GW News: LAS VEGAS OPEN 2025

GW certainly has a way with women

To be honest the aesthetic is still largely there with the diving suits (and especially the awesome deep sea diver model), but certainly the new models with the bare heads really don't look as good as the helmeted ones. Not to mention it goes against the point of why they wear diving suits and helmets in the first place (because they live in an environment with often-toxic gases around, and need the suits to breathe in order to go about their sky-voyages for resources and profit).

Of course, it should be possible to use spare helmeted heads from the older kits if there are enough to go round across the new ones, but it's the principle.

And of course, the cover... when the previous three Kharadron Battletome covers all correctly depict them fully suited up with a helmet, this new one is very much doing the job of shooting the lore inside the book in the foot. Especially when they could have used the aforementioned deep sea diver Kharadron instead, which would have kept up that tradition and looked fantastic artwork-wise.

The Critical Drinker would be having barrels of fun poking holes in GW's design choices if he knew about this

Playing a 'Legacy' army in TOW right now is no different to playing any army in an older Edition.

GW say they're not willing to add further support to the PDF rules? Doesn't matter, you have the PDF rules that are balanced pretty well with the base lists in Forces of Fantasy and Ravening Hordes, and you can keep your saved copy of said PDF even if they later delete it on Warhammer Community without replacing it with an eventual Arcane Journal (though I'm expecting they'll eventually release Journals for all the 'Legacy' factions once they've replaced their Warhammer Fantasy ranges with new AoS ones and then ported the old models over to TOW... why not? It's as much a no-brainer as bringing back Warhammer Fantasy was in the first place - more models being sold for minimal investment, even if they're old, means more PROFIT).

Moreover, if GW decide to release a TOW 2nd Edition/Fantasy 10th Edition that isn't compatible with the 'Legacy' lists, again it is no problem, as one can just keep the current Edition alive as per previous Editions of the game. Indeed if they do to TOW what they're doing with the Horus Heresy that is very much what I will do.

Necrons are my joint favourite, along with Tyranids. New Necrons and Tyranids are always welcome in my book

Fortunately I work in a job that gives me access to a computer for most of the day, and I work at home 80% of the time, so when doing so I work on some of my fan-made supplements in between assignments. It serves as a nice break in between the hard graft of software testing.

 

I have a special offer for you:



Pick your AoS realm color scheme

Grrr, !mrahil

 

Tjah, helmets lack personality. 99% of characters run around helmetless so you have a recognizable face regardless of how many snipers, poison gas, or other dangerous nonsense is floating around. Regardless of the game of franchise you're looking at.

 

So there is a precedent for female Chaos Dwarf warriors in some Warhammer Fantasy lore. In the Wulfrik novel, he fights a band of Chaos Dwarf fanatics that are referred to as Harridans, apparently a warrior cult of dwarf women who are past child bearing age and therefore act as bodyguards for sorcerers and overseers.

 

You're describing beardless Chaos Dwarfs to me.

I'd field some slightly undersized Chaos Dwarfs before I fielded beardless ones. Don't get me wrong, if a beardless female Chaos Dwarf was done properly (meaning the model looked unmistakably female, without need of investigative work or lore confirmation) I'd likely buy some. That could be neat. But they'd have to differentiate the males from the females with something more than just beards versus no beards. A combination of hair, slightly softer features, attire, style, body proportions, etc.

I think most of our disagreement comes down to semantics. What you deem as inherently wrong, I would classify that as extremely poor design/aesthetic choices. Personally I find most OBR models extremely goofy looking and not fitting with many of the other AoS factions, but I'd chalk that up to an ugly design choice rather than an inherent flaw. Like I said, semantics.

My thinking is that it doesn't matter how or where someone fields their models, only that they are making purchases. If I were running GW, I wouldn't care if a sold model was played in AoS or ToW or WHFB or Blood Bowl or a game produced by an entirely different company. A sale is a sale is a sale. If a given model can be sold to multiple player bases, that just increases the consumer base for any given model.

 

I find Hellcannons to be a solid choice in a WoC army, but there are stronger selections. Stone throwers are by nature, quite inaccurate, so a hellcannon's shooting will always be a little hit and miss. They are a reliable flank protector though (as part of a slow moving army).

