit a la Necron Warriors.
The question is really if they are just Goff Beastsnaggas with Shootas or if they are actually updated Boyz.
Beast snaggas have different boots and pants from those models.
Oguhmek wrote: Yes those are definitely not the current Boyz. Poses are different, arms are thiccer, the hands holding the Shoota look different, naked torso etc.
The helmet on the right one looks like one of the current ones, but that's fully in line with an updated kit a la Necron Warriors.
The question is really if they are just Goff Beastsnaggas with Shootas or if they are actually updated Boyz.
Beast snaggas have different boots and pants from those models.
If they *are* new Boyz, I'll be skipping them unless the scale/look is still consistent with a) the existing Boyz; b) all the other units that are based off the existing Boyz (Lootas, Stormboyz, vehicle crew etc). I'll take "old" over "mismatched" every time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wonder if we might see something about this on WhC in the next couple of days; they're usually pretty swift at responding to this sort of speculation these days.
Nazrak wrote: If they *are* new Boyz, I'll be skipping them unless the scale/look is still consistent with a) the existing Boyz; b) all the other units that are based off the existing Boyz (Lootas, Stormboyz, vehicle crew etc). I'll take "old" over "mismatched" every time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wonder if we might see something about this on WhC in the next couple of days; they're usually pretty swift at responding to this sort of speculation these days.
This is the big problem as I see it with updating existing lines. The current ork range is hugely interchangeable with one another, and you can use parts and pieces from a generic ork boy in a dozen other different kits. Unless GW is also planning on releasing new burnas/lootas, Stormboyz, and so on, all of that flexibility goes out the window with a new ork boyz kit. Which, it being GW, will also likely be more expensive and less poseable(yes, even if "poseable" just means a slightly different arm or head position). IMO ork boyz are already too expensive at $35/10, which adds up really quickly in a horde army when you need 90-120 of them.
Mr. Grey wrote: This is the big problem as I see it with updating existing lines. The current ork range is hugely interchangeable with one another, and you can use parts and pieces from a generic ork boy in a dozen other different kits. Unless GW is also planning on releasing new burnas/lootas, Stormboyz, and so on, all of that flexibility goes out the window with a new ork boyz kit. Which, it being GW, will also likely be more expensive and less poseable(yes, even if "poseable" just means a slightly different arm or head position). IMO ork boyz are already too expensive at $35/10, which adds up really quickly in a horde army when you need 90-120 of them.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, but I have to point out that storm boyz are the one plastic kit not compatible with boyz Burnas/lootas, warbikers, battlewagon and trukk crew, the mini mek all are build exactly the same as boyz, and the nob options are compatible with nobz and flash gits as well.
Most kommando and tankbusta skulpts can also mix and match bits with them.
Mr. Grey wrote: This is the big problem as I see it with updating existing lines. The current ork range is hugely interchangeable with one another, and you can use parts and pieces from a generic ork boy in a dozen other different kits. Unless GW is also planning on releasing new burnas/lootas, Stormboyz, and so on, all of that flexibility goes out the window with a new ork boyz kit. Which, it being GW, will also likely be more expensive and less poseable(yes, even if "poseable" just means a slightly different arm or head position). IMO ork boyz are already too expensive at $35/10, which adds up really quickly in a horde army when you need 90-120 of them.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, but I have to point out that storm boyz are the one plastic kit not compatible with boyz Burnas/lootas, warbikers, battlewagon and trukk crew, the mini mek all are build exactly the same as boyz, and the nob options are compatible with nobz and flash gits as well.
Most kommando and tankbusta skulpts can also mix and match bits with them.
The arm joints are a bit weird on Stormboyz, but it's still a pretty easy swap, and the heads are totally cross compatible. Plus they're still aesthetically consistent with the rest of the range. Obviously we'll have to wait and see, but it'd be a real shame for that aesthetic and component compatibility to go away, and I can't see them completely reworking every unit in the way they did with Primaris Marines.
In a way I'm sad because I love the current ork boyz and I was sad to see their fantasy equivalents go the way of the dodo, specially the boar riders.
But no kit last forever my son. (With the exception of craftworld eldar). The price increase will sting, no doubt. But the kit will be probably pretty good. At least with troops, GW has make decent kits in recent times, intercessors, sisters of battle, etc...
Nurglitch wrote: Plus there's an absolute ton of non-GW kits out there using the Brian Nelson's Ork-aesthetic. Probably why GW are changing it up...
...are there? Because I haven't noticed any 3rd party sellers that make Nelson-esque orks, they usually veer in very different directions(Kromlech for example).
I'd include Kromlech, although there's Wargame Exclusive, 3D Art Digital, Creature Caster, Artel W, GearGutz' Mek Shop, Vidovic Arts, and a ton of stuff on Thingiverse and ShapeWays.
Shadow Walker wrote: New Necron Warriors, new Boyz. Who knows, maybe there are some new Gaunts for nids too?
My dreams of a new Eldar range springs anew.
We'll see if the rumor pans out with the GK vs TS box, but purportedly battleboxes going forward will be one side getting a new hero and one side getting all new models.
I am so psyched to see a possibility of new Ork Boyz. Recently, I started building a new Ork army and stopped half way through hearing of new model rumors. I guess I will have a mix of old and new Ork models which to me feels pretty Orky given how they can vary in size, color and form factor.
I often look at the LoTR films and note how many of the Orcs look so different.
Bigger swole-boyz are a big yes from me. If I want to kitbash sawing through plastic is the easiest thing ever* and if they suck, there's probably enough old kits still on sprue to be had to last a while.
If they give us new Kommandoz that look good they'll sell me an entire Blood Axes army on top of that.
*case in point, the very not interchangable Savage Orcs and BB Orcs turned into all sorts of 40k units
Shadow Walker wrote: New Necron Warriors, new Boyz. Who knows, maybe there are some new Gaunts for nids too?
My dreams of a new Eldar range springs anew.
We'll see if the rumor pans out with the GK vs TS box, but purportedly battleboxes going forward will be one side getting a new hero and one side getting all new models.
I would be pretty suprised if this rumor ends up panning out. I feel like the new battlebox is just going to have the new Infernal Master and Castellan Crowe model.
If the GK side got all new models, I would be impressed.
Can't the "new shoota boyz" just be regular snaggas? In the picture of the new army box, with the whole 20 man squad of snaggas there's one of them with some sort of shoota, second row from above. It's the only model with a two handed ranged weapon, I guess maybe those snaggas can be equipped with shootas just like boyz.
Blackie wrote: Can't the "new shoota boyz" just be regular snaggas? In the picture of the new army box, with the whole 20 man squad of snaggas there's one of them with some sort of shoota, second row from above. It's the only model with a two handed ranged weapon, I guess maybe those snaggas can be equipped with shootas just like boyz.
