Soon™ Edition>Resources:WFB: https://pastebin.com/qVGrgwwhWM: https://pastebin.com/EsDAgebaWFRP: https://pastebin.com/inbyBsR6Novels: https://pastebin.com/PFqPDr0H>TOW:https://gofile.io/d/fxFgXShttps://www.warhammer-community.com/the-old-world-downloads/>Warhammer Chronicles:https://files (dot) catbox (dot) moe/0xt777 (dot) zip>Time of Legends:https://files (dot) catbox (dot) moe/q46ut6 (dot) zip>The End Times:https://files (dot) catbox (dot) moe/j7d0t5 (dot) zip>Alternative Models:https://pastebin.com/xPeM9szL>Previous Thread:>>96574090>Thread Question:Are you excited for the next Arcane Journal?
>>96602071Paying premium for wounding trolls on 2+ seems pretty okay.
>>96602274>TQseems more interesting than the Cathay in Marianburg one, if only for the AoIs and the Border Patrol rules
>>96602249>How did you make the poster?I use GIMP, and I used a free "old paper" image as the base>what's the font?The font is called Caslon Antiquehttps://www.1001fonts.com/caslon-antique-font.html>What did you use for the background?here's the image itself that I use if you want to use the very same one
Started work on my chaos warband again, Alaric of the phallic drip. Slaaneshi turned nurgle converts theme.
>>96602071Aren’t they only a few point per model more or is it different from the free pdf
>>96602423Close up on the little plaguebearer face I added to the tongue
>>96602431Positively disgusting.
>>966024268pts per model for one more armor, great weapon, and +2 pts if you want veteran. But also lose armor bane 1. Way too expensive.
>>96602423Slaanesh turned nurgle is double gross. Awesome
>>96602504Especially cause you can give bulls Iron fists for 4 pts which should out perform great weapons in every instance outside of monster killing.
>>96602528>>96602504I see I see thank you. Mournfang is double the investment do they perform well relative to cost?
>TOW released more than 1.5 years agoHow does time fly
Do you get the meme anon? Are you awesome?
>>96602274>TQ There are many interesting things rumoured, like the heavier skeleton cavalry or different mercenaries.
>>96602945Gripe: Tomb Kings should never have been given cavalry. Chariots only.
>>96603028Counterpoint: tomb serpents are cool.
give him back, damn you /wfg/or at least get him to make some cool beastmen
>>96603044What does the lead designer do, does anybody? I assume he still sculpts himself and doesn't just give orders and stuff.
>>96603044Those two figures are shit.
>>96602416nta, but thank you! That's pretty cool.I'll try to do something similar
>>96603041serpents aren't horses, so they aren't cavalry
>>96603059*does anybody know, kinda typed too fast there
>>96603041Not horse cavalry, so a different topic from what I meant. (though I think they're too much of a meme)
>>96603044I think wet undead are on the menu 3 years from now
>>96603071Don't worry, sir, I have your attention right here: You are acknowledged for not liking the thing that a lot of people like. You're very special.
>>96603071>But dooood! They're really BIG!!! And DETAILED! And the ghoul king's base is twice as wide as it needs to be! That shows how IMPORTANT he is!
>>96603120Why do you guys do this thing where you make a mewling strawman post instead of just civilly discussing what you find disagreeable about the models? It's just annoying to read and it's not conducive to discussion. You could have been like:>I think that this model is detailed to the point of excess, and it gets in the way of being paintable for most skill levels. The cape has a lot of unnecessary visual noise, and the base is (...)
>>96603120If anything I think making them that big is a point against them, but in any case they're pretty sweet sculpts, that manage to avoid being overdetailed.
>>96603103NTA (the other anon who responded)The vampire on the undead dragon is better suited as a collector's display model rather than a game piece. The ghoul king would be improved if scaled down a bit (though it's still less of a problem than with most >centerpiece models) and not standing on an oversized scenic base.
>>96603120I'm not opposed to making characters a bit more imposing, Warlord's Vercingetorix is a figure I'm particularly fond of, it's just you easily get to a point where it becomes too much.
>>96603168It's telling that holding a mirror to you only shows a strawman.
