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.

Proxying and converting is absolutely still going to be seen with TOW.
Its the HH of AoS for crying out loud. It'll be scratchbuilds, conversions, and 3d prints abound.

 Gert wrote:
Proxying and converting is absolutely still going to be seen with TOW.

Arcane Journals literally list conversion ideas for the armies of infamy units.

I'm listening to Vince Venturella's podcast right now and he just said "here GW treats you as an adult and trusts you to figure out how to put a Tomb Guard on a chariot"

The first thing I pictured when reading that is someone walking into my office with a tomb guard mini glued to their forehead and random plastic bits from the chariot kit glued to their hands and clothes, saying "I need an adult".

Just checked games workshop and saw old world releases, finally (initial response)..

then put on snowboots and yelled "ackshually"..

I kindof am repelled by there only being two options on release (understanding that it is more realistic) and the worst is that one of the two release armies contain the Khem which I inteded to make my main army.
I am inflicted with the ailment known as "cannotmainstreamiatry" and therefor become extremely triggered even when merely imagining I would buy an army that 99.9% of players will have.

Therefor I will have to wait until more armies are released.. still hoping that they will release other armies in larger amounts (and less initual units for what I care) as in 3-4 different armies at a time (probably won't happen but eghhh) so that I will never hear that "one of us" chant in my head when I buy something.

Best would be if they would release some uninteresting armies first so that everyone buys those and then release chaos dwarves or something when everyone is distracted with their ratmen and goblins so that I can stay the original underdog.

It's important to me.

edit: Will probably cave and buy 200 euros worth of tomb kings next time I walk into a warhammer store anyway, because my money is mummy cursed.

If it makes you feel any better, its looking like Tomb Kings are significantly less popular than Bretonnia. The tomb kings subreddit is legit less than half the size of the bretonnian subreddit, for example.

I doubt player populations will end up different than what they were in previous editions.

Empire, and High Elves will be the largest. Bretonnia will eventually die out to one of the smaller armies due to being more niche than the Empire, and It doesn't look like Tomb Kings are going to make up a large amount of the player base either.

Thanks for the refreshing words, I may make a sphinx army.. not really interested in those serpentine things because their bellies look like hell to paint with all those ribs.

The Sphinx looks so badass I want ten of them, maybe more..
Maybe I should fill my entire room with sphinxes..

That might drain my bank account though, still.. hmm..

Heh, I bought 6 sphinxes myself I could probably add a few more in as character mounts but thats probably close to the max of what you'd reasonably expect to see in a 2000-2500 pt army.

But also 4 of the sepulchral serpentine dude kits (12 minis total).

I find some aspects of the Tomb Kings to be really fascinating and cool, other parts to be really derivative, vanilla, and boring. I hope moving forward GW finds a way to do more with the faction and the concepts there and moves away from the overly literal interpretation of skeletal undead egyptians.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Spoiler:

 insaniak wrote:

 Overread wrote:
It might also be that GW know/hope they will sculpt more new models for the model line and thus the base size increase is future proofing those factions..

They could always try just not making new models bigger...

Sacrilege! Blasphemy! Heresy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Overread wrote:
It might also be that GW know/hope they will sculpt more new models for the model line and thus the base size increase is future proofing those factions..

They could always try just not making new models bigger...

To be fair sometimes its not even bigger, just going for more dynamic poses increases size.

Some stuff like cavalry also had some really tiny mounts in the past so boosting them up could easily make them too big for some bases, even if they aren't super-sized nor increasing the size of the rider. And like it or not more dynamic poses do attract attention and sell.

Some older model stuff is very stiff in pose.

I know it's a contentious point.... but IMO rank and flank models SHOULD be in a stiff pose 90% of the time (with exceptions for skirmishers or berserker type units).

One review I saw mentioned that a lot of older models have a stronger silhouette, and I kind of agree. It's the silhouette that you see when they're all ranked up together.

Some models did just genuinely need bigger bases because the models themselves were too big regardless of poses, as you mentioned, cavalry, from the late 90's they probably should have added another 10 or 15mm to the length and 5mm to the width of the base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skeleton wrote:
You dont have to rebase them if you play only local or you can use base extenders or spaced movement trays.
The last, i will use because i have to many army's to rebase or use base extenders.
And i have the option to print them myself.

I find base extenders and spaced movement trays aesthetically unpleasing

It might be because it's the first game that got me into warhammer, but the aesthetic of each model individually based and hard up against the model next to it is something I've always liked.

