The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Elbows]

This is also the same company who refuses to acknowledge that 40K has defined editions...which is...bizarre.

However, I had heard - more or less, that it's 8mm (by human standards?), so that picture seems to back it up.  I think people decided that when they released Adeptus Titanicus.  My understanding is those infantry are all on 40mm bases, which makes it...a big game.  While the scale/scope of such a game appeals to me (not the rules, but the models), I have zero doubt the price will be prohibitively expensive.

Fortunately it gives all the 3D printer fellas a proper scale to model off of now.  Etsy is alredy awash with more stuff.

[Mallo]

The infantry (not the big stuff like ogres or dreads) are on 25mm bases.

I hate trying to work out Epic scale at the best of times, old Epic was a mix of about three actual scales. But the new stuff is really about '7mm scale', if there was such a thing. Humans are about 8mm to the top of the model, 7mm to the eyes. Marines about 9mm to the top of the model, so about 8mm to the eyes.

It depends on pose as well as much extra material is on the feet, as they all have some sort of 'tactical rock' between the legs.

Its not really 8mm scale, its not really 6mm scale. It is its own thing, what ever GW decide to throw out. You won't get away mixing most older Epic models on the same base, but these fit will fit in fine with more modern '6mm' like vanguard, who has been putting out 7mm standard humans for years now.

The best thing to do is to just say its 7/8mm size, as its not really a scale at all.

[zemjw]

Some more stuff on the Old World. Combat this time - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/11/20/old-world-almanack-fight-the-good-fight-in-the-combat-phase/

[Belligerentparrot]

This is just idle speculation until the rules are out, but I don't immediately see why they're bringing the WS and BS charts and whatnot back. Is it because they think these are good rules? If so, why'd they drop them?

I mean, I can understand why they're recycling quite a bit of 2nd ed. Space Marine for the new not-Epic game. GW haven't done a game at that scale for a while, and went with something that worked well enough.

But if GW think AoS has improved on the old Warhammer with respect to stat lines etc., why go back to the (in their view) less-good way of doing things?

[Cubs]

 Who knows, they do love a tinker.

[voltan]

I'm feeling less enthused with every preview they release, for me this is just going to be about the old kits that get a re-release, I really dislike the new brettonian mounts they've shown, to me they seem a bigger scale to the riders and the cloth work doesn't look like cloth, saying that it may just be the paint jobs they've shown, we'll see when the community gets hold of them.

As a bit of balance, I do really like the dragon skeleton they showed off the other day.

[Elbows]

I never played old fantasy (beyond Mordheim, Warhammer Quest, etc.) but that WS table looks bizarre to me...to the point where I'm not sure why they bothered?

The 4+ swathe more or less defeats the whole table at a glance.  You're better: 3+, you're even: 4+, you're worse 4+...even more worse?  4+.  Quite worse?  4+.  Very badly worse?  4+.

Why have a table and not simplify it if the numbers barely matter?

[Belligerentparrot]

Why have a table and not simplify it if the numbers barely matter?

When I started playing in the early 90s, the table was I think a hangover from an earlier more RPG-ish iteration of the rules. There were other things a GM might think of using the WS stat for in the earliest iteration, it wasn't necessarily just for determining whether you hit your c/c opponent. So while granular differences of WS might not be significant when it came to hitting your opponent, the stat differences might be significant elsewhere.

But even by the early 90s, there was only one thing WS was used for (mainly at least, it is possible a spell or two required the target's WS, I honestly can't remember), so the table was as puzzling as you say 

[TWD]

This is just idle speculation until the rules are out, but I don't immediately see why they're bringing the WS and BS charts and whatnot back. Is it because they think these are good rules? If so, why'd they drop them?
...
But if GW think AoS has improved on the old Warhammer with respect to stat lines etc., why go back to the (in their view) less-good way of doing things?

I think because W:TOW is an exercise in nostalgia aimed at prising cash from older WFB players.

It's not aimed at the AoS crowd and it's not trying to be a set of new/better rules.

"This, sir is the return of the old Warhammer, just like it used to be, the game you loved back in the day, when you were young and life was a stream of endless possibilities.
That'll be £200+ of your middle aged income in exchange for a starter set and rush of nostalgic endorphins"


I am very much here for it.

[Belligerentparrot]

"This, sir is the return of the old Warhammer, just like it used to be, the game you loved back in the day, when you were young and life was a stream of endless possibilities.
That'll be £200+ of your middle aged income in exchange for a starter set and rush of nostalgic endorphins"

  Yeah, when you put it like that, only a fool would change something people are looking at with rose-tinted nostalgia.

If the Empire Free Company/Militia box comes back, I'll be a happy happy man. (I didn't love the minis when built, but it had a lot of extremely useful conversion bits).   

[Lost Egg]

If the Empire Free Company/Militia box comes back, I'll be a happy happy man. (I didn't love the minis when built, but it had a lot of extremely useful conversion bits).   

Ooo nice call sir, got me fingers crossed.

[zemjw]

If the Empire Free Company/Militia box comes back, I'll be a happy happy man. (I didn't love the minis when built, but it had a lot of extremely useful conversion bits).

Yeah, that box has served me well for conversions over the years. There are still a few bits and pieces left on the sprues, so it may yet see more service

[Elbows]

I liked that box, but to be honest the Frostgrave boxes are much better now for bits.

[zemjw]

I liked that box, but to be honest the Frostgrave boxes are much better now for bits.

Agreed.

The one advantage of the GW box is that the torsos and legs were separate, which was really useful. I converted some Tau using Tau legs and militia torsos, something couldn't be done with the xgrave kits without serious effort.

[Mammoth miniatures]

This is just idle speculation until the rules are out, but I don't immediately see why they're bringing the WS and BS charts and whatnot back. Is it because they think these are good rules? If so, why'd they drop them?

I mean, I can understand why they're recycling quite a bit of 2nd ed. Space Marine for the new not-Epic game. GW haven't done a game at that scale for a while, and went with something that worked well enough.

But if GW think AoS has improved on the old Warhammer with respect to stat lines etc., why go back to the (in their view) less-good way of doing things?

The whole release is just a nostalgia cash in - GW have been riding the trend for pop culture nostalgia HARD and the old world is no exception. If they wanted to put out a good game, they'd use the middle earth rules.or age of sigmar rules - but they want to sell the memory of childhood to adults, so I'm afraid it's clunky rules all the way down.