>>96603168Attention like the other guy said.Worst part is I'm actually pretty curious and would enjoy a discussion like that. I've seen some dislike big oosh because if you don't look at him from his usual 10/10 angle his cape kinda blends together and it's not always clear what you're looking at. I haven't heard anyone criticize the new zombie dragon though, except for the price lol, so I'd be interested in what people have to say.But no yeah we get whiney posts for attention instead.
>>96603176That's valid, and in fact I agree with you. I'd never want to paint those models. I just can't stand people who act like little kids here.
>>96603168Where do you think we are? Civil, reasonable, propositions or criticisms are responded to with pithy, disingenuous, shit-talk. Or by spazzes with limited reading comprehension who can't even process what was said, and are incapable of civil discourse. I might not like it either, but insults and crass strawmanning is effective.(I did make a sincere post, 3 posts down. Was considering including something like that as parenthetical text, but didn't want to compromise the post's "punchyness.")
>>96603168Because it's all subjective opinions on an anonymous Sri Lankan poo farming board. We've heard every argument there is and no one will change anyone's mind, so might as well have fun with it.
>>96603071>>96603120they're fine in the context of AoS, which is not a rank and flank game and has like 50% fewer models on the table than 40k. there I think it makes a lot of sense to have a couple big, showy units like this in your list. anything he makes for TOW has to conform to a completely different context and wouldn't look the same for that reason.
>>96603168Because they're children who are here to play grabass and behave like their moms' have told them not to. They don't really give a shit about any minis (or anything else that isn't playing grabass). Thinking through and then clearly stating what they think about something on the other hand? That's fucking homework! They'll never do that voluntarily.
>>96603291And what makes you think his expertise within said context will translate over to the much different one of old world?Kev Adams for example does great fantasy goblins. Not sure I want him to sculpt sci-fi gynoids for example.
>>96603317A fantasy miniature is a fantasy miniature.
>>96603317He has understanding of proper posing that alone makes him better than all current gw artists.
>>96603297With a tone like that you best be a legit boomer who started playing in the 80s, otherwise STFU
>>96603175Yes, that's what I meant, anon. I don't see them as over-detailed *by GW standards.*>>96603178Right, key characters should be identifiable at a glance, but as we seem to agree, there are subtler ways of achieving this. That model is a good example of what a Gaulish chieftain should look like.>>96603196>I haven't heard anyone criticize the new zombie dragon though, except for the price lol, so I'd be interested in what people have to say.As mentioned, it's designed more like a model intended for shelf display than a game piece. Miniatures wargaming needs to economize physical space, because the table can only be so large, and larger models mean less room for interesting scenery. Having its wings spread out horizontally like that gives it an unnecessarily large footprint. The pose itself also doesn't give a clear indication of model facing, which is important. As opposed to display models, game models benefit from more neutral, or 'static' poses; "dynamism" might look neat once, but when an entire army is "dynamic," they end up looking like a dis-coordinated dance troupe.I could go on.
>>96603044>spoilerHonestly, I feel like he could design a great model for Morghur.
>>96603355Thanks for actually giving a detailed breakdown. I think you make some good points, and I can see where you're coming from. (I would say though that seeing him on the table the directionality thing isn't really an issue, but yeah from the pic I see what you're getting at).
>>96603291Even if AoS doesn't use locked formations, physical space still needs to be economized.To continue from->>96603355-making key models identifiable as key models is important, but it needs restraint. Big monsters are fine, but that doesn't mean bigger = always better, which the GW studio seems to not understand. This relates to problems with excess detailing, in that the shift to plastic removed many of the inherent restraints model designers would have faced with hand-sculpting and metal. Sure, you *can* make a model 2x or 3x larger than it was before, and it is relatively easy to add extra greebles/doodads/textures/etc., but that doesn't mean you should. The limitations end up indirectly facilitating a better result. It's very similar to how movies made with practical special effects end up being so much more compelling than CGI shitfests.Of course, "bigger=better" and "DETAILZ!!!" seem popular to most gaymers. That works out for the business side of things, but the game itself suffers.
>>96603347You're half right. There's no need to be familiar with Warhammer to recognise comments like >>96603071 and >>96603120 as the empty trolling they are. All it takes is to be a "boomer", ie an adult, to recognise the sound of needy kids shouting for attention.