Blackie wrote: Can't the "new shoota boyz" just be regular snaggas? In the picture of the new army box, with the whole 20 man squad of snaggas there's one of them with some sort of shoota, second row from above. It's the only model with a two handed ranged weapon, I guess maybe those snaggas can be equipped with shootas just like boyz.
Nope. That's a special weapon for the unit (that body can also be equipped with an double handed axe). The beast snaggas are 10 mono-pose models, none of which show up in this picture.
Well well well. I've not been particularly keen on a lot of the newer Ork stuff; the faces don't seem as characterful as the older Nelson sculpts, but I'm actually pretty into this. If things work out, scaling-wise, I might get a box of these to mix in with my existing Boyz, but if not, I've got plenty of other Ork backlog to work through and can see myself cycling round to getting some of these eventually.
Nice little treat from GW to brighten up a Monday. I like it, my only concern is how much they're going to up the prices. For an army which relies on 30-boy squads usually, this is going to hurt.
Valkyrie wrote: Nice little treat from GW to brighten up a Monday. I like it, my only concern is how much they're going to up the prices. For an army which relies on 30-boy squads usually, this is going to hurt.
This is my concern, too. As a veteran ork player I'm set with a good number of boyz already, but new players will be hurting if the price isn't right on the new infantry. Going by current trends I can easily see a new Ork Boyz box being $45 for 10. Really what I'd love to see is a 20-man box for maybe $55 or $60. That way you're immediately set with a mid-size mob of boyz right out of the box.
On the new Boy.... not sure how I like the new trend in ork faces.
Wouldn't be that surprised to see the rules move away from actively encouraging full-size units of Boyz tbh. Much more of a concern than price for me is the level of variety you can get out of them. The repeated identical poses on the Beast Snaggas don't fill me with confidence on that front…
Grabbed a boy and a Nob to do a quick size comparison, and was pleasantly surprised. The angle of the base isn't *quite* right, but close enough to see that the new ones haven't got stupid big, they're just a bit more upright than the old Boyz, and the Nobz are still plenty bigger.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is the Beast Snaggas box going up for pre-order in July new information, or did we know that already?
Valkyrie wrote: Nice little treat from GW to brighten up a Monday. I like it, my only concern is how much they're going to up the prices. For an army which relies on 30-boy squads usually, this is going to hurt.
What if Boyz can no longer be up to 30? Not saying that is the case, but 9th edition has been making some significant changes to what we see as core tenets of the game. Bigger models, bigger bases, maybe no longer units of 30. Maybe 20 max?
I've super excited. First, new necrons, now new boyz. Please GW, continue the trend of updating core models (Eldar, pretty please). I know its unpopular, but I'm willing to pay more for better orks over the current kit. (Though maybe GW will pull a StD and release the new boyz in a start collecting style set, while keeping the current boyz around
Valkyrie wrote: Nice little treat from GW to brighten up a Monday. I like it, my only concern is how much they're going to up the prices. For an army which relies on 30-boy squads usually, this is going to hurt.
What if Boyz can no longer be up to 30? Not saying that is the case, but 9th edition has been making some significant changes to what we see as core tenets of the game. Bigger models, bigger bases, maybe no longer units of 30. Maybe 20 max?
I wondered the same. Did poxwalkers cap out at 30 before, or have they always been max 20?
I'm going to be a bit surprised if they decide not to do new gretchin as well. The current models work fine, but now that we have the named Runtherder again, I would have figured GW would try to capitalize on that
Valkyrie wrote: Nice little treat from GW to brighten up a Monday. I like it, my only concern is how much they're going to up the prices. For an army which relies on 30-boy squads usually, this is going to hurt.
What if Boyz can no longer be up to 30? Not saying that is the case, but 9th edition has been making some significant changes to what we see as core tenets of the game. Bigger models, bigger bases, maybe no longer units of 30. Maybe 20 max?
Remove the green tide rule which requires 20+ models and mobs will shrink naturally. Before 8th mobs of 30 were generally seen as a liability because 3x20 boyz are usually better than 2x30.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nazrak wrote: I wondered the same. Did poxwalkers cap out at 30 before, or have they always been max 20?
Valkyrie wrote: Nice little treat from GW to brighten up a Monday. I like it, my only concern is how much they're going to up the prices. For an army which relies on 30-boy squads usually, this is going to hurt.
What if Boyz can no longer be up to 30? Not saying that is the case, but 9th edition has been making some significant changes to what we see as core tenets of the game. Bigger models, bigger bases, maybe no longer units of 30. Maybe 20 max?
I wondered the same. Did poxwalkers cap out at 30 before, or have they always been max 20?
Poxwalkers were always 20. Cultists were 40, that is now limited to 30 in the new DG codex and CSM v2.
Agreed, the current models are definitely showing their age, but these new ones are phenomenal and would actually encourage me to start an Ork army.
Well, I hope you have ~500 canadian dollars set aside for your minimum troop requirements.
Yeaaaah, as happy as I am that boyz are getting some loving in the model department, it's going to be an easy excuse for GW to price the absolute heck out of the new box that you'll undoubtedly need loads of if you're new to the faction. 10 for 60$ here we go againnnn
I mean, it's not too late to load up on the current, cheaper boyz kit. They may not look as nice, but you could fill out an army with the older ones, and sprinkle in the new for variety. We still have a month or more before the kits replaced.
Valkyrie wrote: Nice little treat from GW to brighten up a Monday. I like it, my only concern is how much they're going to up the prices. For an army which relies on 30-boy squads usually, this is going to hurt.
Safe to say minimum same as cadian infantry now(35e, boyz 28e). Could go to sister level as all new and not just upgrae sprue.
But good they seem to fit with old. So no need to replace models and still looks coherent. Ndt much options and likely making tank bustas etc becomes harder but that's expected. New ork players will have it expensive
Valkyrie wrote: Nice little treat from GW to brighten up a Monday. I like it, my only concern is how much they're going to up the prices. For an army which relies on 30-boy squads usually, this is going to hurt.
What if Boyz can no longer be up to 30? Not saying that is the case, but 9th edition has been making some significant changes to what we see as core tenets of the game. Bigger models, bigger bases, maybe no longer units of 30. Maybe 20 max?
3x20 isn't any cheaper for wallet than 2x30.
20 w1 no save t5 will go poof same as 30 at t4. Ie enemy snap fingers.
You still need lots or all your boyz dead before they reach enemy.
Hey look monopose monobuild boyz, we'll be lucky if they can swap heads and guns within the same box, 100% can't swap with any other kit, 100% can't have choppa/slugga option in the same box.
