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.

Got my AoS box yesterday. It looks fantastic. I have the fennblades. Aesthetically you can pick what you want. In regards to execution, everything in the AoS box beats them hands down. And it really isn't terribly close.

Pretty excited to put some fantasy models on round bases, too.

What size are the official bases?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What size are the official bases?

So...the one for the mounted Celestine is what I'll not-so-affectionately call, "stupid sized oval." I will not be using it, since basing doesn't matter.

Everything else is in 40mm's or 32mm's, with the exception being the larger Khorne models who are on, I think, 50mm's (they could be 60mm's, I haven't checked yet.)

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Crash: yes, i can see that you have anger issues...
things have been confrontational since your first post all of one month ago...
seems like you got off to a running start...

not trying to be passive aggressive, mate...
just saying, if you are going to talk the talk, you should be willing to walk the walk...

i don't know why you and i got off on the wrong foot from your first day here...
i can see that my posts seem to piss you off...
i don't try and pick fights here, so i will just stop responding to you...
have fun, and enjoy Dakka...

cheers
jah

Well said.

this AOS game reminds me of the whole NEw coke vs Classic coke fiasco from the 80s.

Reality-Torrent wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

not trying to be passive aggressive, mate...
i don't try and pick fights here

Well said.

No, not really.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What size are the official bases?

So...the one for the mounted Celestine is what I'll not-so-affectionately call, "stupid sized oval." I will not be using it, since basing doesn't matter.

Everything else is in 40mm's or 32mm's, with the exception being the larger Khorne models who are on, I think, 50mm's (they could be 60mm's, I haven't checked yet.)

I personally like the oval bases I've seen some pill shaped bases, but I like the more oval shape better. But that said, I think round ones would have been fine too. I think I might still have a spare plastic dreadnought base in my bitz box that might fit the mounted hero pretty good.. if not maybe the chaos skull beasty thing.

 Vermis wrote:

Reality-Torrent wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

not trying to be passive aggressive, mate...
i don't try and pick fights here

Well said.

No, not really.

seriously, Vermis, i am not here to pick fights with anyone...
i am just here to share my enjoyment of toy soldiers with others who enjoy them too...

if you have something to say, at least quote me in context...
you know, the context of responding to someone who has singled me out as some passive aggressive poster, instead of refuting my statements...
especially when i have never put anybody down in my near decade of posting on Dakka...

so, what is your problem with my post???
feel free to get it off your chest...
let's at least be open and honest here, instead of just sniping at people...

i don't go ranting about how i hate any mini companies, because i love the whole industry...
i don't go wishing for the demise of a company that has given me 30 years of joy, and many lifelong friendships...
i don't go around telling people that their brand of fun is wrong, or stupid...
i would rather get along with people than have arguments...
what is wrong with that???
i am missing the point of your post, since you didn't give any context to why you don't like what i said...

cheers
jah

The appropriate way not to pick fights is not to respond, not a lengthy protest as to your innocence, which will invite responses refuting those claims, and whether you mean it or not, some of what you write does come off rather power armour.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

2. Cost of production; the design/tooling cost is relatively fixed, so needs to be split over expected sales. An item you only need 1 of will sell less on average than one you can use 100 of.

Which is actually a fair argument against making character models in HIP.

Especially given that so many of GW's character models are single pose.

Assuming normal figure sizes, of course - the amount of metal to make an ogre character is more than it takes to make a halfling character....

The Auld Grump

aside from GW's pricing, i don't really think that there is a good argument against making models in HIPS...
i understand that some don't like the pricing, but look what happened with the move from metal to Finecast...
a cost saving material brought us higher prices...
totally logical for some people to react negatively to that...

i'm a fan of metal, but i can see the advantages of the new plastic characters...
the metal characters were just as "single pose" as the plastic ones, so that is a wash...
metal parts like cloaks and swords are way thicker than their plastic counterparts...
metal minis are much more prone to chipping and breaking than the plastics...
metal minis don't have the same amount of negative space that an ingeniously cut plastic cast has...
clean-up and prep of plastic is quicker and easier than metal...
plastic cement makes a stronger bond than metal and super glue...
metal is cheaper to make molds for, but is a more expensive material to use...
metal has more heft, which is nice, but not necessary...

personally, i think the move to plastic characters has opened the door to much cooler sculpts than ever before...
it is more user-friendly to assemble, takes paint better, and is more durable...

in the end, i think it comes down to pricing more than material...
if Gw were selling their plastic clampacks for the same price as the first few that came out ($18), i doubt that many people would be complaining...
i get why some have balked at the price of the Tech-Priest ($36), but if that guy was metal, i can just imagine the complaints about what a PITA that guy is to put together...
he would probably cost the same as he does now, too...

if there is a fair argument in favor of metal over plastic, aside from pricing, i would honestly love to hear it...

cheers
jah



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
The appropriate way not to pick fights is not to respond, not a lengthy protest as to your innocence, which will invite responses refuting those claims, and whether you mean it or not, some of what you write does come off rather power armour.

pardon me for wanting to clarify things...

i don't get the reference...
what does that mean, "come off rather power armour"???

cheers
jah

Edit: nevermind, i am guessing power armor was a fun way to say passive aggressive....

