GW News: LAS VEGAS OPEN 2025

The short answer... almost certainly no.

I probably won't buy any of them, barring some exceptional deal I come across and even then only about three of the models/units have any chance at all.

First up we've got the hobgoblins. I actually really like these guys. A few years ago I would have picked up multiple boxes of them without hesitation (provided they fit on 20mm square bases). I was actively looking for hobgoblins at the time and hoped that GW finally release some, but I finally gave up. Since then I've picked up some third party (Mantic) goblin miniatures to use in their stead. So, as I've already got enough models to fill out the two units I needed and I have no place for these guys. Great little models though.







Next up we have this guy. He's probably my favourite model of the entire release. In truth, I have enough character models for my army already, but I could always be tempted by perhaps one more.


However, as cool as he is, if I were to get another CD character model, there is a better option available in the form of this angry little fellow:


So it's very unlikely that I'll get the AoS one. The Blood Bowl model is much more to my liking.




Lastly, we've got this big guy. While he isn't as cool as my Forge World Bale Taurus, he could potentially serve as a Great Taurus. Unfortunately, I think he is probably a bit to big (I wouldn't want him to be larger than the Bale Taurus I already have). Also, I wouldn't be willing to pay top dollar for him and GW charges a pretty penny for these centerpiece models. I'd have to find an outstanding deal for him, in which case I might be able to find some use for the big bull.





So, I'll likely completely pass on this release. I already have better stuff at home. The two models I may actually get one day for my WHFB CD army would be the Blood Bowl Chaos Dwarf model posted above and this one:


I really love both of those sculpts (really the whole Blood Bowl CD release is absolutely fantastic). It's a shame the AoS ones could live up to them.

 

Not sure. I'm drawing a blank.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one that feels that way.

I am so sorry that I have inflicted this memory on you. I thought most people had already seen it. Hashut forgive me for my foolishness.

 

It makes them a faceless crowd. So yeah, they don't really have much of an individual personality.
Also, the helmet dehumanizes them since it hides emotions, which is another reason why important characters tend to walk around without helmets (or have their visors open or something similar). Which is probably why the book has a someone without a helmet on it.

I meant in this particular list. Which given the nature of the list is just a little bit funny.

They argue about plotholes, or bad storybeats, not about the designs and art-style.In fact, the only positive comments I've ever seen regarding the disney stuff is how it looks cool.

And while you can draw a distinction between the iterations, it is ultimately all star-wars. A sequel being bad doesn't suddenly stop it from being a sequel.

God English is a terribly unclear language. It's a plural "you" refering to everyone who identified the thing as such, You can replace it with "We" if you'd prefer, the meaning remains the same. Point being; GW stated that 1 specific model was female. And based on that singular point of information you/we/the internet started identifying a whole bunch as female. So clearly it is sufficiently identifiable.

1) Beard v.s. no beard is pretty blatant. Especially considering the size of their beards.
2) It's a monstrous fantasy race. Of course you need an outside explanation, you don't know it's culture or its dimorphic traits (if it even has those...)

Why do you want the not-chaos-dwarfs to follow the same physical dimorphisms and cultural distinctions of (certain sets of) real life humans? It's a monstrous fantasy race. Hair & attire is completly arbitrary and cultural, there's no right or wrong there for a fantasy race. And while physical dimorphism is a possibility, why do you expect that to hold in the same way for a fantasy race of little monsters? (ignoring for the moment that dwarf miniatures aren't really big enough for most of those things to even be noticeable)

And that's before going into the fact that it wouldn't necesarly even work on these models. For example, how do you want to show off different hairstyles when one of their distinctive traits is wearing massive hats?

Quick question; what do you think of the human centipede movie? Is what they do in that movie goofy? Cuz both that and this model is just weird body-horror created by a madman.

 

Except these lovely ladies right here...





Tragically these seem to be the exception rather than the rule, though.

It would honestly make the most sense as a mindset... as you said @NIGHTBRINGER, it's been commonly accepted now that GW is a model company first and foremost... the quality of the balancing of many of their games even nowadays is a testimony to that. Unlike Mantic, for example, who are seen by many as the reverse - a games company who happen to make models on the side.

Not to mention that GW cannot control what people play... so it just makes so much more sense for them to just not care about what game the models are being used for - they're still getting the same amount of money for said models at the end of the day, so why should they care?

And to be honest I reckon this inter-company politicking seems to be indulged in by one side more than the other - the TOW team purposefully added in the option for Squig Hoppers to take spears and light armour to allow players to use the Boingrot Bounder models from the plastic AoS kit, and created full, usable PDF army lists for the Warhammer Fantasy factions the AoS team seemed to want to hoard for themselves, so the TOW side are clearly a lot less bothered about what models you use.

