Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
My main beef with the new bases is it makes the minis not as useable with other systems, which I think is their thinking behind it.

I don't believe other companies ever figure into what the Design Studio does. The switch to round bases make the miniatures look better and allows them to free up production by ditching all of their square/rectangular bases.

Aye, round bases is fine. But why round bases that are larger than they used to be arbitrarily? 25mm rounds were great, 32mm rounds is a pain in the backside.

Though I disagree that they don't ever think about other companies.

So apparently the new Matched Play rules in GHB2019:

1) Faction Terrain MUST be more than 6" from the edge of the battlefield, 6" from a terrain feature, 3" from an objective. Then they straight up say that it means that it can't be used.

2) Minimum 10 pieces of terrain setup by players alternating. Terrain must have scenery rules used.

3) All spells now used. (Forbidden and Malign)

4) Hidden Agenda's are mandatory. (Diff one each round)

I can see a lot of tournament players unhappy about that, which means they will summarily ignore the parts they feel are "not fair".

Bear in mind matched play is not tournament play. Most tournaments run a houserule event pack that modifies matched play.

Its just that that houserule pack can become the standard depending on the prestige of the event tothe community (adepticon, lvo, scgt, etc)

I can see tournies having an issue with 2, because they normally set up the boards to not be oppressive, but most tournies have 4 anyways, and i saw most allowing 3.

 Da Boss wrote:
Aye, round bases is fine. But why round bases that are larger than they used to be arbitrarily? 25mm rounds were great, 32mm rounds is a pain in the backside.

Though I disagree that they don't ever think about other companies.

There's some models that would be too big for a 25mm base and too small for a 40mm base. So they chose a size inbetween that filled the gap.

And no, I truely believe that the Design Studio doesn't take other companies into consideration when they're doing their job. Other elements in Games Workshop might, but not the studio.

They should have kept a better lid on the scale creep I reckon.

You might be right about the studio, they are incredibly unprofessional and bad at their jobs so perhaps they are in a completely isolated bubble, never looking at the rest of the market.

 Da Boss wrote:
They should have kept a better lid on the scale creep I reckon.

Scale creep? The 25mm bases were too small for the Ork Boyz when they released 20+ years ago...

 Da Boss wrote:
They should have kept a better lid on the scale creep I reckon.

You might be right about the studio, they are incredibly unprofessional and bad at their jobs so perhaps they are in a completely isolated bubble, never looking at the rest of the market.

Quite frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about with regards to "scale creep". That alone isn't a factor as to them switching from 25mm to 32mm.

The Namarti are on 32mm bases. They could easily fit onto 25mm bases...but they'd look awful, as the poses tend to be a bit wider and having crap hanging off the base just looks tacky.

There is definite scale creep with the minis recently, but it is more in the design than anything else. Everyone is a super muscled towering brute, there are no normal sized people any more.

I disagree with you about the 25mm bases looking worse, I think they look better. Not a fan of the new bases whatsoever.

Reckon that is what will keep me from playing AoS, don't want to be accused of modelling for advantage when for me it is a practical and aesthetic thing.

Um.. i's been playing WHFB since 5th but i got the 4th rules when i started (got mix up b.c 5th just came out) and chaos had large and small bases.

Larger Bases are for sure needed and better on many units.

Scale creep isnt bad honestly, makes painting more fun, easier to see your models, etc..

I started in 5th ed whfb. Chaos warriors were on 25mm. Marauders were on 20mm. The demons were on 25mm. Beastmen were on 25mm except for ungors, who were on 20mm.

The greater demons were on the 40mm squares. Of course they are tiny compared to the new ones, and a lot of people won't let you use the old ones because they are smaller scale (even if they were on the right base) because of true LOS issues.

In fairness old to new greater demons is a night and day difference in the models. Plus you can use the old demon models as princes very effectively. They even give you an automatic theme of a marked prince with a totally army specific appearance.

 Overread wrote:
In fairness old to new greater demons is a night and day difference in the models. Plus you can use the old demon models as princes very effectively. They even give you an automatic theme of a marked prince with a totally army specific appearance.

I would say that the new Greater Daemons actually look... greater.

The original Greater Demons were based on Dungeons and Dragons demon types (except the Great Unclean one, but the Bloodthirster -> Balrog/Balor, Keeper of Secrets -> Glabrezu, Lord of Change -> Vrock). The size made more sense back then. By now, GW greater demons have a much clearer identity of their own, and the larger scale makes more sense I suppose. It is still scale creep, but I somehow don't mind it because it is a case where the models now represent my excited imagination from reading about them in the 2nd Edition Codex Imperialis.

It was also a practical limit based on materials and technology of the time that GW had. The original models were all in solid metal, which puts limits on the pose and size when taking into account pricing and shipping. The current models we have would be prohibitively expensive in solid metal - even though the moulds would be cheaper, the material cost would be higher, the shipping much higher and the overall build much more difficult.