The Dakka lexicon thing will tell you 'PA' is power armour.

I don't know why I did it...maybe I like to suffer, but I had a game of AOS

It broke my heart to see the game I loved for 25 years (fantasy) reduced to that...

I feel ill...the company that gave us Space hulk and Necromunda, and Mordheim...reduced to AOS...

It's awful. God awful...

@Az: or Pennsylvania...
or better yet, power axe...

so is it wrong for me to say that i am not trying to be a power axe to the face???
am i just supposed to let people slag me off for no good reason???

if a mod wants to step in and tell me that i am not allowed to defend myself, that is fine...
until then, i'm gonna stand up for myself...

cheers
jah

No, what I'm saying is, if you don't wish to fight with people, then your only choice is not to respond, because defending yourself will just perpetuate any disagreement.

 jah-joshua wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

Reality-Torrent wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

not trying to be passive aggressive, mate...
i don't try and pick fights here

Well said.

No, not really.

seriously, Vermis, i am not here to pick fights with anyone...
i am just here to share my enjoyment of toy soldiers with others who enjoy them too...

if you have something to say, at least quote me in context...
you know, the context of responding to someone who has singled me out as some passive aggressive poster, instead of refuting my statements...
especially when i have never put anybody down in my near decade of posting on Dakka...

so, what is your problem with my post???
feel free to get it off your chest...
let's at least be open and honest here, instead of just sniping at people...

i don't go ranting about how i hate any mini companies, because i love the whole industry...
i don't go wishing for the demise of a company that has given me 30 years of joy, and many lifelong friendships...
i don't go around telling people that their brand of fun is wrong, or stupid...
i would rather get along with people than have arguments...
what is wrong with that???
i am missing the point of your post, since you didn't give any context to why you don't like what i said...

cheers
jah

Again, well said.

 jah-joshua wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

2. Cost of production; the design/tooling cost is relatively fixed, so needs to be split over expected sales. An item you only need 1 of will sell less on average than one you can use 100 of.

Which is actually a fair argument against making character models in HIP.

Especially given that so many of GW's character models are single pose.

Assuming normal figure sizes, of course - the amount of metal to make an ogre character is more than it takes to make a halfling character....

The Auld Grump

aside from GW's pricing, i don't really think that there is a good argument against making models in HIPS...
i understand that some don't like the pricing, but look what happened with the move from metal to Finecast...
a cost saving material brought us higher prices...
totally logical for some people to react negatively to that...

i'm a fan of metal, but i can see the advantages of the new plastic characters...
the metal characters were just as "single pose" as the plastic ones, so that is a wash...
metal parts like cloaks and swords are way thicker than their plastic counterparts...
metal minis are much more prone to chipping and breaking than the plastics...
metal minis don't have the same amount of negative space that an ingeniously cut plastic cast has...
clean-up and prep of plastic is quicker and easier than metal...
plastic cement makes a stronger bond than metal and super glue...
metal is cheaper to make molds for, but is a more expensive material to use...
metal has more heft, which is nice, but not necessary...

personally, i think the move to plastic characters has opened the door to much cooler sculpts than ever before...
it is more user-friendly to assemble, takes paint better, and is more durable...

in the end, i think it comes down to pricing more than material...
if Gw were selling their plastic clampacks for the same price as the first few that came out ($18), i doubt that many people would be complaining...
i get why some have balked at the price of the Tech-Priest ($36), but if that guy was metal, i can just imagine the complaints about what a PITA that guy is to put together...
he would probably cost the same as he does now, too...

if there is a fair argument in favor of metal over plastic, aside from pricing, i would honestly love to hear it...

cheers
jah

Plastics need an economy of scale to become worthwhile to manufacture at a reasonable price - and character models are much less likely to reach that number.

There are ways around it - multiple characters per frame works, assuming a similar number of each of the characters is sold.

Finecast... was just a bloody stupid move.

Plastic... better for characters manufactured in sufficient numbers - just as stupid, in a different way, for characters where there will be one to an army. It could have been avoided by making a multi-purpose frame for poseable characters - so a single kit could have been used for making a Chaplain, a Librarian, or a Captain.