Unfortunately it's exactly those stiff figures that will look poor with gaps between them - I worry how the hordes of 8th ed ratman will look with substantial spaces between the figures. Can't help but wonder if retaining 20mm bases for at least goblins, skaven, and similarly trashy hordes of small minis would have been fine from a gameplay point of view, certainly would look so much nicer!
Don't think I have it in me to finally make a full Skaven army, but if I did, I might consider having only the front and back rank on individual bases, and multibase the middle ranks with a higher density of figures.

If TOW takes off locally, I might consider rebasing/removementtraying my wood elves at least, those thankfully fit a more loose formation perfectly well.

Voss wrote:

 Dreamchild wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Fayric wrote:
I remember when GW used to have guides in their rulebooks how to convert and make uniqe models and units. Usually you could se some uniqe models on display in armybooks to inspire diversity to their range.

Really sad how that creative part of the hobby has been supressed. I used to love rumaging in the bits box for every character and building weapons from stuff you found at home.
I used to laugh at the suggestion to buy expencive terrain when you could easily build stuff yourself. These days I would most likely not play with converted models at all and love expencive GW terrain .

Uhm... what? WD is full of conversions and there're articles on WarCom with conversions. Sure, they use their own terrain, but also with conversions. For LotR they had a guide to build your own terrain though.

It feels especially weird after the 'unit filler' article.

And the Bretonnian Exiles army list has several units with 'How to represent this unit in game' sidebars. (Yeomen guard, Brigands and Bombard). The immediate suggestions are men at arms with other kits (empire militia particularly), but there is an implicit 'go nuts' feel to the army.

This only makes their decision to behave like AoS equivalents of certian models don't exist for the sake of ToW all the more infuriating, to be honest.

... what? where? when? Non-GW people online have been spouting various theories about.... stuff, but I'm not sure what imagined roadblock prevents you from buying the 'Vanguard: Slaves to Darkness' box and popping them on square bases and moving on with your day. Every single one of those units exist and they're exactly those models (though you'll need a bit of work to give the warriors additional hand weapons, but thats where conversions wander back into the picture).

Um, everywhere? Marketing the god-awful treeman when a gorgeous new model (one that was originally made for WHFB, to add insult to injury) exists, same with chaos knights, warriors, daemon princes.

GW is bringing back all those into production, pretending the new ones don't exist - both in marketing and book art/photography.

Also, I'm very much aware why they are doing so, and I'm very much aware I can simply buy the new models and play with them (got two StD vanguards on the way just for that).

But I don't have to like GW's cynical approach and I'm at perfect freedom to speak out against it. Especially when they're encouraging kit bashing and the like in other cases.

hi there, just a quick question... how is the perception of TOW on dakkadakka?

didnt had time because of work to follow the discussion here. just want to know if it is worth spending a couple of hours combing through the threads to read interesting discussions or is this another instance of "GW bad - this is why they are evil and need to be put against the wall"?

RedNoak wrote:
hi there, just a quick question... how is the perception of TOW on dakkadakka?

didnt had time because of work to follow the discussion here. just want to know if it is worth spending a couple of hours combing through the threads to read interesting discussions or is this another instance of "GW bad - this is why they are evil and need to be put against the wall"?

GW are bad but there's a lot of nice content for ToW on youtube, for instance Mountain Miniatures.

RedNoak wrote:
hi there, just a quick question... how is the perception of TOW on dakkadakka?

didnt had time because of work to follow the discussion here. just want to know if it is worth spending a couple of hours combing through the threads to read interesting discussions or is this another instance of "GW bad - this is why they are evil and need to be put against the wall"?

I'm not sure I'd bother reading this thread. News threads on dakka are rarely worth going back to read, there's maybe 1 morsel of information per 2 pages of posts

Probably better off looking at some reviews and stuff from people who have the game, maybe some battle reports.

Personally, when TOW was originally announced, I was interested but not sold, the closer we've gotten to release the less interested I've gotten. The launch day hype got me thinking "maybe I'll grab something..." but once that hype subsided I'm glad I didn't. Would rather wait to see how things pan out.

There was a few blokes at the local gaming store talking about it, so maybe a community will kick off here, will have to see. WHFB was reasonably popular here back in the day (while generally speaking WHFB was a small fish compared to 40k, I think locally it was reasonably popular).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:

Unfortunately it's exactly those stiff figures that will look poor with gaps between them - I worry how the hordes of 8th ed ratman will look with substantial spaces between the figures. Can't help but wonder if retaining 20mm bases for at least goblins, skaven, and similarly trashy hordes of small minis would have been fine from a gameplay point of view, certainly would look so much nicer!
Don't think I have it in me to finally make a full Skaven army, but if I did, I might consider having only the front and back rank on individual bases, and multibase the middle ranks with a higher density of figures.

