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.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.

Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...

It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.

On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.

You really think that size difference is a trick of perspective?

 Geifer wrote:
Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above.

Exactly. If the camera was level you'd see that those two minis are 100% the same height and scale.

Plus we must consider the possibility that the "bigger" one is just closer to the camera.

Coming up next; someone posting a photo of a basketball player next to a little person saying ‘see, people are different sizes in real life too’ as further proof GW scale hasn’t changed.

 Geifer wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.

Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...

It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.

On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.

I somehow doubt that big of a difference is merely a trick of perspective.
Furthermore.

Perhaps the change from rank and file square bases to skirmish units with round bases had a huge impact on how the scale went up and inconsistent. Particulary when it comes to characters.

Back to the old world with square bases they will need to find a more coherrent standard again.
Lets hope the designers rember how to line up models.

I'm not believing anything until we've got calipers measuring things!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fayric wrote:
Perhaps the change from rank and file square bases to skirmish units with round bases had a huge impact on how the scale went up and inconsistent. Particulary when it comes to characters.

Back to the old world with square bases they will need to find a more coherrent standard again.

The vampires are consistent within themselves.

Rank and file can change poses, but it also depends on sculptor skill and I think there shifting from physical to digital sculpting allowed GW to get more wild with designs more often because you could rank things up on the computer screen and check. Daughters of Khaine are pretty wild in pose and yet came out during the rank and file era and can rank up pretty well. Plus even when you don't have rank and file the nature of close combat still means that you want things to get close together pretty much most of the time


Then you get a wild outlier like the Lumineth spear units

First miniatures for Warhammer Battle were also scaled for "true historical" 28mm scale. Then it gradually went up as years passed on.

So of course when you put a Mordheim vampire (that was still at 28mm scale at that time) with current Underworld vampire warband, the difference in scale is obvious.

It doesn't help when the AoS / Underworld concept of vampires is different from the concept of "almost human" vampires from the old Mordheim vibe (at that time, the Empire didn't know the Von Carstein family was full of vampires, they still passed as humans - eccentric weird ones who tended to get out only at nights, but still).

And yes, Underworld vampire band is made of towering giant monsters when you put them next to "normal AoS humans" as well.

AoS lore is still this strange thing being its own super high epic fantasy setting whilst still retaining some of the visual, thematic and story elements of the Old World.

Eg its really hard to imagine a loan witch hunter in the AoS setting when vampires aren't just one or two creepy people hiding in their mansion; but generations living in huge cities where the general population are giving blood offerings every day.

Luke82 wrote:
You really think that size difference is a trick of perspective?

Considering that the very first thing I wrote on the subject was the following?

 Geifer wrote:
The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid)...

No, I don't. I like to think I made that pretty clear.

 Fayric wrote:
Perhaps the change from rank and file square bases to skirmish units with round bases had a huge impact on how the scale went up and inconsistent. Particulary when it comes to characters.

Back to the old world with square bases they will need to find a more coherrent standard again.
Lets hope the designers rember how to line up models.

Given some of GW's latest misadventures in model making, I'm envisioning a nightmare future in which not just arm A1 and leg A3 attach only to body A2, but where poses are so wild and base space is so limited that regimental model A1 has to occupy the front left corner, with model A2 to its right, followed by model A3. And so forth. Preferably this includes the reintroduction of slottabases so people can orient their miniature only one way and actually make them fit.

 Geifer wrote:
but where poses are so wild and base space is so limited that regimental model A1 has to occupy the front left corner, with model A2 to its right, followed by model A3. And so forth.

been there, done that
8th Edition Dark Elves Witches Elves combi kit would only fit one way into R&F with only 5 wide and always the same model of 5 needed to be on the same place otherwise
the preferred way with 7 model wide regiments was not possible without conversion or multi-bases

 Overread wrote:
I'm not believing anything until we've got calipers measuring things!