Keeping metal, or switching to a better grade of resin than findcash would have been a better way of handling it than the method that they have chosen.

GW seems to have an amazing knack for choosing the worst option from an array of choices.

The Auld Grump

Those economies of scale shrink a considerable amount when you own all of your own production gak.

I remember the discouragement in seeing the amount of Finecast in the Necron and Dark Eldar lines as it came out. I am still subbing models for Crypteks and DE characters until that last of that crap gets out of the system.

@TheAuldGrump: my problem with the multi-pose option you present, is that it limits the dynamism and "character" of the character model, since everything has to be cross-compatible...
there are no metal or Finecast minis that have the same dynamism or negative space as the new plastic characters, as far as i am concerned...

like i said, i understand that you may not like the price, but if you handle any of the new characters, you will see the ingenuity of the new designs...
price aside, are you seriously unhappy with the design and execution of the new single characters???
if you think they look too busy, i can understand that...
there is always Avatars of War, or Otherworld, or 20 other companies that will scratch your itch better...
if you think they are not worth the investment by GW, i would have to disagree...

i will definitely give you, "GW seems to have an amazing knack for choosing the worst option from an array of choices.", though...
they do seem to be on a record-breaking run of pissing off their customers for the last 5 years or so...

cheers
jah

Relapse wrote:
Again, well said.

Again, no, not really. He says he's never passive aggressive and never picks fights, then responds to raised eyebrows with a bunch of overlong arguments. It's... something, but it's not well said.

As tiresome as some of you find the anti-GW ranting from the same... what was it? 10 voices? It's not much easier reading the same old 'everything is fine, nothing is broken' pro-GW arguments from the same 3-4 people.

Relapse wrote:
I remember the discouragement in seeing the amount of Finecast in the Necron and Dark Eldar lines as it came out. I am still subbing models for Crypteks and DE characters until that last of that crap gets out of the system.

i am just glad i got the new Lelith and Urien in metal before the switch...
i can only imagine how droopy Urien would get in Finecast, and that is aside from all of the preparation and easily breaking issues...
i was amazed to find how bendy Finecast is, and bummed about how easy small bits break (like Sgt. Chronus' scanner, that thing needed to be replaced with a pin on both minis, one of which arrived pre-broken for my convenience)...
it just feels wrong...

as big a fan of GW minis as i am, i can't defend some of their choices at all...

cheers
jah




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Again, well said.

Again, no, not really. He says he's never passive aggressive and never picks fights, then responds to raised eyebrows with a bunch of overlong arguments. It's... something, but it's not well said.

i said i don't TRY to be...
if other people perceive me that way, there is nothing i can do about that...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: my problem with the multi-pose option you present, is that it limits the dynamism and "character" of the character model, since everything has to be cross-compatible...
there are no metal or Finecast minis that have the same dynamism or negative space as the new plastic characters, as far as i am concerned...

like i said, i understand that you may not like the price, but if you handle any of the new characters, you will see the ingenuity of the new designs...
price aside, are you seriously unhappy with the design and execution of the new single characters???
if you think they look too busy, i can understand that...
there is always Avatars of War, or Otherworld, or 20 other companies that will scratch your itch better...
if you think they are not worth the investment by GW, i would have to disagree...

i will definitely give you, "GW seems to have an amazing knack for choosing the worst option from an array of choices.", though...
they do seem to be on a record-breaking run of pissing off their customers for the last 5 years or so...

cheers
jah

I pretty much loathe the new single pose plastic characters, yes. And I really, really do not like the new 'dynamic' poses.

If there were choices of dynamic poses then it would be great - but having essentially one choice, and all in the same damned pose? Feh.

Metals have a lower production cost for smaller runs, allowing a greater variety of poses.

Instead... we have cheap plastic models that are limited in their utility.

And GW is actually making less money off of them than they would off of the metal models - assuming a similar price.

Which is why I still claim that GW is exercising its knack for choosing the worst options.

I think that AoS is going to be their fantasy Vista - and that they are more likely to sunset fantasy entirely than admit that, maybe, just maybe they have made a mistake.

And, sorry, you may like the Sigmarines... but I really, really do not. I would rather have a redone Empire Militia than those.... boring yet over sized pieces of gak.

