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.

 BlackoCatto wrote:
Be in mind armies like Brets were kind of screwed of over rules and content, with Tomb Kings being really okay.

Furthermore it isn't about sales to an extent, it's about studio interest.

I think marketing and sales lead everything. Presumably those factions didn't sell all that well or didn't warrant further investment.

I also think Arthurean knights weren't original enough to get ported into the messy trademark-able fantasy melting pot that is age of sigmar. Though I suppose we could still see Halve-Aelvan PureFyre Chilvalnauts or something absurd like that.

I see we're back to the discussion about peoples (mis)perceptions about the nature of the setting/game and debating why people have odd views about what WHFB is and isn't.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
I think the older WHFB models looked great. There are no doubt a ton of amazing sculpts in AOS, but to say that the modern sculpts are "cooler" than the older ones is untrue imo. If anything, imo, the older models are a more confident and pleasant because they're a bit more clever and self-effacing. It makes a joke on the absurd fun of playing a game!

I think a lot of the modern sculpts are bit too try-hard, which makes them open to mockery and teasing. This is a tabletop strategy game after all, the cosplay of it all is open to ridicule quite easily so its better to lean into the fun, rather than insisting "my Khorne Daemon is so scary!! GRRR!!!"

GW has consistently done a great job with skaven and orks for example, getting the balance of spooky and silly. Irony and wit are hard to write, let alone "sculpt". And when people talk about the "character" of old models - they're speaking to the cleverness. Definitely some sculpts have gotten way better as GW returned to them...but you have to take it on a model by model basis. There are some really (imo) timeless WHFB minis and if anyone thinks theirs are too goofy and out of style, ill happily take them off your hands!!

Thats a lot of words spent on trying to excuse poor sculpting. You're never going to convince me that this is "confident", or "pleasant", or "clever", or "self-effacing", or "witty", or "ironic" or any of the other asinine adjectives you've tried to apply to them.



Oldhammer minis are none of the things you've ascribed to them. Gary Morley and Trish Carden/Morrison didn't sit down and say "I'm going to sculpt this miniature with awful malformed proportions and silly details because it'll be so cleverly ironic and witty while being pleasantly self-effacing", they sculpted them that way because that was what was within their ability and skillset to sculpt and within games workshops technological capability to reproduce. It was, in the most literal understanding of the phrase, the state of the art in the industry.

I'll stay an edge lord with awful taste, thank you!

FTFY.

Goose LeChance wrote:

Ohman wrote:
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm really confused about this new take on the Old World. Yes, still early days, no solid information yet and all that. Still...
Where is this game going to fit in the current line-up? From what is known right now I don't see how the models are going to be any different from what is being released for AOS. Square bases sure, but two fantasy model lines with very similar themes and styles? How is that going to work? Cross compatibility maybe? All the minis get rules for both AOS and TOW?

I've been under the assumption for a while now that the "Old World" is just a marketing gimmick to lure in old players (and take some of the steam away from rank&flank competitors)
All the models from the Old World will probably get rolled over into Cities of Sigmar for AoS eventually. Kislev might as well be an AoS army if they copy the video game design.

It seems the obvious way to do it. I wonder if they would consider making Ossiarchs, Stormcast etc playable with the Old World rules too? Basicially having one giant range of fantasy minis, all playable with both rule sets.

 Trimarius wrote:
I could see there being some overlap (much like 30k/40k), but I have to assume that at some point an actual AoS "Normal" Human Army will come out and the old WFB refugee models will be retired. It might even stay as the CoS book, just with models that fit the setting better.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think they are going to have a lot of the old world kits do double duty for AoS. Just like how much of the 30k stuff has rules in 40k.

Ohman wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Meanwhile I'm just wondering if we'll be able to use redone Fantasy units like the Blood Knights or Direwolves.

This is on my mind aswell. There is going to be an enormous mini-overlap between AOS and TOW. The majority of the AOS range is more or less a perfect fit with the Old World.
Will they re-box everything and make everything usuable with both games? One mini-range, two rule systems?