I really like the new Ork rider mini, just wonder what the effect of stupid orkstodes stat inflation will be. T7 nobs? T8 bosses/meks? T9 warbosses? T12 Ghaz? And the new dude probably too, if not something like T14, seeing named characters, cyborgs, big mounts, and cavalry all give +T bonuses. Move over Warmaster titan, new hotness is coming to show you who is hardest boss around
GaroRobe wrote: I've super excited. First, new necrons, now new boyz. Please GW, continue the trend of updating core models (Eldar, pretty please). I know its unpopular, but I'm willing to pay more for better orks over the current kit. (Though maybe GW will pull a StD and release the new boyz in a start collecting style set, while keeping the current boyz around
Did you miss the memo? SC are kaput now. This is not AoS with tons of cool discount boxes, 40K will get garbage ork patrol box and we'll be happy if it has more than 20 minis in it (and then some clowns will still praise it for being gReAt DeAl)
jullevi wrote: I don't think I am going to miss the old Boyz. Being multipose doesn't do much if none of the poses look good.
Well pose is pretty much same. But this one might not even have both weapon loadouts same. And same pose on every 10th gets old. Particularly with nob/special weapon. Same every model
Well looking even more on the brightside, this may mean an influx of cheaper old boyz on the secondary market.
So if you are going to start a new Ork army or just need more boyz (I actually fall in the latter) you can either get cheap older ones on eBay or get a couple of boxes of the new guys and spatter them among your old guys.
Might actually create some nice diversity within the units and not look so out of place.
Huh, that's it then, new Boyz. Will be interesting to see how modular they are and how interchangeable they are with the other kits. I have sooo many heads, arms and torsos in my bitz box, and it would be nice to be able to mix it up a bit.
Irbis wrote: I really like the new Ork rider mini, just wonder what the effect of stupid orkstodes stat inflation will be. T7 nobs? T8 bosses/meks? T9 warbosses? T12 Ghaz? And the new dude probably too, if not something like T14, seeing named characters, cyborgs, big mounts, and cavalry all give +T bonuses. Move over Warmaster titan, new hotness is coming to show you who is hardest boss around
GaroRobe wrote: I've super excited. First, new necrons, now new boyz. Please GW, continue the trend of updating core models (Eldar, pretty please). I know its unpopular, but I'm willing to pay more for better orks over the current kit. (Though maybe GW will pull a StD and release the new boyz in a start collecting style set, while keeping the current boyz around
Did you miss the memo? SC are kaput now. This is not AoS with tons of cool discount boxes, 40K will get garbage ork patrol box and we'll be happy if it has more than 20 minis in it (and then some clowns will still praise it for being gReAt DeAl)
Well. You can of course pay more than you would. Initial price is higher yes. But so is discount.
But guess you want to pay more for same. Each to his own good for you to have money to waste
As much as I love the current ork boyz. This one looks promising. And is "simple" enough that maybe, just maybe, GW delivered and they have a ton of options.
They remind me of the orks of Space Marine, the videogame.
EDIT: But with new necrons and new orks, the "new" cadians, more expensive for just an upgrade sprue are even more aggravating.
Updated physique is a big improvement over the old models, though I miss the characterful "angular" Brian Nelson heads. Most of the recent Ork/Orruk released have these heads with more rounded and soft facial features.
Modularity-wise, the most we can expect is a set two sets of arms designed to fit a specific body (probably shoota and CCW/pistol) and maybe interchangeable heads.
GaroRobe wrote: I've super excited. First, new necrons, now new boyz. Please GW, continue the trend of updating core models (Eldar, pretty please). I know its unpopular, but I'm willing to pay more for better orks over the current kit. (Though maybe GW will pull a StD and release the new boyz in a start collecting style set, while keeping the current boyz around
Did you miss the memo? SC are kaput now. This is not AoS with tons of cool discount boxes, 40K will get garbage ork patrol box and we'll be happy if it has more than 20 minis in it (and then some clowns will still praise it for being gReAt DeAl)
Hence why I said start collecting style, not just a start collecting. But yeah, I doubt we'll get something great like AOS deals in 40k for the foreseeable future.
Galas wrote: As much as I love the current ork boyz. This one looks promising. And is "simple" enough that maybe, just maybe, GW delivered and they have a ton of options.
They remind me of the orks of Space Marine, the videogame.
EDIT: But with new necrons and new orks, the "new" cadians, more expensive for just an upgrade sprue are even more aggravating.
Yeah, I don't understand why they didn't take the plunge for a full resculpt tbh. Imperial Guard were one of the runner ups for me when I was deciding what army to start when I began 40k. Football head Cadians and misshapen Catachans definitely put me off, it killed me that DKoK and Elysians were resin for me at the time since I loved their tanks and stormtroopers. It's shocking that they leave core plastic kits like that languishing for years while they add another Primaris Lieutenant for the umpteenth time.
Nazrak wrote: Grabbed a boy and a Nob to do a quick size comparison, and was pleasantly surprised. The angle of the base isn't *quite* right, but close enough to see that the new ones haven't got stupid big, they're just a bit more upright than the old Boyz, and the Nobz are still plenty bigger.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is the Beast Snaggas box going up for pre-order in July new information, or did we know that already?
Could you chuck in a Beast Snagga to this scale comp? Curious how they stand next to the older models/new boyz.
Find out more about Mozrog and Big Chompa when Codex: Orks arrives later this year, but don’t forget you can get hold of it early in the Beast Snagga Orks Army Box that we had a good look at during Warhammer Fest Online. You won’t have to wait long either – the Army Box is set for pre-order in July, so mark your calendars and get your Waaagh! banners raised high.
From this it sounds like the Beast Snaggas box will either be late July/early August, with the rest of the releases and separate codex to come... in fall? September? October? Later than that?
Which honestly annoys me mostly because I don't know if I'll be able to get the Snaggas box(like most people) and will then have to wait for the codex to drop on it's own. And yes, I know, standard GW operating procedure, blah blah blah. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
Nazrak wrote: Grabbed a boy and a Nob to do a quick size comparison, and was pleasantly surprised. The angle of the base isn't *quite* right, but close enough to see that the new ones haven't got stupid big, they're just a bit more upright than the old Boyz, and the Nobz are still plenty bigger.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is the Beast Snaggas box going up for pre-order in July new information, or did we know that already?
Could you chuck in a Beast Snagga to this scale comp? Curious how they stand next to the older models/new boyz.
Sure, I'll throw something together shortly. Just got to find the BS promo image!
Nazrak wrote: Grabbed a boy and a Nob to do a quick size comparison, and was pleasantly surprised. The angle of the base isn't *quite* right, but close enough to see that the new ones haven't got stupid big, they're just a bit more upright than the old Boyz, and the Nobz are still plenty bigger.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is the Beast Snaggas box going up for pre-order in July new information, or did we know that already?
Could you chuck in a Beast Snagga to this scale comp? Curious how they stand next to the older models/new boyz.