If TOW takes off locally, I might consider rebasing/removementtraying my wood elves at least, those thankfully fit a more loose formation perfectly well.

Skaven are a bit of a weird one, I never collected them myself but a friend did, and the multi-pose models that came out I think in 6th edition were horrible spindly things with arms and tails spreading out in all directions, they did NOT rank up nicely on 20mm bases. I would also say they were generally not nice looking models.

The more recent Skaven models look a lot nicer, I assume they rank up better but I've never tried it and my skaven friend quit WHFB before they came out.

One consequence of moving Skaven to 25mm: the base width for the Screaming Bell and Plague Furnace is 60mm so they won't rank up properly to push the damn things. (Presuming that is still how they work in the legacy rules. Maybe they now just need a nearby unit to move as in AoS or magically roll as in Total War.) Seems a bit of an oversight.

RedNoak wrote:
GW bad - this is why they are evil and need to be put against the wall"?

why do people always think that you must like a company to like their products, or that what a company is doing now must be ignored because of a setting/world/IP created by people no longer working there

like nobody thinks you can only be a Harry Potter fan (or like reading the books) if you agree with every single statement of JK and as a true fan never admit that she is "bad" but must defend her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RedNoak wrote:
hi there, just a quick question... how is the perception of TOW on dakkadakka?

as information is still limited and necessary details are missing, like you see with the post on how the bell nur works the perception differs depending on what the people have seen from the game

by now there are like different groups, one being TOW is Herohammer and infantry useless, the other that big infantry blocks are back and will dominate the game, and others are in the camp of this being 6th Edition 2.0 which then again is seen as positive by some and negative by others


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Skaven are a bit of a weird one, I never collected them myself but a friend did, and the multi-pose models that came out I think in 6th edition were horrible spindly things with arms and tails spreading out in all directions, they did NOT rank up nicely on 20mm bases. I would also say they were generally not nice looking models.
The more recent Skaven models look a lot nicer, I assume they rank up better but I've never tried it and my skaven friend quit WHFB before they came out.

a friend collected Skaven during 5th/6th and my son is doing now, I had at least once everything in plastic on my desk
the older plastic ones were like most of the kits during that time, something you would call "advanced" now and nothing kids could easily do, like I could work with them as I did scale models before I started with warhammer, while for him those were the first models he ever put together
and glueing ever breaking tails and the need to to account for ranking during building them was a little much (also my 5th Edi plastic Empire state troops would not rank up on 20mm if you just build them without thinking were each model goes inside a unit)

the later basic infantry are just the easy to build Island of Blood ones, not bad and good for mass infantry but limited, and my son had both on the table, the current GW line and the Ratkin from Mantic and went with the Mantic ones because he liked them more (the overall look and how they go together)

RedNoak wrote:
hi there, just a quick question... how is the perception of TOW on dakkadakka?

didnt had time because of work to follow the discussion here. just want to know if it is worth spending a couple of hours combing through the threads to read interesting discussions or is this another instance of "GW bad - this is why they are evil and need to be put against the wall"?

Nah, just your regular internet polarisation, hyperbole and cognitive dissonance defense mechanisms.


-I have some specific preferences A, B and C, so I'd rather GW did things differently with aspects X, Y and Z.

-You hate GW!
-You spoil our fun with X, Y and Z!
-Go play chess!
-If you don't have a positive opinion, it's not a place to share your opinion!
etc.

But really, actually most of the posts from the last 10 pages or so are not about the hobby of playing but rather the hobby of buying (or the frustrations of not being able to buy) products

Cyel wrote:
Nah, just your regular internet polarisation, hyperbole and cognitive dissonance defense mechanisms

I'm trying to comprehend just how much irony was involved in writing that, then straight up inventing a bunch of hyperbole that bears very little relation to this thread:

Cyel wrote:
-You hate GW!
-You spoil our fun with X, Y and Z!
-Go play chess!
-If you don't have a positive opinion, it's not a place to share your opinion!

Actually my examples are based on real responses I received in this thread

RedNoak wrote:
hi there, just a quick question... how is the perception of TOW on dakkadakka?

didnt had time because of work to follow the discussion here. just want to know if it is worth spending a couple of hours combing through the threads to read interesting discussions or is this another instance of "GW bad - this is why they are evil and need to be put against the wall"?

There is no reason to waste time going through 200 pages of the same argument back and forth endlessly. This is one of the dullest threads in the entire forum.