Theres very little crossover between 30K and 40k. 30K Marines can be used for 40k - as miniatures using 40k rules, but not as the units they are intended to represent in 30k. The ability to port 40k marines back into 30k is somewhat limited (wrong weapon loadouts, etc. in 40k marine units, lots of things that exist in 40k that don't in 30k, etc) unless you have a lot of marines and recombine miniatures across squads to try to make it work. The Custodes range is very flexible between both games, but the 30k Solar Auxilia and Mechanicum are largely isolated from the Guard/Mechanicum of the 40k era and vice versa. Beyond that, officially speaking there is no other crossover between games - while fans were at one point able to play 40k armies against 30k armies, Forgeworld attempted to discourage that practice and was adamant that they would not provide rules or faq/errata, etc. for players to do so (and in fact never provided any official means for it, which became a moot point anyway once 40k evolved passed the HH ruleset).

I would not expect to see Ossiarchs, Stormcast, etc. in The Old World. Daemons seem like the universal faction so I would be surprised *not* to see them show up in TOW. I could see Skaven and Slaves to Darkness/Chaos mortals (or at least a selection of the range) back-ported into TOW, as well as Cities of Sigmar to some exent (provided they don't get renamed Dawnbringer Crusades and have most of the legacy kits replaced by new AoS-ified kits). I don't think anything will be brought into AoS from TOW though (though I'm sure you'll be able to use TOW Daemons and Skaven/Chaos stuff in AOS, and human/elf/dwarf stuff might be usable in Dawnbringer Crusades/Cities of Sigmar). The key in all this though is, Daemons notwithstanding, I wouldn't expect you to be able to collect an army for one and be able to use it as-is for the other. i.e. your CoS/Dawnbringer Crusade army in AoS isn't just going to magically work in TOW - you will be able to use some of the *units* in your CoS army in your TOW empire army or whatever, but you will need to buy some TOW specific stuff that won't have an AoS analogue in order to make it work. And also square bases.

 Just Tony wrote:

They did it at this time solely to knock the steam out of Kings Of War releasing 3rd Edition.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

My pet theory is it was to scare off Kings of War, 9th Age, Oathmark and any other game thinking of claiming the Rank and File audience.

I'm forever going to play whack-a-mole with this. Kings of War 3rd ed. was released about 6 weeks prior to the Old World being announced, and was announced about 8 months prior. Pretty sure Oathmark didn't even exist yet at the time. 9th Age is a bunch of sad nerds playing WHFB wondering why GW would forsake them as they push their 100% non-GW army that they've had since 6th edition across the table. A lot of the people playing these games are bitter and toxic grogs who have sworn off GW forever after the End Times and aren't coming back anyway.

GW isn't knocking the steam out of anything or scaring off anyone announcing a game that by their own admission was still 3-5 years away from release. GW is basically Thanos going "I don't even know who you are" when it comes to the existence of these games.

 Geifer wrote:

Another thing I can think of is that GW considered the Battle Sister marketing that ended around the same time Old World was announced such a success that they wanted a follow up series. It's not a theory without flaws, but there are appreciable similarities between Sisters getting a plastic range overhaul after so long and the return of a nuked setting. As it stand now about half of the development time of Old World has been spent not telling us anything of substance about a project that we'd really like to have as much substantial information about as quickly as possible, which is a mirror of what happened to Sisters. It'll be interesting to see if the Old World articles pick up soon akin to the Battle Sister bulletin and start actually showing off models in reasonable intervals.

As I've pointed out in the past, the bi-weekly Sisters Bulletin ended ~2 weeks prior to the announcement of The Old World (and IIRC the Sisters box set released either the week before or the week after the announcement), which means TOW was more or less announced on schedule to continue that marketing trend and keep peoples attention captive.

 Geifer wrote:

As for Ohman's last line, they're able to post regular updates. They just don't do it. Probably because they are afraid of posting something that later gets changed and held against them as a false promise. Based on that I agree that they should have held back until they're confident that what they have to show is set in stone. With that said, I think they still could have had an article a month showing a sketch or artwork or CAD model (or even just parts of that) of a faction they know will be in the game on release. Can't be hard to get together a dozen and a half of those things without really committing to anything.