>>96603440>don't like thing>child! You scream for attention?!Come the fuck on.
>>96603440I might have been trolling, but it wasn't empty, which the other anon was able to recognize. Do you have any thoughts to contribute to the subject?
>>96603438>of course, BIGGER=BETTERI wonder if there's any examples of a model update making the model smaller than before? Reverse scale creep if you sill.
>>96603466>Do you have any thoughts to contribute to the subject?Another thing you learn as you grow up is that discussing things like that with a troll is completely meaningless. There's no point in reading what they write, it's just trolling (making it all empty and meaningless), and there's no point in sharing your own opinions for them since they have no interest in it other than to find new ways to troll you.
>>96603540Case in point.
>>96603317Why do you think someone able to design a big miniature wouldn't be able to design a small one?
>>96603591Because they take very different skillets and design to get right. A large overly detailed imposing character as your resume isn't gonna make any napoleonic soldiers you make any better. Might actually make them worse because people usually do units of 24 to 36 of the blighters. It's why they don't even like to do skirmish action poses very much either.
>>96603120Yeah, that's a genuine issue with AoS. Not just monsters and gods but regular individuals are ridiculously large compared to the average infantry if they're a hero. The leader of men, Tahlia, is a regular human the size of an Ogre. The rest of the human range is typical 28mm with the other heroes being a head taller or so but it's all ridiculous AoS is a board game like Godtear or something at this point, abstraction trumps simulation
>>96603438>Big monsters are fine, but that doesn't mean bigger = always better, which the GW studio seems to not understandThe issue I see with your critique/argument is that your reasoning well supports the idea more detail/size isn't inherently positive, but that doesn't go far to define why the specific sizes/levels of detail are better or why GW's sizes and amount details aren't good.
>>96603429I haven't seen that undead dragon in person, so yeah, I can't give a 100% assessment. But regarding posing and directionality, here's an example of a big gaming model done right. It's from Reaper miniatures (late 90's? early 2000's?), and made of METAL. The wingtips are nearly 12 inches from the base. It was probably intended as more of a display piece than a game model, but it still works on a game table, in spite of being over-sized, because the footprint is still relatively small. And the pose still looks natural. The facing is also immediately conveyed, and it doesn't come with a gratuitous scenic base.If there's room for improvement, maybe the tail could also be raised more, but that's a minor point, and might have made assembly even more difficult. I'd have also given it shorter limbs, like what Warhammer did with its serpentine metal dragons, but that's more general style/mythological preferences.
Posting [pic] because Citadel's Middle-Hammer metal dragons were basically perfect as game pieces: Imposing, clearly aggressive, but still compact and with clear indication of direction. The best they've ever done. Also, serpentine dragons > lizard-cat bodybuilder dragons.(also: I'm not saying with this, or the previous post, that gaming miniatures *need* to have a static pose with mono-directional facing, but that that's a good baseline standard) >>96603487>I wonder if there's any examples of a model update making the model smaller than before? Reverse scale creep if you sill.Not that I'm aware of, but I'm a big advocate of wargaming using ACTUAL scales (like 1/100, 1/56, etc) instead of bullshit like "28mm."As well as plastic, the innernet creates an incentive for scale creep, since most people's first impression of a model is an enlarged image on a computer screen. Bigger model = more room for extra details and fancier paintwork, so people will think [model A, from company 'blue'] is "better" than [model B, from company 'yellow'], because they're assuming they're the same size. But in-person, [model A] is like twice as large.>>96603646I already addressed the issue of miniatures games operating with limited table space. "28mm scale" (see above) is already too large to the point where extreme abstractions need to be made (if the game was to-scale, archers would have ranges measured in feet or meters, not inches). This would be kind of ridiculous, so some compromise is okay, because miniatures wargaming isn't just about tactics and simulation, it's also about visual spectacle, and models around 30mm/human are close to as small as you can get while still having things like recognizable faces with painted eyes, etc. You still need to maintain some suspension of disbelief, however, and needless 'embiggening' starts making the dimensional abstractions more glaring. (continued...)
>>96603627I don't really think this an aos specific problem anon.