Not impossible, just not as attractive to most gamers and very epxensive. Back then I think we topped out with £35 or so dragons and dreadnoughts as the top prices. So jumping up to the £100 and more for Forgeworld at the time was a BIG leap. Plus GW itself wasn't pushing models that expensive nor as big.


Fastforward to today and GW can make those knight sized models in house, can price them up and the market does buy them and wants them. It's why we've got bigger dragons, bigger greater demons and the like. I also agree it lets them fit the lore of the game closer as well; the greater demon models of old were kinda small compared to the stories; the current ones are very nicely sized for their epic proportions in the lore.

I have no issue with the new greater demons. Especially since the old can be used as demon princes without jacking your bases.

There is also the point where you look at the models and they are just too damn good to dislike. The Keeper of Secrets, Lord of Change and Great Unclean One all fit into that category for me.

Sorry, posted this before catching up with the rest of the conversation;

 auticus wrote:


Warmachine, guild ball, infinity, batman dont change their base sizes on a whim or ship their models on wrong bases or force you to rebase your collection every so often either.

Infinity seems to have settled down in 3rd edition, but they've rebased a lot of units (TAGs and motorcycles) from 40 to 55mm bases, and a lot of models that used to be on 25mm bases with sticky-out bits went onto 40mm bases.

Anyway, back to AoS. I'm playing a couple of games again for the first time since Soul Wars was released, using my old High Elves at 1,000 points. Apart from not having a properly legal army (my army is the models from the 8th edition starter plus some additional units; no matter if I use Eldritch Council, Swifthawk Agents or just straight-up Order, I've only got one Battleline unit, and the Guardians of the Dawnspire Battalion isn't in the AoS app) it's been fun. I was especially pleased with the Dragonlord on foot slaughtering a Mighty Lord of Khorne in one round.

Maybe not matched play legal, but still viable in the other two formats.

Exactly. Matched play is an irrelevance to me, but I'd rather not have to worry about someone complaining about it.

Still, I was slightly handicapping myself in the last game; my highborn Archers unit is 16 elves (because that's what came in the box), so I'm paying for four archers that aren't present. At least I'm getting them painted; I bought those archers, and the Silver Helms, during 6th edition, and only got them painted in time for AoS 2nd edition. For my sanity, any models that aren't pictured on the warscroll no longer count, so I don't have to worry about all those old metal Phoenix Guard, Sword Masters and White Lions taunting me.

 auticus wrote:
Maybe not matched play legal, but still viable in the other two formats.

Very funny, auticus. Very funny indeed.

I'm actually working on my fall campaign to be almost totally separate from matched play

I so rarely play matched play. Like I think less than five games outside of events and a single two day tournament. So 10 or 11 tops. I play every week and it's almost all lower model count open or narrative.

The new GHB looks so good for what I do with the game. I think I like every part of it. And half of my group is going to get the warcry box for sure and we agreed we'd all paint up the terrain in the same style (together on a club day) so we can do the streets of death/alixia stuff.

Nice Fyreslayer short story in the latest WD.


If contrast works as advertised for flesh tones I might grab a SC box to try them out.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Nice Fyreslayer short story in the latest WD.

Spoiler:

Possibly nothing but a fluff hook. But could the ending where the Runefather is presented with a newborn daughter as "his latest heir" be a hint to female Slayers(or at least a special character) in the future?

If contrast works as advertised for flesh tones I might grab a SC box to try them out.

re the one of the recent stories had a IIRC, they also appear to a greater or lesser extent in other stories

 Mr Morden wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Nice Fyreslayer short story in the latest WD.

Spoiler:

Possibly nothing but a fluff hook. But could the ending where the Runefather is presented with a newborn daughter as "his latest heir" be a hint to female Slayers(or at least a special character) in the future?

If contrast works as advertised for flesh tones I might grab a SC box to try them out.

re the

Spoiler:

female slayer

one of the recent stories had a

Spoiler:

Auric Daughter

IIRC, they also appear to a greater or lesser extent in other stories

Yeah, I believe the title was Ashes of Grimnir, which has a Runedaughter go out on a quest to save her Fyrd.

I hope that they introduce too.

I think an order undead army could be kinda cool make a change to dead=evil anyway.

As for TK hints was there not a bit in malign scocery fluff with the chaos gods all having there view with a 6th figure walking through a desert and saying his time was coming to return?

Tie that in to some of the Nagash fluff and there seems to be strong hints that Morr got away and is not as dead as Nagash believes.

Not sure if anybody else has their spidey-sense tingling, but the fact that gutbusters didn't get any point adjustments kinda feels like they might be seeing a tome soon.