Taking the verbiage of the announcement to heart, I suspect the real issue is that they had only just started preliminary work on the game and literally had done little else than give it a name at the time the announcement was made. The early stages of a project like this are generally highly conceptual (not just in terms of artwork and aesthetics but rules design, etc.) - stuff that GW probably doesn't want to discuss because its highly subject to change and establishes false expectations. What they have shown is stuff that seems to have been far enough along in development that they weren't expecting it to change.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Cathay for example was talked about back in 1992 (2nd edition) and supposedly had such things as turtle ships

Whats fantastical about turtle ships?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Sometimes i wonder how can anyone look at the old, early edition Warhammer Fantasy models and say they're "beautifully designed" with a straight face. They're all so blatantly held back by the technology and sculpting and budget of their time i find it hard to take them remotely seriously.

HOW DARE YOU! THOSE MINIATURES ARE CONFIDENT AND PLEASANT SELF-EFFACING SCULPTS MADE TO BE WITTY AND IRONIC, AND ARE ALL THE MORE CLEVER FOR IT!

Goose LeChance wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Sometimes i wonder how can anyone look at the old, early edition Warhammer Fantasy models and say they're "beautifully designed" with a straight face. They're all so blatantly held back by the technology and sculpting and budget of their time i find it hard to take them remotely seriously.

CAD is to model design what CGI is to movies.
In the right hands, a powerful tool.
In the wrong hands... well... Transformers and Teclis.

The same can be said about Clay and Green Stuff, in the wrong hands you get the original Nagash mini or any of the other weird and wacky oldhammer sculpts that some people seem to fawn over.

 Saber wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Sometimes i wonder how can anyone look at the old, early edition Warhammer Fantasy models and say they're "beautifully designed" with a straight face. They're all so blatantly held back by the technology and sculpting and budget of their time i find it hard to take them remotely seriously.

Virtually anything sculpted by the Perrys is marvelous. The metal models have a depth and visual heft to them that can't be matched in plastic.
That's not to say that plastic is worse -- it's almost the better medium for large models, for example. However, I do prefer some metal models to their plastic counterparts.

I'm going to have to disagree.

 GaroRobe wrote:

Not that they're as old as the early edition models, but I think its universally agreed upon that the Juan Diaz metal Pink Horrors are so much better than the current plastic kit. And I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way when comparing the old daemonettes to the plastic ones. Some metal models just have so much character to them, its crazy. And some are better off forgotten

I'll give you the pink horrors, I think they are more accurate to the lore of what they are supposed to represent than the current sculpts which are too well defined. I prefer the plastic daemonettes head and shoulders above the old metal ones though - the metal minis were the biggest PITA to put together and had little in the way of actual detail.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

They did it at this time solely to knock the steam out of Kings Of War releasing 3rd Edition.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

My pet theory is it was to scare off Kings of War, 9th Age, Oathmark and any other game thinking of claiming the Rank and File audience.

I'm forever going to play whack-a-mole with this. Kings of War 3rd ed. was released about 6 weeks prior to the Old World being announced, and was announced about 8 months prior. Pretty sure Oathmark didn't even exist yet at the time. 9th Age is a bunch of sad nerds playing WHFB wondering why GW would forsake them as they push their 100% non-GW army that they've had since 6th edition across the table. A lot of the people playing these games are bitter and toxic grogs who have sworn off GW forever after the End Times and aren't coming back anyway.

GW isn't knocking the steam out of anything or scaring off anyone announcing a game that by their own admission was still 3-5 years away from release. GW is basically Thanos going "I don't even know who you are" when it comes to the existence of these games.

https://www.manticgames.com/news/kings-of-war-uncharted-empires-now-available-to-pre-order/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/15/old-world-new-warhammer/

Overall 3rd edition was released earlier, however the TOW announcement came during the preorder period and just over a week before the actual release of Uncharted Empires, a KOW expansion book that contains army lists for armies that, at the time, Mantic really didn't have ranges for, or at least full ranges in some cases. These armies existed to port existing WHFB armies to KoW, initially. You're not really going to be able to convince me the timing was pure coincidence, that GW just decided that was the time to announce a project 3 years out with no info, and not just GW trying to say "wait a few years and you can use our models in our game again!"

chaos0xomega wrote:
I see we're back to the discussion about peoples (mis)perceptions about the nature of the setting/game and debating why people have odd views about what WHFB is and isn't.