Sure, I'll throw something together shortly. Just got to find the BS promo image!
Nazrak wrote: Ere we go – it's not that great a disparity in size, as best I can tell!
Ah yeah, barely bigger than the new Boyz, maybe a bit more muscular, a tiny bit taller? That’s cool, glad to see the scale creep isn’t too strong. Curious if Nobz are going to get a new kit.
I've scaled these by matching the base width, but bear in mind there are slight disparities in how tilted forwards they are (even on the official GW images), which is going to distort the relative proportions a bit.
Find out more about Mozrog and Big Chompa when Codex: Orks arrives later this year, but don’t forget you can get hold of it early in the Beast Snagga Orks Army Box that we had a good look at during Warhammer Fest Online. You won’t have to wait long either – the Army Box is set for pre-order in July, so mark your calendars and get your Waaagh! banners raised high.
From this it sounds like the Beast Snaggas box will either be late July/early August, with the rest of the releases and separate codex to come... in fall? September? October? Later than that?
Which honestly annoys me mostly because I don't know if I'll be able to get the Snaggas box(like most people) and will then have to wait for the codex to drop on it's own. And yes, I know, standard GW operating procedure, blah blah blah. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
It isn't really standard. Sisters, cosplay elves and now orks. Most armies just get a codex alongside releases.
The best we can hope for is this will lessen stock issues later.
Nazrak wrote: Ere we go – it's not that great a disparity in size, as best I can tell!
Ah yeah, barely bigger than the new Boyz, maybe a bit more muscular, a tiny bit taller? That’s cool, glad to see the scale creep isn’t too strong. Curious if Nobz are going to get a new kit.
Yeah although I guess relatively speaking, the Nobz kit is much newer than the Boyz one (if we discount the refresh on the latter). What's interesting, and I didn't really notice it before, is how much straighter the Nobz's posture is – almost like the half-way point between the old and new Boyz.
Tiberius501 wrote: That’s true, imagining tilting the old ork/nob bases more to the new model angle, they’re probs oh a little closer to the Nob in scale.
I'll try and get some better photos and correct the image when I have a bit more time – the slight extra tilt on my models just exaggerates how hunched they are.
They could've made them bigger and give us even bigger Nobs, but it's all good. Flexibility loss is the only real downside.
That The White Squig dude, is the artwork fitting with the two-legged squig and rider from the Beastsnagga bix or is one of the upcoming kits spent one a special character when they could use it for Kommandoz and/or Tankbustas (dual or bespoke kits for both, *please*)? On my phone in the sun, so not feeling like playing detective on a small screen.
I'll try and get some better photos and correct the image when I have a bit more time – the slight extra tilt on my models just exaggerates how hunched they are.
Thanks for putting together the comparison photos together. It's helpful to know the new sculpts won't be dramatically taller than my current boyz. Overall I think the new sculpts for both types look really sharp, now I'm wondering how they'll look when mixed into existing armies.
Valkyrie wrote: Nice little treat from GW to brighten up a Monday. I like it, my only concern is how much they're going to up the prices. For an army which relies on 30-boy squads usually, this is going to hurt.
This is my concern, too. As a veteran ork player I'm set with a good number of boyz already, but new players will be hurting if the price isn't right on the new infantry. Going by current trends I can easily see a new Ork Boyz box being $45 for 10. Really what I'd love to see is a 20-man box for maybe $55 or $60. That way you're immediately set with a mid-size mob of boyz right out of the box.
On the new Boy.... not sure how I like the new trend in ork faces.
Honestly it will just be a phase out here. A box now and then, paint them up, and swap them out. No rush.
They could've made them bigger and give us even bigger Nobs, but it's all good. Flexibility loss is the only real downside.
That The White Squig dude, is the artwork fitting with the two-legged squig and rider from the Beastsnagga bix or is one of the upcoming kits spent one a special character when they could use it for Kommandoz and/or Tankbustas (dual or bespoke kits for both, *please*)? On my phone in the sun, so not feeling like playing detective on a small screen.
Typical Ork player, obsessed with the size of his Nob...
Valkyrie wrote: Nice little treat from GW to brighten up a Monday. I like it, my only concern is how much they're going to up the prices. For an army which relies on 30-boy squads usually, this is going to hurt.
This is my concern, too. As a veteran ork player I'm set with a good number of boyz already, but new players will be hurting if the price isn't right on the new infantry. Going by current trends I can easily see a new Ork Boyz box being $45 for 10. Really what I'd love to see is a 20-man box for maybe $55 or $60. That way you're immediately set with a mid-size mob of boyz right out of the box.
On the new Boy.... not sure how I like the new trend in ork faces.
Honestly it will just be a phase out here. A box now and then, paint them up, and swap them out. No rush.
Well I actually hope that the new ork kit would be 20 for 34-36.50£ as was with the new Soulblight Skeletons and Zombies. Both of which after I had seen were actually quite good.
But at worst I expect/hope it being 10 for around 27.50£. If its more expensive I am going to break some legs.
I'll try and get some better photos and correct the image when I have a bit more time – the slight extra tilt on my models just exaggerates how hunched they are.
Thanks for putting together the comparison photos together. It's helpful to know the new sculpts won't be dramatically taller than my current boyz. Overall I think the new sculpts for both types look really sharp, now I'm wondering how they'll look when mixed into existing armies.
No doubt. Above and beyond for the exalts.
There are some fine size differences that seem to distinguish, and posture, but overall it expands the range startlingly sensibly. The new boyz look right back to the beginning. Dakka, dakka, beeetchiz.
New boys look great. Wonder if the box will include a non like the current one, and if they are going to add a burna or big choppa as special weapon options, please?
Well thanks a bunch GW The ropy looking basic Boyz were one of the main things stopping me from getting any Orks all these years. What am I gonna do now there being replaced with this excellent looking kit?
Wait new Boyz and new MK6 SM on the horizon? Maybe I'll just get enough to run the battle at the farm, for nostalgia's sake
I like the new boyz. They're exactly like old ones but a bit more detailed. The only important thing is that they don't invalidate old models, which was my only concern. I have too many boyz to even think about getting new infantries . I won't buy snaggas either, but they also look very cool, so I'm satysfied with GW.
Someone mentioned the possibility of a new gretchins kit. I think it's very likely since the current one is the cheapest box of 11+ infantry models in the entire GW catalogue. They need to release a 40$ kit of gretchins .
H.B.M.C. wrote: And they can sell the Runherd separately as a $50 clampack mini.
Blackie wrote: They're exactly like old ones but a bit more detailed.
Well... I doubt they'll be exactly like the old ones.
I meant in dimensions and equipment . Like new necron warriors or sisters compared to old ones. They're just updated models, not a replacement like the new Ghaz for example, which made the old miniature obsolete.