The Auld Grump

 jah-joshua wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I remember the discouragement in seeing the amount of Finecast in the Necron and Dark Eldar lines as it came out. I am still subbing models for Crypteks and DE characters until that last of that crap gets out of the system.

i am just glad i got the new Lelith and Urien in metal before the switch...
i can only imagine how droopy Urien would get in Finecast, and that is aside from all of the preparation and easily breaking issues...
i was amazed to find how bendy Finecast is, and bummed about how easy small bits break (like Sgt. Chronus' scanner, that thing needed to be replaced with a pin on both minis, one of which arrived pre-broken for my convenience)...
it just feels wrong...

as big a fan of GW minis as i am, i can't defend some of their choices at all...

cheers
jah

A friend of mine compares Finecast to reinforced whipped cream.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: my problem with the multi-pose option you present, is that it limits the dynamism and "character" of the character model, since everything has to be cross-compatible...
there are no metal or Finecast minis that have the same dynamism or negative space as the new plastic characters, as far as i am concerned...

like i said, i understand that you may not like the price, but if you handle any of the new characters, you will see the ingenuity of the new designs...
price aside, are you seriously unhappy with the design and execution of the new single characters???
if you think they look too busy, i can understand that...
there is always Avatars of War, or Otherworld, or 20 other companies that will scratch your itch better...
if you think they are not worth the investment by GW, i would have to disagree...

i will definitely give you, "GW seems to have an amazing knack for choosing the worst option from an array of choices.", though...
they do seem to be on a record-breaking run of pissing off their customers for the last 5 years or so...

cheers
jah

I pretty much loathe the new single pose plastic characters, yes. And I really, really do not like the new 'dynamic' poses.

If there were choices of dynamic poses then it would be great - but having essentially one choice, and all in the same damned pose? Feh.

Metals have a lower production cost for smaller runs, allowing a greater variety of poses.

Instead... we have cheap plastic models that are limited in their utility.

And GW is actually making less money off of them than they would off of the metal models - assuming a similar price.

Which is why I still claim that GW is exercising its knack for choosing the worst options.

I think that AoS is going to be their fantasy Vista - and that they are more likely to sunset fantasy entirely than admit that, maybe, just maybe they have made a mistake.

And, sorry, you may like the Sigmarines... but I really, really do not. I would rather have a redone Empire Militia than those.... boring yet over sized pieces of gak.

The Auld Grump

I agree. The problem with Dynamic posing is we get into the issue we have with the current commissars, why do all my guys look the same? I hate the fact they are ALL standing on a rock. Hate that they all have the same scar and facial expression etc. When I started 40k there where heaps of commissars to choose from (and they looked epic) so the single poses didn't matter AND they could easily be converted because they had normal poses.

Dynamic models look ok... when its for something special. When every skink priest in your force is on the same rock, with the same pose and the same feathers etc it looks terrible. WHy anybody would buy more than one of the current character packs is beyond me when it would be cheaper and cooler to simply make your own ones.

I want the old way of having a bunch of cool models so I dont have to look at peoples models who buy that same commissar 4 times for their army.

@TheAuldGrump: fair enough...
different strokes for different folks...
i am obviously a big fan of the new plastic characters...

the question that GW had to answer is, which side do they cater to???
for you, they made the wrong choice...
for me, they answered my prayers...
so now the question becomes, are there more people in your camp, unhappy and unwilling to buy the new direction, or more people in my camp, who see the plastic characters as an evolution of miniature design and are happy to buy them???

cheers
jah



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Swastakowey: i agree with the idea that more variety is a good thing...
it is a shame that they got rid of the last generation of Commissars, leaving only the plastic one, the Lord Commissar, and Yarrick...
it is too bad that minis can't stay in production forever...
there are a good few minis i have missed out on in the last five years down in Mexico...
luckily, there are always people letting second-hand minis go...
collecting OOP stuff is almost a hobby of its own...

cheers
jah

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I pretty much loathe the new single pose plastic characters, yes. And I really, really do not like the new 'dynamic' poses.

If there were choices of dynamic poses then it would be great - but having essentially one choice, and all in the same damned pose? Feh.

I love single pose plastic characters that come in 10-20 parts, because they allow for poses and positions that are just not possible with a 2-part mold and 2-4 parts. You can have a head set inside an encasement; a cloak that truly wraps around; the front and back of a tabard; an arm across the chest without any dead space (undercut) between the arm and the chest; et cetera.

The reason that choose-your-own space marines is popular (not with you, I mean, with the people who like them) is because you can pick this breast plate, that leg pose, this arm pose, that helm this shoulder pad, that weapon, this backpack, that jumpack, this belt pouch, that grenade.

If you have like, 100 space marine models (say, a Company), this makes it so that your space marines aren't repetitive. It's also anti-ranked-up regimentation, because it assumes that you want your models to have individuality, even though you want them to look good together (so you'd want them all to face the same way, for instance, but each model may have a unique look.