Technically we've already moved on to why GW ended the old setting and which of its factions were popular.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Taking the verbiage of the announcement to heart, I suspect the real issue is that they had only just started preliminary work on the game and literally had done little else than give it a name at the time the announcement was made. The early stages of a project like this are generally highly conceptual (not just in terms of artwork and aesthetics but rules design, etc.) - stuff that GW probably doesn't want to discuss because its highly subject to change and establishes false expectations. What they have shown is stuff that seems to have been far enough along in development that they weren't expecting it to change.

I can appreciate how much in flux a project can be in early development, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that there is absolutely nothing that could have been posted in a preview article. It's the old setting that's existed for three decades. You'll know which faction you definitely want to see released early in the new game's life, and whipping up concept art for these factions and some non-committal text to fill six monthly articles until a basic roadmap for the project stands can't be that hard.

It's not about handing out hard, unchangeable details at a time when they simply don't exist. Just an early and continuous marketing presence to get some use out of the uncharacteristically early announcement.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'll give you the pink horrors, I think they are more accurate to the lore of what they are supposed to represent than the current sculpts which are too well defined. I prefer the plastic daemonettes head and shoulders above the old metal ones though - the metal minis were the biggest PITA to put together and had little in the way of actual detail.

They have boobs and motion over the plastic models. What more could you ask for?

chaos0xomega wrote:

Oldhammer minis are none of the things you've ascribed to them. Gary Morley and Trish Carden/Morrison didn't sit down and say "I'm going to sculpt this miniature with awful malformed proportions and silly details because it'll be so cleverly ironic and witty while being pleasantly self-effacing"

well, the story I heard about some of the models was that they wanted to make something different than GW asked for, something that would fit their impression of the fluff better, so it was sculpted so badly that it should be rejected and re-done but to their shock they made it straight to production without any complain

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Oldhammer minis are none of the things you've ascribed to them. Gary Morley and Trish Carden/Morrison didn't sit down and say "I'm going to sculpt this miniature with awful malformed proportions and silly details because it'll be so cleverly ironic and witty while being pleasantly self-effacing"

well, the story I heard about some of the models was that they wanted to make something different than GW asked for, something that would fit their impression of the fluff better, so it was sculpted so badly that it should be rejected and re-done but to their shock they made it straight to production without any complain

I wonder if that's just an urban legend made to justify just how crap they looked, because people couldn't believe it.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

I wonder if that's just an urban legend made to justify just how crap they looked, because people couldn't believe it.

I still wonder how the original Arwen sculpt for LotR ever made it to release.

chaos0xomega wrote:
<snippo>

Oldhammer miniatures are really a mixed bag, some of them were crap, but a lot of them were quite good, it also depends what era you're considering, I think some good models came out of the 90's, haven't seen too much that I liked earlier than that though. It's easy to point to a model and say "Old Warhammer models were terrible!" but likewise it's not hard to find some real gems.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
<snippo>

Oldhammer miniatures are really a mixed bag, some of them were crap, but a lot of them were quite good, it also depends what era you're considering, I think some good models came out of the 90's, haven't seen too much that I liked earlier than that though. It's easy to point to a model and say "Old Warhammer models were terrible!" but likewise it's not hard to find some real gems.

Show me a good one, then.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
<snippo>

Oldhammer miniatures are really a mixed bag, some of them were crap, but a lot of them were quite good, it also depends what era you're considering, I think some good models came out of the 90's, haven't seen too much that I liked earlier than that though. It's easy to point to a model and say "Old Warhammer models were terrible!" but likewise it's not hard to find some real gems.

Show me a good one, then.

I always loved the Diaz Daemonettes - got lots of them. Same with the lahmian ladies

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
<snippo>

Oldhammer miniatures are really a mixed bag, some of them were crap, but a lot of them were quite good, it also depends what era you're considering, I think some good models came out of the 90's, haven't seen too much that I liked earlier than that though. It's easy to point to a model and say "Old Warhammer models were terrible!" but likewise it's not hard to find some real gems.