Indeed - for @Canas' benefit, not only did the names sound female, but GW also used 'she/her' several times in the article relating to those female-sounding names:


All the proof one needs

I will add that GW seem to have followed these rules up to a point on the female Chaos Dwarf models:

• They have generally plumper and rounder faces, compared the gaunt expressions and more defined chins of the male Chaos Dwarfs beneath their beards
• They have small button noses (compared to the long, hooked noses of the male Chaos Dwarfs following the classic Big Hat aesthetic), and generally lack the pairs of tusks that their menfolk have
• They also seem to have fuller lips than their male counterparts (most clearly demonstrated by the female leader of the Underworlds warband, as ugly as she is)

But I agree GW didn't do enough to make it clear - they could have given the female Dawi-Zharr long hair that is curled in a similar style to the beards of the males, and made their armour look slightly different to take account of their... chest assets

And a third from me - even when the model first came out, though I was fine with the crocodile head version and the idea that it was a bone-collecting machine, that little chestnut was a mildly disdainful brand of disturbing and silly more than anything - a penis joke for pre-pubescent teenagers in an army that was meant to be cold-hard serious.

To be honest the 'rictus grins' on the heads of most of the models are too mirthful (and similarly goofy) for my liking too - too much like the Joker and too little like the actual impassive gritted teeth of a skull. To this day the only Ossiarch models I really like are Kainan and the Mortisan Soulreaper (both of which have much more sinister mouthless heads that are nicely reminiscent of Necrons) and Vokmortian, because he alone of all the range with teeth managed the impassive skull look without the derpy Joker grin or a constipated-looking gurn.

Er... it makes sense for them to, because not only do their ordinary Dwarf cousins follow said dimorphisms, but all Dwarfs as a whole, ever since they were first concocted in Norse Mythology, are meant to be based upon real-life humans, because as entities they have been imagined into mythological existence by humans. Not to mention that, as humans, we are innately programmed to try and interpret male/female dimorphism for most things, especially things with humanoid gaits and faces (even if they're ugly and deformed) like those the Dawi-Zharr have. True, the Dawi-Zharr are a fantasy race, but if you really want to try and get away from human-like dimorphism, either you need to look for a race that looks a lot more inhuman, or at the very least have background to establish why they might be, say, asexual. Such a lore idea is certainly plausible for a Dwarf race - perhaps they could fashion new members of their race from stone or such like? - in a fantasy universe of your own creation, but this is Warhammer, and it is already established, in both Warhammer Fantasy and Age of Sigmar, that Dwarfs have females and reproduce sexually, in the vein of both most earlier depictions of Dwarfs and humans.

GW have confirmed that the Zharrdron are more AoS Dwarfs, and thus they innately follow the same gender patterns of Fyreslayers and Kharadron Overlords (who both have female models now)... and so it's pretty obvious that, much like the Fyreslayers and Kharadron, if a Zharrdron model doesn't have a beard, it must be female.

Hair spills out from under hats, especially when it's long as it would have been a good idea for these female Chaos Dwarf models to have.

Except while one is a sick aberration concocted by a clinically-insane mind with the qualifications to become a Dark Eldar Haemonculus, the other is just an afterthought that was likely considered by marketing execs as a joke for aforementioned pre-pubescent teenagers. I'll leave it to you to determine which is which... I don't think there will be a film called 'The Skeleton Crocodile Willy' coming out any time soon (unless it's a spoof comedy ).

Quick word of advice matey - it's a mistake to try to defend the fabricated in-game lore behind a design choice, when the criticism is aimed at the design choice itself (I'm pretty sure I've done it myself in ages past)

 

Sure, except what @NIGHTBRINGER is describing isn't just "vaguely humanoid dimorphisms".

If all you want is the vaguely humanoid dimorphisms, then the not-chaos-dwarfs fullfill that, in so far as tiny dwarf miniatures clad in heavy armour can manage to, with the beard-distinction. The smaller details like body proportions simply aren't going to be visible under all that armour, even if they were scaled up to a realistic size, but especially not on a tiny miniature.

Everything else, like hairstyle or attire, is cultural, and as such, can be whatever you want for a fantasy race. Even if you look at historic mythology, the cultural aspects of the various fantasy races deviated from "real" society. Often on purpose to show just how weird/fantastical/monstrous these things are.

The shape and size of the hats, as well as the rest of the armour doesn't really allow for that. It hugs the head tightly, it goes down quite deeply into the neck, and often even covers the cheeks. Additionally, the pauldrons and gorge of the breastplate go up quite high. If you'd have long hair and wear it lose it'd get in the way constantly and would get caught on things. The most convenient hairstyle to wear with such outfits is with your hair tight together and shoved into the helmet as possible (or just really short hair/bald, that works too). Maybe that's why their hats are so tall, they all have top knots and don't want to get helmet-hair after the battle.