Hellcannons are much stronger in a Chaos Dwarf army... though they compete directly with K'daai Destroyers for those precious rare points.


Can you beat them (WoC) with one of your other armies?

That's true. It just seems like a downward aesthetic trend. Fixable with a bit of effort, but potentially worrisome with regard to future releases.

The cover is telling in terms of what direction they are going in. And despite the old line about not judging a book by its cover, it does set the tone for the faction (at least a bit).

I definitely think he would. The situation isn't particularly dire yet, but we've seen these warning signs before in other media... and more importantly, what follows from it.

That's true at this moment in time and will remain so until you start seeing second edition "army books" coming out.

It will be interesting to see what GW will do in the long run. Will they pivot or hold course? Personally, I did find it surprising and strange that they decided to axe so many armies for TOW. Like you said, it seems like relatively easy money for minimal investment.

At the moment, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it, but stranger things have happened.

 

I agree with @Killer Angel . Those are the best two paint schemes... with Aqshy being the better of the two in my opinion.

 

This helmet lacks personality to you?

 

And if you absolutely had to choose between the two?

Sounds like you've got a good system worked out.

 

@NIGHTBRINGER you've emphasized some of the things you don't like about the new Age of Sigmar Chaos Dwarf line, but as a Chaos Dwarf guy, do you plan on buying any of them? And if you did, which ones would you most likely buy?

Same for anybody else who might buy some of them.

 

Like I said, there's a handfull of helmets with personality. However, 99% do not have any personality.

Sure, except these aren't WHF chaos dwarfs. Sure they're a spiritual succesor, but they're a new seperate thing, with it's own design language. Which apparently allows for beardlessness.

Which again, is kind of the core problem. You just want them to be chaos dwarfs, but they're simply not.

Given that they are universally wearing heavy suits of armour, are short and squat models, and look monstrous; beards versus no beards is the only distinction you can really viably make that is actually going to be noticeable. Even something as lame as adding boob armour doesn't really work since they're such small miniatures. Or well, you'd need to really exaggerate things for it to be actually noticeable. So unfortunatly for you, this is what you're stuck with for the not-chaos-dwarfs.

Not really, OBR don't look goofy in the way bloodbowl looks goofy, where models are literally walking jokes. OBR looks goofy in the way a rictus grin on a skeleton looks goofy. They're ugly, and somewhat disturbing, but that's also the point. They're supposed to look "unnatural" because they're made by an insane necromancer god. In that sense they look different, because they're unnatural, but they remain a high-fantasy faction that fits in with the broader high fantasy setting.

And that's why you don't run a succcesfull multinational company

In all seriousness, while a sold model is a sold model, the problem is that GW doesn't just make models. They also make games, write books, etc. The more overlap there is between their different product lines, the harder it becomes to tell what is popular, and what should be invested in. Creating that overlap would mean they'd risk releasing a new ToW/AOS edition while noone is actually playing it. Not to mention that they're fishing in the same pond with games that are that similar.

 

Spoiler: You could not be more wrong!

Yup... much like Amazon's Rings of Power is the spiritual successor to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Or Disney's sequel trilogy as the spiritual successor to George Lucas' Star Wars original trilogy.

And therein lies the problem, if they didn't have the ability to make identifiable female models in the unit, then they shouldn't have included them in the first place. If you can't do it well, don't do it at all. The issue is that it wasn't a decision born out of a creative vision. They needed token female models thrust into the unit to meet some sort of quota/agenda.

If that particular unit doesn't allow them to create easily identifiable female models, then make a separate entirely female unit with design features that allow them to do so. That way you end up with a cool looking female Chaos Dwarf unit that would be exciting to purchase. Instead, they decided to make a simple lazy alternation by removing the beard and calling it a day.

You are mistaken. I am not stuck with those models, I have my far superior Legion of Azgorh Chaos Dwarf Forge World models. Even without the beardless models, my Infernal Guard sculpts are leagues better. Not only that, but the entire range of the Legion of Azgorh looks better, from Bull Centaurs to the Bale Taurus to the War Machines.

I have no skin in this game, this is just a point of conversation for me. Something to chat about. Something to debate about. Something to grumble about (a time honoured Dwarf tradition!)