Show me a good one, then.

I always loved the Diaz Daemonettes - got lots of them. Same with the lahmian ladies

Look at their faces. Look at how thick everything is, how little detail is on everything, how the poses are all clumsy attempts at action poses held back by the fact they have to be a single lump.

But Cute girls AND Cats!!!

re the expressions - they fit for me as Daemonic / Vampire with her war face on - happy with the details - like the Cats!

Hey - Each to their own!

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Oldhammer minis are none of the things you've ascribed to them. Gary Morley and Trish Carden/Morrison didn't sit down and say "I'm going to sculpt this miniature with awful malformed proportions and silly details because it'll be so cleverly ironic and witty while being pleasantly self-effacing"

well, the story I heard about some of the models was that they wanted to make something different than GW asked for, something that would fit their impression of the fluff better, so it was sculpted so badly that it should be rejected and re-done but to their shock they made it straight to production without any complain

The Nagash story from the sculptor was that he sculpted a different head closer to the art, but someone at the company wanted a skull head instead. So he quickly threw together a big ugly skull thinking it would never be approved...until it was. Original head here:



Still isn't a great sculpt even for the era, but it comes down a level on the goofiness scale at least.

Jacksmiles wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

They did it at this time solely to knock the steam out of Kings Of War releasing 3rd Edition.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

My pet theory is it was to scare off Kings of War, 9th Age, Oathmark and any other game thinking of claiming the Rank and File audience.

I'm forever going to play whack-a-mole with this. Kings of War 3rd ed. was released about 6 weeks prior to the Old World being announced, and was announced about 8 months prior. Pretty sure Oathmark didn't even exist yet at the time. 9th Age is a bunch of sad nerds playing WHFB wondering why GW would forsake them as they push their 100% non-GW army that they've had since 6th edition across the table. A lot of the people playing these games are bitter and toxic grogs who have sworn off GW forever after the End Times and aren't coming back anyway.

GW isn't knocking the steam out of anything or scaring off anyone announcing a game that by their own admission was still 3-5 years away from release. GW is basically Thanos going "I don't even know who you are" when it comes to the existence of these games.

https://www.manticgames.com/news/kings-of-war-uncharted-empires-now-available-to-pre-order/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/15/old-world-new-warhammer/

Overall 3rd edition was released earlier, however the TOW announcement came during the preorder period and just over a week before the actual release of Uncharted Empires, a KOW expansion book that contains army lists for armies that, at the time, Mantic really didn't have ranges for, or at least full ranges in some cases. These armies existed to port existing WHFB armies to KoW, initially. You're not really going to be able to convince me the timing was pure coincidence, that GW just decided that was the time to announce a project 3 years out with no info, and not just GW trying to say "wait a few years and you can use our models in our game again!"

This is like arguing that someone announced a game to suck the wind out of GWs sales because it coincided with GW releasing a new codex. The "these armies exist to port WHFB armies" bit is pointless, that boat sailed a decade prior with the release of Kings of War 1st edition, at this point a lot of the people playing those armies are and have been using third party non-GW miniatures (many of which are based off of old WHFB minis).

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

 BlackoCatto wrote:
Be in mind armies like Brets were kind of screwed of over rules and content, with Tomb Kings being really okay.

Furthermore it isn't about sales to an extent, it's about studio interest.

I think marketing and sales lead everything. Presumably those factions didn't sell all that well or didn't warrant further investment.

I also think Arthurean knights weren't original enough to get ported into the messy trademark-able fantasy melting pot that is age of sigmar. Though I suppose we could still see Halve-Aelvan PureFyre Chilvalnauts or something absurd like that.