>>96603044I wonder why people are so excited about this. Wasn't the whole point of TOW to bring back the old models? I was happy to be able to get more of the 2004 chaos warriors (though I would have preferred the 1997 ones) and other kits from around that time. I think it's bass ackwards to put an AoS sculptor in charge of new Fantasy models. I know people are always complaining about the old sculpts turning people away from the game, and maybe they do, but the old sculpts are cool! The stuff this guy has made isn't bad, don't get me wrong. Sure, his models are detailed & flashy and they draw the eye, but I don't think he'll be able to make Fantasy models that suit my tastes. I don't want AoS models in my army, I want to expand my Fantasy army with Fantasy models and none of the new stuff GW has made does the job. Why couldn't they just reinstate the mail order catalogue? That's all I wanted.
TOW Chuds.... Your response?
>>96603869(cont...)There's also the issue of wargames being, well, WARgames (meaning armies of dudes). In terms of visual impact, overly huge monsters end up overshadowing the formations of regular dudes they're meant to be complimenting. This started really becoming a problem in the last edition of Warhammer Fantasy (the Tomb King's Old World skeleton dragon is also an example, besides it being non-thematic for Khemri). With this increase in size, the game designers need to make statistical increases, so bigatures also overshadow their armies in rules-terms as well. The game becomes becomes less about armies, and more about Godzilla vs. Mothra.This is why the original Nagash, as derpy as it is, is a better than Nu-Nagash (to say nothing of the difficulty of transporting it and physically moving it around the table- other reasons for why GW's sizes aren't good); Nagash isn't powerful because he's physically big, he's powerful because of his magic. Even the old version took un-needed liberties with his size, but not in a bad way.As for level of details, that's a discussion on aesthetics, which is a more imprecise field (but not flatly subjective; aesthetic judgements can still be wrong). There's a misunderstanding that because "detail" is good, more detail must be better. And more detail IS good, when that entails things like sharpness, or fidelity to the envisioned design. But adding extra pouches/belts/skulls/chains/jewelry/bits-of-fabric beyond a certain point creates clutter. It's more visually complex, but everyone should agree that visual complexity doesn't equate to quality. The goal should be to strive for ICONIC representation, and this is contradicted by clutter and complexity. There's a reason why computer icons, avatars, logos, road signs, religious/political symbols, etc. tend to be simplistic: we're not looking at it for the shape itself, but the *what it represents*...
>>96603969I like 8th :3
>>96604011(cont...)If a model (or some being the model is intended to represent) is known for a certain visual feature or two, then those features should be readily noticeable, so that sub-consciously, we immediately think "This is [thing]." Adding-on extra features not associated with [thing] creates a higher noise/signal ratio to sift through, creating a weaker association. You might not notice this, but your brain absolutely does. Something as small as a gaming miniature needs clear legibility.
>>96603627>regular individuals are ridiculously large compared to the average infantry if they're a hero.
>>96604021Me too brother. There's still like... 5 of us.
>>96603178I looked at this again: Don't like the wrist-wraps. Beltcore nonsense. There's other historical inaccuracies, but those are ok (not true; the pelt worn under his belt is bugging me).Still a good figure. As long as he has the fanciest helmet, it should be easy to pick him out as the leader. Other dudes can still have fancy helmets, but maybe in a different style.
Are there any good Kislev armybook homebrews based on total warhammer 3?
>>96603440>All it takes is to be a "boomer", ie an adult, to recognise the sound of needy kids shouting for attention.Ironic given you're virtue signaling on an anonymous message board.
>>96603969>not 5eProof AI is lobotomized
>>96604235>HEROHAMMER fag ass shit You seem to be the one suffering from a lobotomy
>>96604219Clearly he deserves our praise.Also, my one-line greentext shitpost was more impactful than my ~1,200 words of SERIOUS ADULT DISCUSSION. Which is why I shitpost, and will continue to do so.
>>96604291Wargames should place an emphasis on dynamic heroic tales not gay shit like 8e or dragon fuckery of tow and 6e
>>96604338>not gay shit like 8e or dragon fuckery of tow and 6eCorrect.>Wargames should place an emphasis on dynamic heroic talesWargames should be about armies of dudes, not superhero faggot shit. Like 5e.