It's entirely possible to believe a photo shows one model is bigger than the other whilst also noting that the photo is poorly taken to compare the size of two models

 kodos wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
but where poses are so wild and base space is so limited that regimental model A1 has to occupy the front left corner, with model A2 to its right, followed by model A3. And so forth.

been there, done that
8th Edition Dark Elves Witches Elves combi kit would only fit one way into R&F with only 5 wide and always the same model of 5 needed to be on the same place otherwise
the preferred way with 7 model wide regiments was not possible without conversion or multi-bases

It was actually possible without that, you just had to chose the weapons and heads properly and glue the miniature on their base in different places.

Been there, done that as well. And yes, it's true you had to more carefully plan the way you put them in regiment for dynamic miniatures like Witch Aelves. Other static ones like spearmen and blackguard obviously didn't have that problem (they were released at the same time, though).

People just have to aknowledge that dynamic poses are always getting in the way of rules within a regimental wargame. KoW has the same problem as well. You'd think Mantic Games would be taking that into account, but oddly they don't. Maybe because they don't pay their sculptors enough to care.

Warmachine - ok Hordes - had issues with Skorne elephant monsters that often over-hung the base at the front. IT was even more an issue for that game because they have true facings and weapon arcs so which way your model faced was a major part of the gameplay state.

Grunted wrote:
I somehow doubt that big of a difference is merely a trick of perspective.Furthermore.

The one on the right has a significantly thicker base. That's where the difference is. Duh!

Sarouan wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
but where poses are so wild and base space is so limited that regimental model A1 has to occupy the front left corner, with model A2 to its right, followed by model A3. And so forth.

been there, done that
8th Edition Dark Elves Witches Elves combi kit would only fit one way into R&F with only 5 wide and always the same model of 5 needed to be on the same place otherwise
the preferred way with 7 model wide regiments was not possible without conversion or multi-bases

It was actually possible without that, you just had to chose the weapons and heads properly and glue the miniature on their base in different places.

Been there, done that as well. And yes, it's true you had to more carefully plan the way you put them in regiment for dynamic miniatures like Witch Aelves. Other static ones like spearmen and blackguard obviously didn't have that problem (they were released at the same time, though).

People just have to aknowledge that dynamic poses are always getting in the way of rules within a regimental wargame. KoW has the same problem as well. You'd think Mantic Games would be taking that into account, but oddly they don't. Maybe because they don't pay their sculptors enough to care.

Conquest: The Last Argument Of Kings has big square stands that your regular round bases slot into, meaning you can pretty easily have your guys rank up by just rotating them most of the time.

 Overread wrote:
Warmachine - ok Hordes - had issues with Skorne elephant monsters that often over-hung the base at the front. IT was even more an issue for that game because they have true facings and weapon arcs so which way your model faced was a major part of the gameplay state.

Tell me about that...it was even more horrible with the metal miniatures when they were around...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grunted wrote:


Conquest: The Last Argument Of Kings has big square stands that your regular round bases slot into, meaning you can pretty easily have your guys rank up by just rotating them most of the time.

Conquest shouldn't be talked here, given their miniatures are even bigger in scale than GW's.

So yeah, it doesn't solve anything to use round bases in square regimental bases if you keep making the miniatures bigger AND you try to add dynamic poses in that. It's just not made to be used together, that's all. Either you use a proper scale for regimental wargames and more static poses so that they dont get in the way of each other, or either you do something entirely different (and it's for the best, honestly).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I'm not believing anything until we've got calipers measuring things!

It's entirely possible to believe a photo shows one model is bigger than the other whilst also noting that the photo is poorly taken to compare the size of two models

Hush! Don't propagate wild ideas like that! You're ruining everyone's fun!

Sarouan wrote:

Grunted wrote:
Conquest: The Last Argument Of Kings has big square stands that your regular round bases slot into, meaning you can pretty easily have your guys rank up by just rotating them most of the time.

Conquest shouldn't be talked here, given their miniatures are even bigger in scale than GW's.

So yeah, it doesn't solve anything to use round bases in square regimental bases if you keep making the miniatures bigger AND you try to add dynamic poses in that. It's just not made to be used together, that's all. Either you use a proper scale for regimental wargames and more static poses so that they dont get in the way of each other, or either you do something entirely different (and it's for the best, honestly).