As stated by elements of GW themselves, it is about studio interest.

chaos0xomega wrote:
This is like arguing that someone announced a game to suck the wind out of GWs sales because it coincided with GW releasing a new codex. The "these armies exist to port WHFB armies" bit is pointless, that boat sailed a decade prior with the release of Kings of War 1st edition, at this point a lot of the people playing those armies are and have been using third party non-GW miniatures (many of which are based off of old WHFB minis).

might be in the US, in central Europe, Uncharted Empires of 2nd Edi were a real big thing to have nearly 1:1 copies for GW model armies and for the same reason we had big rage when Mantic made changes to go away from legacy model support (as some 1:1 copies were merged with other units) which leaded to a direct answer from Ronnie that there is no point in Mantic supporting 20 year old GW models and they are still useable with the different unit entry

the use of legecy warhammer models is strong here and the message of "don't buy into Kings of War because a game with square bases is coming from GW" was very clear here
and there is no real other reason to post a empty base during the release of the "GW armies book" from Mantic and go silent for months after

PS: and yes, 3rd party model releases are often timed with the release of a new Codex to get sales off it, this is nothing special

 Mr Morden wrote:
But Cute girls AND Cats!!!

re the expressions - they fit for me as Daemonic / Vampire with her war face on - happy with the details - like the Cats!

Hey - Each to their own!

Plus those old paintjobs really aren't doing them any favours.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

 BlackoCatto wrote:
Be in mind armies like Brets were kind of screwed of over rules and content, with Tomb Kings being really okay.

Furthermore it isn't about sales to an extent, it's about studio interest.

I also think Arthurean knights weren't original enough to get ported into the messy trademark-able fantasy melting pot that is age of sigmar. Though I suppose we could still see Halve-Aelvan PureFyre Chilvalnauts or something absurd like that.

That isn't how trademarks work. Trademarks apply to names, logos etc and copyright does not cover design styles or theming, only the actual miniatures themselves. . A while back several people said something similar and thoguht they'd probably redesign armies entirely for this project to make them more "unique" so they could "protect" them, but as we've now seen the (supposedly) full Kislev roster and the concept art, there is no indication of any overhauls to make them more "original" going on.

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Oldhammer minis are none of the things you've ascribed to them. Gary Morley and Trish Carden/Morrison didn't sit down and say "I'm going to sculpt this miniature with awful malformed proportions and silly details because it'll be so cleverly ironic and witty while being pleasantly self-effacing"

well, the story I heard about some of the models was that they wanted to make something different than GW asked for, something that would fit their impression of the fluff better, so it was sculpted so badly that it should be rejected and re-done but to their shock they made it straight to production without any complain

That's some Pee Wee Herman "I meant to do that" retconning lol.

So there's a blog post for TW:W2 getting Ogre Mercenaries as part of the game https://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-warhammer-2-ogre-mercenaries-roster-reveal/

I'm wondering if this too could be concept art done for TOW. The style and format is similar to that of the Kislev concepts posted recently, and we know the Kislev units were designed for TOW first and at least one of the concepts shown there (the bear) was first used to tease stuff coming with TOW.

Might not be for TOW after all but it would be a bit odd if it was a case of the Kislev roster blog post for some reason includes 1 piece of concept art we know was for TOW and then the rest isn't as well.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
<snippo>

Oldhammer miniatures are really a mixed bag, some of them were crap, but a lot of them were quite good, it also depends what era you're considering, I think some good models came out of the 90's, haven't seen too much that I liked earlier than that though. It's easy to point to a model and say "Old Warhammer models were terrible!" but likewise it's not hard to find some real gems.

Show me a good one, then.

Metal Phoenix Guard > Plastic Phoenix Guard > Anything in Lumineth

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
<snippo>

Oldhammer miniatures are really a mixed bag, some of them were crap, but a lot of them were quite good, it also depends what era you're considering, I think some good models came out of the 90's, haven't seen too much that I liked earlier than that though. It's easy to point to a model and say "Old Warhammer models were terrible!" but likewise it's not hard to find some real gems.

Show me a good one, then.

Obviously it depends somewhat on personal taste, but I reckon by the mid 90's the Perry's were doing some good work, most of the metal Bretonnian range from that era I think is great, the Grail Knight Hero, Bret Sorceress on foot, Bertrand and his Brigands, the Green Knight, those are still some of my favourite models. Brian Nelson did my favourite Orc Shaman model in the mid 90's.