What it boils down to is some people like TOW and are glad Warhammer Fantasy is back in some form. Some people don't like GW, some people wanted a lot more from the release.

 xttz wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Nah, just your regular internet polarisation, hyperbole and cognitive dissonance defense mechanisms

I'm trying to comprehend just how much irony was involved in writing that, then straight up inventing a bunch of hyperbole that bears very little relation to this thread:

Cyel wrote:
-You hate GW!
-You spoil our fun with X, Y and Z!
-Go play chess!
-If you don't have a positive opinion, it's not a place to share your opinion!

But that literally DID happen in here. Well, after we got through:

The "squares" post from GW was a prank, so just play AOS.
It's vaporware, so just play AOS.
It's not going to be WFB returned, it'll be mass battle AOS, so just play AOS.
It's not going to be WFB returned, it's going to be Warmaster AOS. So just play AOS twice.

The only people who've been consistent have been the people who were rooting for this from the beginning.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Heh, I bought 6 sphinxes myself I could probably add a few more in as character mounts but thats probably close to the max of what you'd reasonably expect to see in a 2000-2500 pt army.

But also 4 of the sepulchral serpentine dude kits (12 minis total).

I find some aspects of the Tomb Kings to be really fascinating and cool, other parts to be really derivative, vanilla, and boring. I hope moving forward GW finds a way to do more with the faction and the concepts there and moves away from the overly literal interpretation of skeletal undead egyptians.

We do need mummys though.. but more egyptian-mytho monsters are welcome, imagine painting an armored sarcosochus...

Cyel wrote:

But really, actually most of the posts from the last 10 pages or so are not about the hobby of playing but rather the hobby of buying (or the frustrations of not being able to buy) products

You guys also play buyhammer? I play that.

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

We do need mummys though.. but more egyptian-mytho monsters are welcome, imagine painting an armored sarcosochus...

Armored sarcophagus you say? (I guess it’s more Iron Maideny but still)

twoseventwo wrote:
One consequence of moving Skaven to 25mm: the base width for the Screaming Bell and Plague Furnace is 60mm so they won't rank up properly to push the damn things. (Presuming that is still how they work in the legacy rules. Maybe they now just need a nearby unit to move as in AoS or magically roll as in Total War.) Seems a bit of an oversight.

My Skaven will remain on their 20mm-bases for various reason, this being one of them.
Others being that there's no way in hell I'm rebasing my entire 500+ model-count Skaven army and the fact that I'll still be using them in other fantasy-games (like WAP) where they're still on 20mm-bases.

 GaroRobe wrote:

 Leopold Helveine wrote:

We do need mummys though.. but more egyptian-mytho monsters are welcome, imagine painting an armored sarcosochus...

Armored sarcophagus you say? (I guess it’s more Iron Maideny but still)

No no, Sarcosuchus!
(although sacrophagus would also be cool I suppose xD and will probably be added considering its prevalence in ancient egypt.)
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcosuchus#/media/Bestand:Museum_of_Natural_History_Sarcosuchus.jpg

 MinscS2 wrote:

twoseventwo wrote:
One consequence of moving Skaven to 25mm: the base width for the Screaming Bell and Plague Furnace is 60mm so they won't rank up properly to push the damn things. (Presuming that is still how they work in the legacy rules. Maybe they now just need a nearby unit to move as in AoS or magically roll as in Total War.) Seems a bit of an oversight.

My Skaven will remain on their 20mm-bases for various reason, this being one of them.
Others being that there's no way in hell I'm rebasing my entire 500+ model-count Skaven army and the fact that I'll still be using them in other fantasy-games (like WAP) where they're still on 20mm-bases.

Yeah, it isn't lost on me that newhammer going to bigger bases means they're not directly equivalent to other games like KoW now... and frankly I'm more likely to play KoW than Warhammer at this point in time. I definitely won't be rebasing my Night Goblins, and if I ever paint more Night Goblins I'll need to source more 20mm bases to go with them.

Has anyone seen the rules for cannons? Are they still laser guided or do they scatter? Is damage d6 or d3/d3+1?

I did print some movement trays so the models themself dont have change.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Has anyone seen the rules for cannons? Are they still laser guided or do they scatter? Is damage d6 or d3/d3+1?

From what I've seen, they're still laser-guided with a chance to over/under-shoot as before. Even stone thrower weapons are more accurate in that you select a target unit and place the template directly in the center of the target unit, then roll scatter.

so essentially zero point taking the larger base monsters if there are Empire players about?

 nathan2004 wrote:
Has anyone seen the rules for cannons? Are they still laser guided or do they scatter? Is damage d6 or d3/d3+1?

Same but D3+1.