My concern would be whether GW was even willing to adopt such a system. They did with War of the Rings and kind of with the latest edition of Apocalypse, and I don't think either one caught on.

I'd also throw in that my experience with A Song of Ice and Fire is that it can look pretty lame and not regimented at all with big gaps between models. I expect GW would be concerned with visual representation more than anything. If those trays get in the way of that, I imagine they'd have a hard time getting considered even if they solve some issues.

 Geifer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I'm not believing anything until we've got calipers measuring things!

It's entirely possible to believe a photo shows one model is bigger than the other whilst also noting that the photo is poorly taken to compare the size of two models

Hush! Don't propagate wild ideas like that! You're ruining everyone's fun!

Sarouan wrote:

Grunted wrote:
Conquest: The Last Argument Of Kings has big square stands that your regular round bases slot into, meaning you can pretty easily have your guys rank up by just rotating them most of the time.

Conquest shouldn't be talked here, given their miniatures are even bigger in scale than GW's.

So yeah, it doesn't solve anything to use round bases in square regimental bases if you keep making the miniatures bigger AND you try to add dynamic poses in that. It's just not made to be used together, that's all. Either you use a proper scale for regimental wargames and more static poses so that they dont get in the way of each other, or either you do something entirely different (and it's for the best, honestly).

My concern would be whether GW was even willing to adopt such a system. They did with War of the Rings and kind of with the latest edition of Apocalypse, and I don't think either one caught on.

I'd also throw in that my experience with A Song of Ice and Fire is that it can look pretty lame and not regimented at all with big gaps between models. I expect GW would be concerned with visual representation more than anything. If those trays get in the way of that, I imagine they'd have a hard time getting considered even if they solve some issues.

I do think it depends on the specific presentation. ASOIAF units often looks weirdly spaced out and 90% of the units on the table are going to have the same footprint whereas Conquest looks like tight-knit groups of models.

 Geifer wrote:


My concern would be whether GW was even willing to adopt such a system. They did with War of the Rings and kind of with the latest edition of Apocalypse, and I don't think either one caught on.

I'd also throw in that my experience with A Song of Ice and Fire is that it can look pretty lame and not regimented at all with big gaps between models. I expect GW would be concerned with visual representation more than anything. If those trays get in the way of that, I imagine they'd have a hard time getting considered even if they solve some issues.

War of the Ring was different because of its specific scale : 28mm with realistic proportions (including weapons), because they had to be faithful to how they look in the movies. Even with dynamic poses, most of the miniatures tended to be reasonnable in proportion of their base's space so it wasn't a problem to put them in regiments (been there done that as well...and I went big on that game when it was out, doing a goblin and dwarf army).

Well, miniatures looked weird with their poses making no sense in a regiment, but that's another matter of the dynamic poses...

As for Apocalypse, the bases were actually only there to help move big units together faster. A bit like AoS players do with some custom unit bases, actually.


Here with the Old World, round bases are not even a thing since it was pretty much made clear in the Warhammer Community articles that they would use square bases. I just hope they won't go crazy with dynamic poses when sculpting the new miniatures...

Sarouan wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
but where poses are so wild and base space is so limited that regimental model A1 has to occupy the front left corner, with model A2 to its right, followed by model A3. And so forth.

been there, done that
8th Edition Dark Elves Witches Elves combi kit would only fit one way into R&F with only 5 wide and always the same model of 5 needed to be on the same place otherwise
the preferred way with 7 model wide regiments was not possible without conversion or multi-bases

It was actually possible without that, you just had to chose the weapons and heads properly and glue the miniature on their base in different places.

Been there, done that as well. And yes, it's true you had to more carefully plan the way you put them in regiment for dynamic miniatures like Witch Aelves. Other static ones like spearmen and blackguard obviously didn't have that problem (they were released at the same time, though).