It's a matter of taste, but I actually like a lot of the metal Lizardmen from the mid 90's also, you didn't see a lot of them because they had tons of the terrible plastics in the boxed set, so everyone just used the plastics. Some of the metal from the various Elf ranges I thought was good.

In 40k, the Valhallans, actually most of the metal Imperial Guard stuff was pretty good. We joke about how old some of the Eldar range is, but much of that old Eldar range actually looks pretty good. A lot of the metal Space Marine character stuff I thought looked pretty good also, though the wide legged stance was popular, so it depends how much you care about that.

Warhammer Quest had some nice models, as did Necromunda.

I'm not some crazy person who's going to stand here and say the entire range was great, I reckon more than half of it was pretty bad, but by the same token putting up a picture of Nagash and crying "Oldhammer sucks!" it's just disingenuous, everyone knows that model was terrible even by the standards back then.

Certainly if you like a cleaner aesthetic, rather than the "leaping off a tactical rock surrounded by swirly gak with so much detail you can't see what's going on" aesthetic, there were some good options back then, but obviously not the whole range and certainly not the plastics.

I love those 5th edition Lizardmen, even the primitive plastics.

Still a better aesthetic than the current 'Toys R Us' Lizards, with some of worst anatomy I've ever seen, giant hands/heads, no waists etc.

And those cheesy shields made out of scales...

One of the great sadnesses of my life is I grew up through the era of great metals but was too poor to afford them, lol.

Couldn't agree more.

I walked into a GW store for the first time during 5th edition, and my mom said "nope"

It makes me wonder about the whole "marketing to kids" thing.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So there's a blog post for TW:W2 getting Ogre Mercenaries as part of the game https://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-warhammer-2-ogre-mercenaries-roster-reveal/

I'm wondering if this too could be concept art done for TOW. The style and format is similar to that of the Kislev concepts posted recently, and we know the Kislev units were designed for TOW first and at least one of the concepts shown there (the bear) was first used to tease stuff coming with TOW.

Might not be for TOW after all but it would be a bit odd if it was a case of the Kislev roster blog post for some reason includes 1 piece of concept art we know was for TOW and then the rest isn't as well.

These concepts are all of existing units, and in plastic to boots (bar the maneaters)

Goose LeChance wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:


Show me a good one, then.

Metal Phoenix Guard > Plastic Phoenix Guard > Anything in Lumineth

Metal Har Ganeth executioners > plastic executioners.

Same with black guard of naggarond.

Kyoto Secuda misheard Camembert as Cannon Bears, leading to a discussion of shooting bears out of cannons to rampage among the enemy ranks.

Point being, if Kislev have Cannon Bears then I'm in.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:


Show me a good one, then.

As it is still relevant to the current title of the thread, the entire Perry metal Bretonnian range was better than the plastics for 6th Ed, especially the bowmen / men-at-arms.

The 6th ed knight box was an improvement over the plastic knights from 5th, but scale creep was massive and made them incompatible. And I wouldn't say they were better than the metal knights errant, or metal questing knights (that still had lances)

In fact the Green Knight is still one if my favourite models. I have a metal one in storage somewhere I need to dig out. I will give 6th Ed Louen and Morgiana le Fay a nod over the 5th Ed ones. Though they are all still metal, or were originally.

Keep in mind that until about 4 or 5 years ago, we didn't really have "Monopose plastics". All the good, dynamic, well composed plastic miniatures recently? Monopose.

And people have complained like FURY. "These suck, how am I meant to make each of My Doodz look different"

Multipart plastics are NOT dynamic, unless you as the modeller are really good at posing. Every Ork Boy or Cadian is fundamentally identical, except for changing the angle of the limbs and torso by a couple of degrees.

And that's fine! It's good for rank and file.

But if you want models with character, a sense of movement and dynamism, GW's plastic miniatures only just caught up with what they used to do in metal. And yes, now that they're working with a light material that allows very thin parts and they've cracked chopping up the CAD files in such a way that you can get recessed details and undercuts that the old rubber moulds allowed metals to do, lots of then are utterly beautiful. And they can be a right pain to glue together in order to achieve that.

But the idea that "Old models sucked, newer ones are better 'cos they're newer" is just flat out wrong.