So with them being what appears to be the current waacfag choice i've noticed a lot of Vampire Counts around and it makes me wonder if its the most AoS models in play today?Like i played VC and TK back in't day and i feel its always been way more common to see Tomb Kings on places like ebay than Vampire Counts. Partially i imagine because Tomb Kings were dead-dead for a fair few years but vampire counts were kept alive by AoS so people didn't consider the models worth selling.I'd love to see the original zombie kit come back, i found a still sealed Mordheim Undead warband a few months back and half a zombie sprue in it was super nostalgic but given they are not in the setting proper yet i imagine those are like a full edition away and maybe we wont even get those back but i hope we do.Point is what are VC today actually using? i can't imagine my tiny manfred on horse thats like half the size of a generic Cathay jade lancer is going to be tourney legal. Is it jut AoS and maybe 3d printing if you nasty?
>>96604364I dont feel the need to spoon feed you the plethora of options you have for third party vampire count stuff
>>96604338Wargames are about WAR and the MEN that HOLD THE LINE!!!! ie. The rank and file!! Not marvel capeshit heroes
>>966039206 foot vs 5 foot eleven.
>>96604387Go play a historicuck game, troon. No one wants your kind here.
>>96604338That's what ancients and medieval periods are for. It's still mostly the grunts carrying the day, but the individual personalities of leaders carry a lot more weight. It's what makes a lord dismounting to stand in the front rank with his men inspire them onwards, or say Hannibal and Mago in the thick of the fighting at Cannae to boost the morale of their troops to buy time for the cavalry.Probably why I love ancients so much.
>>96604387>Noooo, it's about Batman fighting them all off with his lightsaber!!! That's so kewl!!! Regular infantry are weak... that's boring!!!
>>96604349See>>96604396No point playing a fantasy wargame if you don't like fantastic heroic elements. Just fuck off.
>>96604387its a shame fb was never a wargame
>>96604396>Go play a historicuck game, troon. No one wants your kind here.
>>966043961 character fighting off entire formations of men *is* troon-hammer. It's immersion-breaking, and looks absolutely retarded on the tabletop. The characters are there to lead the army and support the fight, even in a fantasy setting. There is no point in having armies, otherwise. Why are you even interested in wargames? Go play a skirmish-level game, that's what they're meant for. Or maybe check out AoS (seems more your speed).
>The Celestial Dragon called down the warpstone meteor that made the Great Maw to drive off the ogres.>The Ogres simply begin worshipping the Great Maw and unify to bring down the Storm Giants.Bungle of the century -1800 IC.
>>96604437>speaks about troons >immersion-breaking,Uh oh found the delusional tard whose on the same wavelength as the axe wound brigade.
>>96604445>spazzes out over the emphasis on FANTASY>doesn't comprehend the value of immersion, suspension-of-disbelief
>>96604462okay my little role player, go ahead and self insert as the troll hag like the princess that you are.
>>96604445Super heroes fighting off entire units of enemies solo isn't fantasy, it's capeshit.
>>96604496>Super heroes fighting off entire units of enemies solo isn't fantasy,It is quite literally fantasy.
Some of you have been on twitter too long and need to remember this isn't your debate club for argueing with mossad ran bots. This is a board for tabletop gaming and hobbies.
>It is quite literally fantasy
>no counter arguments.
A little bit of herohammer is okay because it makes collecting your army easier, faster and more affordable. Having 200 chaos warriors/marauders, clanrats, empire state troopers, elf spearmen, or whatever else may be cool, but it gets expensive and tedious. Paint a lord on a dragon for a change of pace! Or a wizard!
>>96604479>wants wargames to be about SOOPER HEROEZ, not battalions of men>"y... you're the o... the one who wants to self-insert roleplay as characters!"lmao
>>96604561yeah cause hero hammer is fun.
I havent looked into Chaos in TOW and only dipped my toe in back in 6th. Do marauders still have mutations? that upgrade kits still squatted isnt it?
>>96604559Special troops and characters should supplement and support the line infantry, just like real armies. Even the SAS and US Navy Seals support the infantry. Cavalry, artillery, skirmishers, all these roles serve to support the main characters, ie. the infantry
>>96604396This, historitards will literally pay $50 for AI generated rules