Noncharacter models have a lot of poses, because you can combine legs, torsos, and arms, all with different looks.

Also, the Space Marines are popular because they look heroic. A lot of people don't like the Sigmarites for the same reason: they look heroic. Unfortunately, the two are mutually exclusive You can't have common foot soldiers that ALSO look heroic. The reason that the heroic won that fight is simply because they have sold better for Games Workshop.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Instead... we have cheap plastic models that are limited in their utility.

And GW is actually making less money off of them than they would off of the metal models - assuming a similar price.

Which is why I still claim that GW is exercising its knack for choosing the worst options.

I think that this is a matter of opinion. In my mind, a $35 metal + resin Anston Durst has a cost of manufacture not terribly different from a $35 plastic chaplain. The cost of the material is tiny either way. It's just the material you prefer.

I think you most like infantry sized? As someone who likes to also model things right up to the size of a titan, I assure you that HIPS is superior to metal and resin as models get larger. Metal models just fall apart when you game with them, and resin models, you fight with during prep if you want the fit to be perfect. It's not just GW: nobody makes a titan size model in metal, for exactly that reason. A LOT of GW models are a lot bigger than infantry.

By the way, I have some metal dragons in my display case. They take like, 30+ hours to prep because you're doing a ton of greenstuff to fill in the seams and replicate the scales that don't match exactly, and you can't play them for beans, because you're terrified that the head -- with 3 pins -- will break off if someone glares at it hard enough.

Keep in mind the tooling cost of HIPS balances out the material cost of metal. But... different strokes. Buy the material that makes you happy, I say. We should just be both happy that there are vendors that make models out of the different materials that we like.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

I think that AoS is going to be their fantasy Vista - and that they are more likely to sunset fantasy entirely than admit that, maybe, just maybe they have made a mistake.

And, sorry, you may like the Sigmarines... but I really, really do not. I would rather have a redone Empire Militia than those.... boring yet over sized pieces of gak.

Time will tell whether Games Workshop sells more immortals than militia! Personally, I think the Sigmarite aesthetic will sell well.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, what I'm saying is, if you don't wish to fight with people, then your only choice is not to respond, because defending yourself will just perpetuate any disagreement.

Especially if the defence involves snidely accusing people of having mental health problems.

In answer to the OP...I'll say no, I'm not hoping that it's the final nail.

I think AoS is a fairly smart reaction to what they saw in the markeplace. Fantasy wasn't selling any longer (I believe I saw 8% of sales in one thread - but 16% during End times...that could just be internet rumor). Nevertheless, I take that as a given that the sales had dropped to the point where the product was no longer viable. They looked at their two products: 40K and Fantasy...realized that both catered to similar markets. Large armies, 3 hour games, army building, tournaments. So they decided to make Fantasy radically different in the hopes of getting a new market share (and perhaps keep some of their old one too) by creating a game that 1) didn't require as many figures 2) could be played in a shorter time frame.

Likewise, I think the lack of any balancing system is a way to differentiate the game from their bread & butter 40K...if you like number crunching and army building - go play 40K. For a different experience, play AoS. It's actually simple.

I'm afraid that arguments about prices don't really sway me. Other games do charge less - but in the order to 20-30% less - for figures which are usually of lesser quality. Even if they were to drop their prices by that amount...I doubt they'd increase their sales by an equivalent amount. The game is a hobby - and people in the hobby tend to be sticky. It's a niche product, like model trains. An intensely small userbase willing to spend a lot (I should note that purchasing a video game console or PC and it's products isn't exactly cheap either). They'd need to bring their prices down to points that even other miniature game companies charge - say, $20 for a starter army - in order to attract the value buyer.

I see the AoS as a perfect starter set - cost of two video games, I get two armies. I can easily split it with a friend (should I wish).

The changing of the fluff was absolutely necessary...previously, the Warhammer fantasy fluff seemed hopelessly generic - Orks, Elves, etc. Sure, there were interesting characters...but nothing that seemed to distinguish the setting as an IP. Now, they've created something that's distinct...and thus trademarkable.

 Elemental wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, what I'm saying is, if you don't wish to fight with people, then your only choice is not to respond, because defending yourself will just perpetuate any disagreement.

Especially if the defence involves snidely accusing people of having mental health problems.

i wasn't accusing anyone of anything...
the guy said he had anger issues, and i agreed that i can see that...
it was tongue-in-cheek humor, but if i was wrong to agree, then i apologize...

it helps to actually read through the posts for context instead of just piling on with the rest of the people coming at me today...

cheers
jah

I like how people are saying AoS is some great new aesthetic and smart market reaction when all they did was make the good guys in fantasy look like Space Marines and gear the ruleset to children.