People just have to aknowledge that dynamic poses are always getting in the way of rules within a regimental wargame. KoW has the same problem as well. You'd think Mantic Games would be taking that into account, but oddly they don't. Maybe because they don't pay their sculptors enough to care.

so yeah, GW messed up their R&F models in the past, so a good chance they do it again, or do you wanted to say that TOW will go for multi-basing and reduced model count like KoW to avoid the ranking up problem?

I really doubt that GW will reduce the amount of models needed for units just to avoid modeling problems

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
to some extent out of touch parents who refer to every game console as a Playstation

Still more in touch than the ones that still refer to everything as a Nintendo.

???

You mean an Atari?

 kodos wrote:


so yeah, GW messed up their R&F models in the past, so a good chance they do it again, or do you wanted to say that TOW will go for multi-basing and reduced model count like KoW to avoid the ranking up problem?

I really doubt that GW will reduce the amount of models needed for units just to avoid modeling problems

Oh no way GW will go with multi-basing, at least not in the rules (people will do whatever they want like they did with Battle before, after all). Since they want to "take the best of previous editions" for TOW, I'm pretty much expecting it will be the same for how they put miniatures in a regiment. I don't even expect they'll use bigger square bases for human sized models, to tell my faith on that matter.

TBH, the problem was never the amount of models needed for a "viable unit" - this was more a question about the time / money you need to build a regiment. The common trouble you had with miniatures not fitting well base to base is a question of base size and howh much of its space the miniature fills on it. That's why I hate dynamic poses for regimental wargames.

With the "scale creep" GW tends to use these days, I really can't see 20mm square bases working anymore even for static poses. I'd be more in favor of 25mm square bases minimum for all human sized infantry...and even so, I think it may not be enough at all. Even for KOW, I wish they did use 25mm square bases for all infantries and not just the heavy for that same reason.

 Geifer wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.

Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...

It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.

On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.

JESUS CHRIST?! That´s an obscene amount of scale creep! New vampire is a mini-giant.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.

Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...

It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.

On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.

JESUS CHRIST?! That´s an obscene amount of scale creep! New vampire is a mini-giant.

I will say..all the underworlds stuff is a bit bigger than its AOS origins. The witch elves dwarf all the new stuff so much that I have to rum them as a separate unit. That being said...I love old hammer.and new plastics make old hammer stuff look tiiiiiiney

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.

Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...

It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.

On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.

JESUS CHRIST?! That´s an obscene amount of scale creep! New vampire is a mini-giant.

Nah if you notice the shadows the AoS model is closer to the light source therefore just appears bigger, and he is also wearing thicker socks.

Unless the photo is taken at exactly sea level with accompanying proof of the photographers GCSE certificates then it is useless for scale comparisons anyway.

The difference between 6th edition and earlier minis and 7th edition is pretty substantial. It's not just AoS.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
The size difference of the new Vampires is real (and stupid), but it's worth pointing out that because of the way the advancing Vampire Counts skeletons are posed, this may be the single worst possible angle to take a photo as it makes the skeleton look smaller than it is. The scale issue exists, but these photos aren't fit to represent it in a meaningful way.

Maybe an old Warhammer GW Vampire vs a nuGW vampire then...

It's a bit better since the poses are similar, but the fundamental issue remains. Size comparisons are no good if you take a picture from above. If you want a meaningful comparison, you have to have the camera somewhere around head of chest height, or a suitable midway point if you have widely different model sizes, and ideally you should try to account for difference in base height and tactical rocks with spacers. Anything less just warps the comparison, and it's not like those requirements are terribly hard to meet, or to figure out their merits. Yet there are tons of people out there who never bother. There'd be a lot less doubt and back and forth in scale discussions if people just made their proof precise.

On another note, that vampire is going to be most useful to people who don't get out of their crypt much, but may not be of much help in determining what to expect of AoS vampires to anyone who collected a vampire army in this millennium.

JESUS CHRIST?! That´s an obscene amount of scale creep! New vampire is a mini-giant.

Or maybe it's not scale creep and they just want the new vampires to be that big compared to a regular person?

GW Vampirism gives you inches
Twilight Vampirism gives you glitter
Buffy Vampirism gives you steak







er stakes