The new Boyz annoy me just because of how much more like a Warhammer Ork that looks than the new Kruleboyz which do not look like they belong in a Warhammer Ork line. Like it’s not a decision to change the aesthetic direction of their Orks, just the AoS Orks.
Hmm, yes I'm not really feeling the Kruleboyz either - I'd rather have seen new Ironjaw or Bonesplittaz units - so I'm really happy that these Boyz (and the Snaggas) don't mess too much with the current Ork aesthetic.
Mr_Rose wrote: I can only hope they still have the flat shoulder joint (just better, more fitted arms) so they’re compatible with the burna and loota upgrade sprues.
It's clear that they don't. We'll be lucky if we can swap arms within the one box. I guarantee you you can't swap bits with any other kit.
Lootas and burnas are rather closely fit to the ork boy torso, I'm fairly sure they won't match - you already need to be careful to not use the ork torso with the spikey metal bar between the shoulders for those models, because that bar makes it impossible to properly attach the deff gun or burna backpack.
If you're lucky, you could probably fit them on warbikes if you feel inclined.
Sotahullu wrote: But at worst I expect/hope it being 10 for around 27.50£. If its more expensive I am going to break some legs.
I think 10 for £29 is the very cheapest you can expect. 10 for £35 is more likely.
I think it really depends if they keep the third sprue for nob gear and customizations. If they don't (and I don't think they will), Necron Warriors at 29 GBP feel like a good precedent.
Blackie wrote: Don't rebase anything, buy the cheapest adapter rings (25mm to 32mm) you can find.
As reluctant as I am to risk opening *this* whole can of worms again, and of course this is anecdotal/down to personal preference but I tried both approaches when I did my Boyz and actually found it a lot easier and neater to straight-up rebase rather than mess about with adapter rings.
I don't think so, they seem to be the same size as after the 8th edition repackaging. But with new models available you get yet another round of the old "metal terminators" game again where people think up all kind of awesome benefits that smaller bases have and then throw a fit because they convinced themselves that playing old models is modelling for advantage.
Jidmah wrote: I don't think so, they seem to be the same size as after the 8th edition repackaging. But with new models available you get yet another round of the old "metal terminators" game again where people think up all kind of awesome benefits that smaller bases have and then throw a fit because they convinced themselves that playing old models is modelling for advantage.
Oh I just do what I did for the Necrons, and other ones I've done previously... clip the sides of the base, snap the clips off, sand down/trim the underside of the old base with model still attached so its smooth, and then glue onto new base, rebasing a little sand if required (Usually is) between the edge of the old base and the new one its stuck to.
Also, mentioning it as I'd guess its likely the new Orks are on 32s. (Checks the Tanith pic, and yep clearly are on 32s)
jullevi wrote: Ask any Age of Sigmar player who went through rebasing. The trick is to not remove model from the base but remove the base from the model instead.
I find the trick is to cut the base to the thin layer under the feet, glue onto new base and once you base it (texture paint is great) the height change is basicallyunnoticeable.
Of course that is my solution is the plastic glued base has made break it off otherwise impossible without further damage
Mr_Rose wrote: Honestly the current ones overhang 25s so much I’ve been thinking about rebasing them all anyway. They always did look a bit silly like that.
I rebased my Stormboyz yoinks ago to 32, just so they were more stable... and I had planned to do the same to my Loota's but never got around to it as they look really silly with their huge figure and gun footprint. I am regretting moving my Nobz down to 32s from their original 40mm bases mind, as I'll probably move them back up if the Boyz are all on 32.
The only good thing is I have tons of 32s if I do decide to do so, I went through a stage of grabbing a pack when I did GW orders and by placing all Blood Bowl big guys on 40mm, got quite a few from there as well.
Hmmm I have to say I'm glad I already have all the various Boyz I'll ever need. The new ones are nice, but I like the consistency of my older models.
I'm really not a fan of the increased base sizes though, as I mention whenever it comes up. I think it's one of the most obnoxious things GW has ever done along with the move to bigger scaled miniatures.
On a side note, I had half an hour this morning, so threw up this quick guide of what I've been doing for a number of years. (Since 32mm came in and I started rebasing models for look, quite a lot of which are now correctly based)
Showing what I mean seems better than trying to explain it.
They don't look like much less work than just trimming the old base off and gluing down to a new one.
Because you're assuming that the old bases are unpainted. Painting like 200-300 new bases just to put orks on 32mm instead of 25mm, like I would have to do if I go down that path, is a huge amount of work. That's why I suggest buying the adapters as an alternative, they're basically the same cost than cheap bases but no effort to update the models.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: On a side note, I had half an hour this morning, so threw up this quick guide of what I've been doing for a number of years. (Since 32mm came in and I started rebasing models for look, quite a lot of which are now correctly based)
Showing what I mean seems better than trying to explain it.
Spoiler:
Cool guide. How long does it take you to get a base to look like that? I have quite a few AOBR boyz with slotted bases, I imagine that they are a lot harder to get them as flat.
Don't forget that GW does sell the Blood Bowl 32mm slotted bases separately. 12 to a set, 4,50 Euros.
You'd have to use a bit of green stuff or some kind of filler material to cover up the excess space on the edges and the bit for where the ball can be slotted in but otherwise it's an option for slottabases if you don't want to file things flat.
Hmm, those rings might be handy for some of my non-boyz who are still on 25mm, like my Tankbustas, Lootas and Burnas (assuming that they don't remain useless in the new codex too, my Burnas have been sitting on the shelf gathering dust for the past 3 years, so I haven't seen the need to rebase them).
Still, that's around 40 models, so it's a lot of work regardless of how I do it.
Kanluwen wrote: Don't forget that GW does sell the Blood Bowl 32mm slotted bases separately. 12 to a set, 4,50 Euros.
You'd have to use a bit of green stuff or some kind of filler material to cover up the excess space on the edges and the bit for where the ball can be slotted in but otherwise it's an option for slottabases if you don't want to file things flat.
Ah, I wasn't clear - those boyz are still glued firmly in place, you can't get them back out of the slot.
Fair enough then! I've been having to do a lot of mucking about with slot base models of late so it's been basically just freeze->flathead screwdriver and pop the base apart if it was superglued or clipping the sides and pulling the old bases apart if it was plastic glue.
They don't look like much less work than just trimming the old base off and gluing down to a new one.
Because you're assuming that the old bases are unpainted. Painting like 200-300 new bases just to put orks on 32mm instead of 25mm, like I would have to do if I go down that path, is a huge amount of work. That's why I suggest buying the adapters as an alternative, they're basically the same cost than cheap bases but no effort to update the models.
No, I'm assuming the old bases are painted and you intend to also paint the base extension the same way.
You either attach the base extension, then add fresh basing material to the new part.... or you just clip the model off its old base and then add fresh basing material to the whole base.