You're the one defending the models, it's up to you to put your money where your mouth is!

This is about to be the easiest debate point of all time. Words not required...

True, but by their own admission, they are a model company first. The other stuff is mainly there to sell you the models. The rules, lore books and other stuff have always been secondary.

 

I agree, Lizardmen > Empire. On my personal list of best WHFB armies, I've got Lizardmen ranked at 4 of 16 and Empire ranked at a lowly 13 of 16.

Do you have enough Vampire Counts to field a full army? Maybe they might give you a better shot a bringing the WoC down.

I don't disagree. WoC are a top tier army while the Lizards sit comfortably right near the middle of the pack. Besides Hellcannons, what does your friend usually field in his WoC army?

I can help sort that out for you, GW's soul:


Or are you looking at it from the potential woke angle?

 

Yeah, hopefully they actually get an AoS personality and can move beyond just being a spiritual succesor.

You realize that a unit of arkanauts have the exact same variance as say, a unit of CoS steelhelms? Which is to say, there's just enough variation to stop them from looking like robots pumped out of a factory, cuz it'd be weird to have 10 of them with the exact same face, but little to no individuality beyond that minimum. And even from unit to unit, the variation is limited to some basic variations like slightly longer beards or a slightly different lens. They're still largely interchangeable faceless models when an army is placed on the table.

weirdly enough you didn't include the one KO that is actually unique, which is kind of funny. Brokk grungson, who is one of the few KO to stand out in a crowd, because he's the only KO to get a hat.

I mean sure? Rings of power also has its own design language. It's a shit, generic fantasy, design language, but it is distinct from say the Jackson movies.

And Disney's Star Wars isn't a spiritual successor, it just is Star Wars, as much as you might dislike that.
Also, as far as design language goes, Star Wars has been pretty consistent throughout the entire lifespan. It's honestly impressive how consistent they've been across different games/books/movies/whatevers. Even Disney hasn't really deviated from that in any meaningfull way.

You've decided all on your own to identify them as female, GW didn't actually tell you they were female. So clearly they are identifiable....

Sure, suggest an alternative. And I mean an actual alternative, not vague suggestions that aren't actually helpfull. So something concrete that
1) maintains the faction aesthetic of bulky plate armour
2) maintains their monstrous visage.
3) Is actually visible on such short & squat miniatures.

Yes, it's a weird macabre thing designed by an insane necromancer god. It's supposed to look odd and mad.
It is however, not goofy. It's not presented as a joke, it is presented as a serious, if weird & insane, threat.

On the other hand something like bloodbowl presents its jokes as jokes. Playing up the silly aspects, and downplaying any serious implications a model might have.

 

Problem with that is that GeeDubs don't understand how to do female faces that aren't stereotypical butch lesbians.

Full agree. Thus stems my belief that becoming a shareholder requires one to allow themselves to be lobotomised... it's the only way to explain how they fail basic maths.

Erk... While I'm not hardcore anti-boob armour, to be seen on miniatures would indeed require anime waifu proportions. Honestly, I prefer armour that looks the same, male and female, the only exceptions being if the proportions have to be changed to fit the female face, as some 3rd party mini sites do.

AAAAGH!

We do not speak of Rings of Power... wait... What was I talking about?

Words... fail me. I have never seen that particular model before, and now I'm just seeing a large skeletal kroxigor with a grinning skeleton replacing its gonads.

Excuse me...

 

So you're saying that the fully helmeted (i.e. including facemasks) KO match the open faced CoS Steel Helms in terms of variance. I'd say that is pretty darn good on the sculptors part then. The only thing they lack then is seeing their hair. Does that in your eyes mean that they have, as you put it, "no personality"? Not only do they have personality, but they are much more unique in the GW range as a whole. They're probably the most distinctive helms I've seen a model, or at least one of them.

That's pretty much how (human/humanoid) faces work. The basic elements are the same: two eyes, one nose and mouth. And then there are slight variations among these features, which is exactly what we get with the KO masked helms.

What are you talking about? He was literally the first example I provided you!...



That was literally less than 24 hours ago, and you even replied to it so you can't claim that you missed it.