Look, I don't like the OBR much either. I'm just saying that they are not goofy/silly/jokey in the way that bloodbowl is.
They fit in with the rest of AoS (and most of WHF) since it's not a super serious setting. Designers are allowed to have some fun and include some (obvious) jokes without it immeadiatly feeling out of place. It's still clearly a combatant in an undead army made by a mad necromancer. The pre-pubescent joke isn't any goofier than the existence of say doom-divers in WHF, or just warhammer orc behaviour in general.

If you were to stick it into say, the LOTR game, then it'd look stupid. Because GW's LOTR game is far more serious, with very few if any jokes on their models.

On the other hand, in bloodbowl this pre-pubescent joke would barely stand out among the host of silly nonsense.

 

Upon seeing them, I have vague ideas for a future project forming in my mind. Make a small 1,000-1,500 point army based to be used for both TOW and 8th edition. Use old single piece night goblin archers for hobgobs with bows, small 10 man units of infernal guard with fire glaives using either FW or 3d prints, black orcs w/ great weapons for TOW, use the AOS chaos dwarf infantry with hw/shield for ironsworn, maybe have a unit of all female models to represent Harridans, the new artillery with wheel swaps and conversions, WOC hellcannon, AOS bull centaurs with GW, snarlfang riders for hobgob wold boys. FW daemonsmiths. The gears are turning.

 

The masks are made to look like mechanized versions of their faces. Those masks ooze personality.

Which is pretty awesome. We've already got a whole bunch of factions that don't have fully helmed faces, why not have something a little bit different? Especially since the masks are so interesting and characterful.

Spoiler: Because important characters never hide their faces behind a mask:

Because that's not how conversations work. They build upon what came before.

Canas: "helmets lack personality"

NIGHTBRINGER: "This helmet lacks personality to you?" [*presents picture of Brokk Grungsson*]

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

NIGHTBRINGER: "You could not be more wrong" [*presents pictures of additional helmeted KO models that also have personality*]

Canas: "weirdly enough you didn't include the one KO that is actually unique, which is kind of funny. Brokk grungson"


Let's break it down for you:

• You already conceded the point that Brokk Grungsson has personality [we both agree on this and consequently there is no point in bringing it up again]
• You then claimed that he is in the 1% that do, while the other 99% have no personality [Of course I'm not going to include Brokk Grungsson in my rebuttal to that statement because the list presented is meant to demonstrate that other KO models, in addition to Brokk have personality. Including Brokk would be counterintuitive to the point being made]

I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty following along. In a conversation, ideas should be building atop one another. One thing leads logically to the next and the next after that.

Soooo.... CGI slop. Literally the same thing being pedaled by most modern Hollywood action/adventure/sci-fi movies.

The fans rejected Disney Star Wars. The creator of Star Wars rejected Disney Star Wars. At this point the Disney Trilogy is pretty much a litmus test to separate real Star Wars fans from shills, activists and those with room temperature IQ.

Take a little bit of accountability. It was your usage of the English language that made things unclear. It's not the end of the world, it's happened to all of us at one point or another.

Thank you @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl !

Having to look for gendered names and pronoun markers to accurately identify the model's gender means that it wasn't readily apparent from the models alone.

Thank you once again @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl . You took the words right out of my mouth (and saved me a lot of time). There really isn't anything that needs to be added. You've hit all the points I was going to make!

Never heard of it, much less seen it.

In terms of the model though, you've got read the room a little bit. Even during the course of this conversation we've had not one, not two, not three, but four people rip on that model in one shape or form. From what I've seen that seems pretty representative of the gaming community at large.

It's okay if you like the model, but the general thought is that it is a poorly conceived and executed mess.

That's where the sculptor can work his/her magic. I had previously suggested:

• 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)

Altering the helmet a bit doesn't seem that difficult. Besides, I agree with @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl , that even with the current helmets, they could have the hair flowing out the back.

 

Let's take a look, but we'll use models from the same unit to keep things fair and consistent.

• On your first point, it's tough to tell if the female face is rounder because of the visual effect of the clean shaven face vs the bearded one. Maybe a bit rounder... maybe. As for the chin, a comparison can't really be made because the males chin is completely covered. It's tough to see if he has a more squared chin or not.
• as for the noses, in these pictures the male has a slightly more protruding nose while the female has a more flattened out wide one. However, it seems to be within the margin of variation we see from model to model, even within the same gender. I posted a third photo below to demonstrate this, as he as a pretty small nose. The fact that most of their helms cover their noses means we have a very small sample size to make a true determination. I will grant you that on average, the male tusks seem to be larger. The females still have them, but there is a distinction in terms of size.
• I'm not seeing fuller lips on the females. In the two comparative pictures below, my eyes see the male having a more pronounced lower lip. I refrain from making a comparison to the Underworlds one because that is more of a character model and the effect seems more to do with the paint job than the actual sculpted lip size. Character models tend to exhibit more variation and present unique features. I think basic troop to troop comparison gives us a more balanced analysis.

*smallish nose comparable to the female above (although from a different unit, so keep that in mind)



Thoughts?