I don't see where the big time saving is unless you intend to just leave the 3.5mm strip raw and unfinished.
It doesn't take long to clip a model off its old base, just use a decent pair of clippers and a few snips you're good to go, even if it's a slotta base model I've never had too many problems.
For the Eccentric Miniatures base extenders I linked to you clip the extender off its sprue, add a dab of glue to your base, and push the extenders into place around the 25mm base. There might be some scraping involved to make sure that any plastic cement you're using to connect the base to the extender gets the base rather than any paint over it.
I don't see where the big time saving is unless you intend to just leave the 3.5mm strip raw and unfinished.
Yeah, I intend to leave the 3.5mm strip raw of course. That's because I consider my models on 25mm finished and perfect as they are, the adapters have only one purpose: to make the models legal in competitive games if someone demands the current size of the bases. That's it, I don't glue the adapters to the base.
I got the adapters and sometimes I use them but typically I just play with the models on 25mm.
lord_blackfang wrote: I can't imagine how basing any sort of extension to seamlessly match the existing basing could possibly be easier than just basing the whole new base.
It's mostly about not destroying models glued on with plastic glue. I have learned my lesson and went back to gluing models onto bases with super-glue.
I don't see where the big time saving is unless you intend to just leave the 3.5mm strip raw and unfinished.
Yeah, I intend to leave the 3.5mm strip raw of course. That's because I consider my models on 25mm finished and perfect as they are, the adapters have only one purpose: to make the models legal in competitive games if someone demands the current size of the bases. That's it, I don't glue the adapters to the base.
I got the adapters and sometimes I use them but typically I just play with the models on 25mm.
In games where people care about base size, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose 10VP if you leave the adapters unpainted.
Cool guide. How long does it take you to get a base to look like that? I have quite a few AOBR boyz with slotted bases, I imagine that they are a lot harder to get them as flat.
Not too long, that would took me less than a couple of minutes, just took half hour due to taking the pics in stages and sorting the overall guide. I'll do the rest of the squad later and time how long it takes exactly.
As to slotted ones, those are sadly always much more of a pain, I have done it, but it tends to end up either a long winded affair or goes wrong and ends up with the figure just being reset on a fresh base as I worked through the base to their feet. It is potentiality doable, when I rebased all my Nobz down from 40mm to 32mm (something I regret with the changes to Boyz base sizes inbound) I clipped off all the under base parts on about twenty 40MM rounds and cut the base down to fit on a 32mm, so you wouldn't be clipping much more off to get to the flat base. It was annoying mind, and I do think the rings folks are mentioning would be easier in that case.
Honestly my solution works best on the bases where the model is stuck to the surface, and its just removing the sides and gluing flat to the fresh base.
edit...
Just did the other fourteen in the squad, had to fiddle as the guy at the back with the Eldar cannon had bits of superglued metal to keep him upright on the 25mm (doesn't need it on the 32) but all done in 43mins.
Jidmah wrote: It's mostly about not destroying models glued on with plastic glue. I have learned my lesson and went back to gluing models onto bases with super-glue.
Now that's a life hack to remember
(actually I've just stocked up on bulk GW sized bases from Aliexpress, they're great matches but they are ABS, so I have to superglue anyway...)
Why in the hell would you rebase everything? My RTB-01 and those of similar era are on 25's and gonna stay that way.
GW has no requirement to do so, so why?
Racerguy180 wrote: Why in the hell would you rebase everything? My RTB-01 and those of similar era are on 25's and gonna stay that way.
GW has no requirement to do so, so why?
Personally, I like the consistency. And the balance. Also, some models really do look better on larger bases (like genestealers particularly, even though they aren't on 32s).
But then I cheat- There are a lot of workarounds.
I cut cardboard circles to 32mm, glue the old base in the middle and build the edges up with tile grout. For repurposing slotta bases, I use an old old trick with of just gluing paper down over the gaps (it gets covered by basing sand anyway, so it doesn't matter). Lots of old slotta bases didn't get filled by the model's tabs anyway.
Racerguy180 wrote: Why in the hell would you rebase everything? My RTB-01 and those of similar era are on 25's and gonna stay that way.
GW has no requirement to do so, so why?
I always felt the Necrons for example looked terrible on 25mm, certains Orks also looked odd, why I original based my Nobz on 40mm because they looked silly on 25mm.. so for me its mostly about look. The larger footprint actually makes you think they look bigger, and its why I had my vehicles on bases long before GW started doing it because they had lost that few mm in height next to the troops on bases when they were not.
So yeah, for me its about the look. Hell in Blood Bowl 2016 I still put all the big guys on 40mm as they too in my mind look silly on 32. I'm just feeling validated as GW keeps moving things onto 32s which look a lot better with no overhanging feet etc.
Why? There is no GW rule that says you need to rebase anything. So why are these "above" Kitchen table people not going by some GW rules?
Everytime I include my entire RT army( 25 marines) in any of the games I've played @ flgs they have been fun. They get picked up more than my much better painted plastic MkIII or Primaris on 32s.
No modeling for advantage, just a progression.
Do whichever you want but it's not due to GW making you...this time!
Nurglitch wrote: For the Eccentric Miniatures base extenders I linked to you clip the extender off its sprue, add a dab of glue to your base, and push the extenders into place around the 25mm base. There might be some scraping involved to make sure that any plastic cement you're using to connect the base to the extender gets the base rather than any paint over it.
Yeah I used the Eccentric Mini base rings as well. Also took the time to use some coloured spray to paint batches of 30 different colours. I'm sort of pedantic about colour coding my squads.
Games Workshop's Warhammer World rules, page 4 wrote:The models in my army used to be supplied with a smaller base than they are currently supplied with, do I needto rebase to the new size?
As above, the bases our miniatures are supplied with are the bases the game rules are designed around, so any older base sizes do need to be upgraded. However we understand this can take time, so if the base size changes for a model kit, any events within a month of the change are exempt from resizing, though we would certainly encourage it.
Games Workshop's Warhammer World rules, page 4 wrote:The models in my army used to be supplied with a smaller base than they are currently supplied with, do I needto rebase to the new size?
As above, the bases our miniatures are supplied with are the bases the game rules are designed around, so any older base sizes do need to be upgraded. However we understand this can take time, so if the base size changes for a model kit, any events within a month of the change are exempt from resizing, though we would certainly encourage it.
Warhammer World is the special exception here because it's THE center of the Games Workshop universe. I wouldn't expect anything less at that particular location. From what I've heard, you also can't use third-party bits on your miniatures there. The entire place is designed so that everything funnels you directly back into GW for all your shopping needs.
That's only due to the fact that you consent to be photographed when you go in, so they can't use you for promotional material if you're not 100% current.
lord_blackfang wrote: Let's not pretend you can play at anything above your home kitchen table level with incorrect bases.