So at this point, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but either you are just raising points of contention for their own sake or I very strongly suggest that you get your memory checked out. Why should I present the exact same evidence a second time? If I'm having a discussion with someone, I assume that they have a basic retention of what has been said and presented beforehand. Especially over such a short time period. It would be extremely monotonous to keep repeating the exact same things over and over at nauseum.

Well, it's not. We have hundreds of posts across several threads on this forum saying otherwise. The internet is littered with millions and millions of posts and arguments that draw a very clear distinction between the George Lucas era of Star Wars and the Disney iteration. Disney Star Wars has been largely rejected, not by everyone, but by enough of the fan base that it is cratering (low viewership for their shows, diminishing box office returns, poor merchandise sales, low guest counts at Galaxy's Edge, failed "Star Wars" hotel, etc.). Someone would have to have been living under a rock not to have noticed (whether they enjoy the ST or not).

But if fan backlash and criticism doesn't sway you, Bob Iger (Disney President) openly admitted that George Lucas (the actual creator of Star Wars) did not approve of Disney Star Wars. You don't get a more official source than that!

If you can't see it, that's on you friend. I digress though, I don't want to rant too much about Star Wars here (for everyone's well-being).

Remember that benefit of the doubt that I mentioned to you earlier in this post, well at this point, your argumentation is beginning to look increasingly deceitful. You are misrepresenting how things played out.

Let's take a look at how we first identified that they were female models:

So in the first quote you can see that I'm taking a guess that they might be female models. The sentence includes a "maybe", a "supposed to be" and a "?". So it is speculative in nature (I mean they are either male beardless CD or female beardless CD, so 50/50).

It was then @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl who did the detective work (as presented in the second quote above) by noticing that the Warhammer Underworlds Warband (which also included some beardless CD) had been confirmed by GW to have female names.

Not only that, but even after all this, you yourself, were not fully convinced that they were in fact female models:

So your assertion is blatantly false. I did not decide all on my own that they were female models. Those above are the facts. Receipts provided. Maybe you are misremembering, but that would be the second time in the same post. I'm trying to have a good faith discussion with you, but I can't help but feel that you are presenting disingenuous arguments, whereby you twist and distort the truth. Either to try to win the debate (which only works against you when the opposing party can go back an quote exactly what was said word for word) or just to disagree (which is pointless).

When I use the word identifiable, I mean easily identifiable with nothing required outside of a picture of the model itself. It should be blatantly obvious, with no room for guesswork. I've been clear on this from the start [emphasis mine]

What exactly are you looking for here? I've already given you examples of potential design elements. That was my alternative. Stopping short of sculpting you a model, rendering you a 3d computer image or drawing a concept sketch, I'm not sure what you want from me.

To repeat, I suggest some combination of these elements should be employed alongside of the beardlessness:

• hair (usually longer, with a hair style that is more consistent with how women in the real world wear it)
• slightly softer facial features (via google AI: Men generally have more prominent brow ridges, larger jaws and noses, and thinner lips compared to women. Women tend to have fuller cheeks, smaller chins, and noses that may be shorter or have a slight upward curve at the tip)
• attire (alter their uniform in some way, it doesn't have to be boob armour but it can be. The alteration can be a complete overhaul or a series of slight modifications)
• body proportions (hips, chest and shoulder ratios differ between the average male and female)

If that is not enough for you, then go out in the world and actively look at how men and women differ physically. While the translation won't be exactly one-to-one between humans and Chaos Dwarfs, the basic elements remain the same. A female CD will not be as feminine in appearance as a woman, but more so than a male CD (and in more ways than beard or no beard).

At this point you're just dumping good money after bad. You'd be better off to concede the point and maintain some level of credibility than try futilely to save a sinking ship that is beyond saving.

The final result is so bad that the intention behind it only makes it worse. At least if it was purposefully goofy, it could be partially forgiven. But to fail so miserably is just laughable. It's not only goofy, its ridiculously stupid. Imagine trying to pitch that design concept in a meeting. How does that go?

It doesn't come off as serious or as a threat. It comes off as a poor joke. Whatever it was supposed to be, it didn't stick the landing.

But don't take my word for it, here is a second opinion provided by @J.Logan :