That 'official events at Warhammer World' is the first indication that anyone has ever given of that being the case.
Most people/places I've played with just don't care, because GW can't be bothered to drop a list of base sizes for most games, and keep creating new random sizes every year or so.
I fully expecting things on the shelf/warehouse right now to have 'wrong' base sizes in them.
In games where people care about base size, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose 10VP if you leave the adapters unpainted.
I never heard of losing 10VPs for bringing unpainted adapters. Technically they're not part of the base, it would be up to the TO to determine whether they count or not in order to consider the model battle ready. But striclty RAW they are not part of the base, they're something added to the base just to match the correct footprint (which can be requested only by house rules since there's no offical table with the appropriate bases anywhere in the rules), so it doesn't matter if they are painted or not.
In a friendly game someone that demands the loss of 10VP for bringing adapters is definitely some kind of TFG that should be avoided anyway .
My suggestion is for those who feel like they're forced to update the bases and don't want to do it. I use adapters when I play against players that are testing lists for tournaments, they want the updated base sizes but since we're still playing friendly games they're not gonna argue about the "battle ready issue" of course. I know someone who brought adapters to local tournaments during 8th and they were allowed without penalty.
But it's still an effort, as you need to fill the seams with liquid greenstuff for a smooth result.
They don't look like much less work than just trimming the old base off and gluing down to a new one.
Especially if you have base style that has geometrical shapes. Extending the basing over the trims can often mean it's simply easier to do the whole base.
Or if you use the roll over pins over modeling mass...how you are supposed to extend THAT over trims so it blends in?
And then of course comes movement trays. That would up couple hundred bucks more.
If that requirement spreads I just shelf the orks instead. Eeasier and cheaper(or actually profitable. Sell army instead)
They don't look like much less work than just trimming the old base off and gluing down to a new one.
Because you're assuming that the old bases are unpainted. Painting like 200-300 new bases just to put orks on 32mm instead of 25mm, like I would have to do if I go down that path, is a huge amount of work. That's why I suggest buying the adapters as an alternative, they're basically the same cost than cheap bases but no effort to update the models.
If your bases are painted that's lot MORE effort. If it's unpainted base then these are not much work. If the bases are already done then this is more work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: For the Eccentric Miniatures base extenders I linked to you clip the extender off its sprue, add a dab of glue to your base, and push the extenders into place around the 25mm base. There might be some scraping involved to make sure that any plastic cement you're using to connect the base to the extender gets the base rather than any paint over it.
Then you also need to cover the top so that it matches the base.
So in my case add in cobblestone, dirt, bits. And paint.
Would I have 25mm bases with say ice theme I use for my AOS chaos that I would need...ummm...put modeling clay over the edges and...ummmmmmmmmm...(thinks real hard)....sculpt the cracks by hand? Can't see how I could even fit the roller over it let alone get it look like it fits as odds are I couldn't put on exact location needed.
If I have models that used to be on 25mm but are now on 32mm I put them on 25mm bases when I build them so they don't clash with my old collection. If a model can't be rebased onto 25mm I don't buy it, generally. I've put a couple of character models on 32mm, that's it.
I'm really annoyed at GW for changing the industry standard for basing, I think it was a reall anti-consumer move and I'm a bit surprised at how happily most people seem to have accepted all the additional work GW dumped on them because they can't manage to keep the scale creep down.
If I ever play with strangers I will use base adapters.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Base adapters May also be useful unit indicators. Particularly useful if you’ve gone for a fast paint job.
Red rims? Squad 1
Blue rims? Squad 2
And so on and so forth.
You don't need adapters for that I have one army that uses rim colours. And that's my sisters that were bought when they were released. No adapters there.
Blackie wrote: Using older bases size is not like altering or downsizing anything, it's playing with the miniatures exactly like they were released.
How is that in any way a counter to what GW has written in that document?
I think that "[O]lder base sizes do need to be upgraded" is pretty cut and dry.
And yes I know this is a Warhammer World thing, but nothing you said above changes what GW said.
As you said yourself, it's an house rule for that specific setting. That's really that, nothing more.
The statement about downsizing or altering bases size is pretty much what every TO says though. But it doesn't mean that official bases aren't legal, even if current kits come with different base sizes.
In the end I think it's whether it filters down to local clubs and whatnot. Even the biggest tournaments or organisations are only a drop in the bucket of global gamers.
I'm really annoyed at GW for changing the industry standard for basing, I think it was a reall anti-consumer move and I'm a bit surprised at how happily most people seem to have accepted all the additional work GW dumped on them because they can't manage to keep the scale creep down.
Oh COME ON. "Anti-consumer move", really? Protip: unless you're playing in a tournament that requires the new base sizes, you don't have to rebase your old miniatures. And if someone in a casual game objects to the smaller bases, don't play against them. Next thing you know people will be blaming GW as being "anti-consumer" for releasing new miniatures.
They changed their standard size because no one was making 32mm bases and everyone and their dog's dog's dog was making resin 28mm bases. GW hates 3rd parties in all their forms, seeing them as parasites rather than symbiotic creatures they are, and thus went out of their way to make a new base size.
They're still doing it BTW. We've had a lot of new base sizes in the past few years.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They changed their standard size because no one was making 32mm bases and everyone and their dog's dog's dog was making resin 28mm bases. GW hates 3rd parties in all their forms, seeing them as parasites rather than symbiotic creatures they are, and thus went out of their way to make a new base size.
They're still doing it BTW. We've had a lot of new base sizes in the past few years.
Is this a bad time to mention that a lot of their competitors don't use 28mm bases either? :p
H.B.M.C. wrote: They changed their standard size because no one was making 32mm bases and everyone and their dog's dog's dog was making resin 28mm bases. GW hates 3rd parties in all their forms, seeing them as parasites rather than symbiotic creatures they are, and thus went out of their way to make a new base size.
They're still doing it BTW. We've had a lot of new base sizes in the past few years.
Eh, to be fair, orks should have been on 32mm bases to begin with. Considering how they didn't have any orks at the studio during 7th, they probably found out how much orks overhang their base when playing killteam
I'm really annoyed at GW for changing the industry standard for basing, I think it was a reall anti-consumer move and I'm a bit surprised at how happily most people seem to have accepted all the additional work GW dumped on them because they can't manage to keep the scale creep down.
Oh COME ON. "Anti-consumer move", really? Protip: unless you're playing in a tournament that requires the new base sizes, you don't have to rebase your old miniatures. And if someone in a casual game objects to the smaller bases, don't play against them. Next thing you know people will be blaming GW as being "anti-consumer" for releasing new miniatures.
I'm well aware of my options in this regard, thanks.
If you can't see how altering the industry standard for 28mm minis which has existed for decades and is used in other games than 40K so that you can re-scale your main line to encourage consumers to rebuy everything again and also make your stuff scale-wise incompatible with alternative products is not a pro-consumer move then that's really your issue not mine.
Edit to add: And it's not a huge moral issue or anything, just the usual sort of stuff corporations do. It's not like GW can force me to do anything in this regard. That doesn't stop it from being a negative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Who said anything about competitors. I was talking about 3rd party sites. Y'know, the ones that made resin bases for years.
Laughing Man is referring to the fact that the bases were 25mm not 28mm. Though GW actually does produce 28mm bases now, bafflingly.
I'm really annoyed at GW for changing the industry standard for basing, I think it was a reall anti-consumer move and I'm a bit surprised at how happily most people seem to have accepted all the additional work GW dumped on them because they can't manage to keep the scale creep down.
Oh COME ON. "Anti-consumer move", really? Protip: unless you're playing in a tournament that requires the new base sizes, you don't have to rebase your old miniatures. And if someone in a casual game objects to the smaller bases, don't play against them. Next thing you know people will be blaming GW as being "anti-consumer" for releasing new miniatures.
I'm well aware of my options in this regard, thanks.
If you can't see how altering the industry standard for 28mm minis which has existed for decades and is used in other games than 40K so that you can re-scale your main line to encourage consumers to rebuy everything again and also make your stuff scale-wise incompatible with alternative products is not a pro-consumer move then that's really your issue not mine.
Edit to add: And it's not a huge moral issue or anything, just the usual sort of stuff corporations do. It's not like GW can force me to do anything in this regard. That doesn't stop it from being a negative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Who said anything about competitors. I was talking about 3rd party sites. Y'know, the ones that made resin bases for years.
Laughing Man is referring to the fact that the bases were 25mm not 28mm. Though GW actually does produce 28mm bases now, bafflingly.
They're listed as 28.5mm bases, which puts the size exactly midway between the 25mm and 32mm bases.
I have been pretty happy with what GW has moved to 32mm verses left at 25mm. Coming from fantasy where there was always a divide with 20mm square and 25mm it struck me as off that all the infantry were on the same wee base. Don't have an opinion on if it is anti-consumer or accountant driven, I just personally prefer the variety.
28mm on other hand I dislike; it is too close to 25mm and barely distinguishable. If they mean to move to 28mm I could understand that, but only because it has a (imo positive) gameplay effect by going from below 1" to above
H.B.M.C. wrote: They changed their standard size because no one was making 32mm bases and everyone and their dog's dog's dog was making resin 28mm bases. GW hates 3rd parties in all their forms, seeing them as parasites rather than symbiotic creatures they are, and thus went out of their way to make a new base size.
They're still doing it BTW. We've had a lot of new base sizes in the past few years.
No, they added new base sizes because they fit the models better. 25mm bases were super awkward for many models, but 40mm ones were too large. Also the new 28,5 is good too. It is perfect for eldar infantry for example. 25mm looks a bit too cramped for them but 32mm looks too big.
Having to use the 'most recent' base is a bit of a problem for kits where the base size you get is a crapshoot. As a Tyranid player, if I go buy a box of Warriors I do not know if it will come with 40mm or 50mm bases, and if I buy a box of Carnifexes I don't know if it'll have 60mm round or 105mm oval.
I shouldn't be expected to track GW's release chart and make guesses about which base sizes are newer (I know that the 105mm oval for Carnifexes was introduced in the Deathstorm box- how on earth is a newbie supposed to know?) so that I can figure out which boxes are old stock and which are the new standard, just to have a game-compliant army.
If GW wants to have 'official' base sizes they should, y'know, specify official base sizes like they did with AoS. Don't tell me I need to have the 'correct' size, then tell me the ones that came with a kit aren't necessarily correct, and then not tell me what the correct sizes are.
If GW wants to have 'official' base sizes they should, y'know, specify official base sizes like they did with AoS. Don't tell me I need to have the 'correct' size, then tell me the ones that came with a kit aren't necessarily correct, and then not tell me what the correct sizes are.
catbarf wrote: If GW wants to have 'official' base sizes they should, y'know, specify official base sizes like they did with AoS.
You mean the ones that they call 'suggested'?
Don’t worry – you don’t have to rebase your model if it is not on the suggested base unless you want to (that’s why these are suggested base sizes rather than mandatory ones).
catbarf wrote: Having to use the 'most recent' base is a bit of a problem for kits where the base size you get is a crapshoot. As a Tyranid player, if I go buy a box of Warriors I do not know if it will come with 40mm or 50mm bases
Wait, what? When did that happen?
I love the fact that the store page has them on both in side-by-side pictures.
Ghaz wrote: You mean the ones that they call 'suggested'?
Yes? I'm afraid I don't see your point. Especially considering the sentence following what you quoted:
Don’t worry – you don’t have to rebase your model if it is not on the suggested base unless you want to (that’s why these are suggested base sizes rather than mandatory ones). If you prefer not to rebase your models, just assume that the model is mounted on a base of the appropriate size when setting the model up, moving it, or measuring any distances in a matched play game.
In AOS Matched Play you're supposed to treat the models as if they were mounted on the official base size. In organized events, you're expected to have them on the correct base size.
That rule for Matched Play is a bit clunky and I would have no problem with just using the base as it actually is, but for tournament play where base sizes are enforced, having an official reference sure beats the heck out of being expected to figure out the correct size on your own and/or argue about the finer points of GW's release history with a TO who thinks your models are wrongly based.
I never rebased my older Marines, kept them with 25mm. When I added "new old" marines I also put them on 25mm for uniformity. New Plague Marines get their 32mm however, but I have no problem with mixing the two. Yes, you might see some plague Marine squads in my army with different base sizes in the unit. The faction is called chaos for a reason.
When I started Orks I put them on 32mm right away, even the older metal ones from ebay that were on 25mm originally. Why? Because it looks cooler and I want to have one style this time.
The main reason why I'd never rebase older minis is because I hate basing and most of my bases are sculpted bases I paid money for and painted them. Rules also aren't important enough really to make me destroy my work.
I have a Deathwatch army with two old-school monopose plastic mini-marines from a 2nd edition starter. When I made my army I ended up with a squad with only 8 guys, and because of my OCD it needed to be maxed out. Instead of bits ordering, I shook out my bits box and got two oddball marines from a bygone era to join the ranks. Do they look funny and out of place next to the others? Heck yes they do. Still play them.
I think all this base size talk would be better off in it's own thread. It is a great debate, which many people seem to want to talk about, but not much to do with Ork N&R.
).
Last edition's misses were necrons and grey knights.
good for you to have money to waste
The ropy looking basic Boyz were one of the main things stopping me from getting any Orks all these years. What am I gonna do now there being replaced with this excellent looking kit? 
