GW News: LAS VEGAS OPEN 2025

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Well, you're right, but when GW takes an official stand on something in one event, usually it's good for any official tournament from that point, unless specified otherwise.

I agree that most tournaments would incorporate such a ruling. As always, things of that nature are entirely up to the tournament organizer. They wield absolute power within the confines of their event, but such power is limited exclusively to their event. Plus, as you said, GW actually allows the use of the model so long as it is rebased and the player does not try to gain an advantage.

It still has no bearing on games outside of tournaments (which is like 99.99% of games).

I've also found the rules for GW grand tournament series, which is 40k but gives an idea of GW's stand on the matter: as usual, the base must be the current one... but that said you can modify your model, but you cannot take advantages, and at most you will have only disadvantages.
Example: if your actual model is taller than the regular one and is behind a scenery and the opponent can see you, you still don’t gain LoS. (Which is imo both silly and excessively harsh, but that's GW)

That is pretty harsh!

The issue is mainly the second point. If there's a large difference between the current model and the old model, like with Kroak, it becomes difficult to gauge if it is really hidden or not when someone is using the old model. Sure, noone's going to claim the new Kroak model can hide behind a small bush, but what is the minimum height of wall it'd need to be hidden behind a wall? Is a 10cm tall wall hiding it? 15? 14? 16? It's a bit difficult to tell without the actual model.

When size differences become this extreme, you're better of just using the current model (or at least a more suitable proxy), makes life easier for everyone involved and avoids pointless discussions. Just using the correct base size is simply not going to be clear enough in these cases.

But now you are arguing a different thing! We are not debating convenience or ease of use. The point of contention is whether or not the old Kroak model is legal/valid or not.

I mean, the old Kroak model is technicly no longer officially valid. They have at least some kinda point

Kroak is just one of the few examples where the new model is literally twice as big as the old model, and thus makes the old model invalid.

It was fielded and perfectly valid before the new model was released, so unless there is a written rule that explicitly forbids it, it is fair game.

The answer to that question is clear and unequivocal:

Question: Can the old Kroak model be used in games of AoS at GW run events?
Answer: YES! So long as it is rebased to the new standard and the player does not use the size difference to gain an advantage that would not be available if using the new model.
Rationale/Evidence: GW's tournament FAQ explicitly says so.

Question: Can the old Kroak model be used in games of AoS outside of tournaments (i.e. regular games)?
Answer: YES!
Rationale/Evidence: The old model is still an officially produced model by GW and of the same name. It was a valid model prior to the updated model and there is no rule/faq that explicitly forbids its use now that the updated model has been released.


That is (or was) our debate. Unless you have further evidence that you can directly quote, your original premise is without standing. The old Kroak model is legal and valid for the reasons outlined above.

What you're debating now is convenience and that will be subjective. If both models are available to field, yes, the new model is more straightforward to implement. That's pretty obvious and not up for debate. However, there are many reasons why someone might find it inconvenient/undesirable.

• the person already owns to the old model and is either unable or has no wish to shell out money for the new one
• the person has already painted the old model
• the person likes the old model better
• the old model is much, much, much easier to transport. That could be an important factor if a person is travelling a great distance with an already large army.
• the person does not want to give GW the precedent to invalidate old versions of models. Its a very slippery slope that greedy GW will undoubtedly exploit if they feel they can get away with it.

Either way, this is a tangent. Rules/faqs determine legality, not convenience. The old Kroak model is legal and valid.

I mean, outside of official events you can do whatever you like anyway

If agreed upon by both players, any house rule can be used. However, we're not talking about that. We're talking about playing a game of AoS using official rules only. A regular game by the book. And in such a case, the old Kroak model can be fielded without additional permission from your opponent.

Ironically, it is you that would have to revert to the use of house rules in order to invalidate the old model.

 

[Imrahil]

Honestly, I'd be extremely surprised if it's not. The only thing that worries me is that it's a rumour engine from like 3 days ago, generally speaking it takes a while before rumour engines become actual units. So this either means our update is still quite far away, or it's getting some weird staggered release schedule.

Most of the time it takes quite a while for a Rumour Engine to be solves, but both Rumour Engines of last week and the one prior to that were solved in the Las Vegas Open reveals.

So keep your hopes up

Grrr, !mrahil

 

[Canas]

Question: Can the old Kroak model be used in games of AoS at GW run events?
Answer: YES! So long as it is rebased to the new standard and the player does not use the size difference to gain an advantage that would not be available if using the new model.
Rationale/Evidence: GW's tournament FAQ explicitly says so.

The issue is that given the rather significant size-difference it's nigh on impossible to not (accidently) take advantage of the difference in size with respect to LoS unless you play without any sizeable terrain or do something silly, like bring a cut-out of the right size for comparisons whenever necesary, or simply agree that LoS will always be ruled in favour of your opponent.

People already are more than willing to argue about a couple mm error in measurements, that is only going to get worse if you have to estimate the real model size because you're working with a significantly smaller proxy (a proxy that once was an official release, but still is a proxy at this point as it's an outdated model with significant differences with the current model).

Simply put, a proxy that's half the size of the "real", current, model is simply not really acceptable. The fact that your proxy was once the official model doesn't really matter. it's become outdated, and no longer fit for purpose.

And sure, RAW you might be able to argue it should be accepted, but honestly it's clearly not intended that way given that they explicitly warn of the issues regarding size differences and that once those differences become big enough it is almost impossible to avoid mistakes regarding LoS.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

The issue is that given the rather significant size-difference it's nigh on impossible to not (accidently) take advantage of the difference in size with respect to LoS unless you play without any sizeable terrain or do something silly, like bring a cut-out of the right size for comparisons whenever necesary, or simply agree that LoS will always be ruled in favour of your opponent.

With a little bit of commonsense it isn't an issue at all.


Curious, are you AoS guys counting the debris and detritus floating around Kroak as targetable for line of sight?

People already are more than willing to argue about a couple mm error in measurements, that is only going to get worse if you have to estimate the real model size because you're working with a significantly smaller proxy (a proxy that once was an official release, but still is a proxy at this point as it's an outdated model with significant differences with the current model).

And those people are welcome to measure the millimeters to the next gaming table. Move along neckbeards.

And sure, RAW you might be able to argue it should be accepted

"...RAW you might be able to argue"??

Not might. Not argue. It is absolute and unequivocal. I have laid it out clearly and you have not been able to provide when shred of evidence against it (by evidence I mean quoted rules or FAQ). Your personal feelings don't count for RAW.... only rules matter, of which there are none that forbid it. There are no rules that state that you must use the new model.

but honestly it's clearly not intended that way given that they explicitly warn of the issues regarding size differences and that once those differences become big enough it is almost impossible to avoid mistakes regarding LoS.

It is intended, that's why the Warhammer event FAQ specifically lays out the process by which older models can be fielded. If it wasn't intended then they wouldn't have bothered to give you instructions as to how to field the older model. They could just as easily have used that FAQ entry to say you can't field the old model. Your rationale for determining what is intended seems highly flawed, to the point where you are ignoring the text of the FAQ.


I am so glad that is an AoS thing and not a WHFB thing.

 

[Canas]

Curious, are you AoS guys counting the debris and detritus floating around Kroak as targetable for line of sight?

It's a bit complicated with kroak.
Normally you're supposed to assume the model isn't completly stupid, and will hide say a tail or speartip poking out when in cover, so you could argue that the only thing that matters is his actual chair, and even then some bits are pointless to hit. But Kroak is about 90% floating debris, so at that point you'd be ignoring most of his model, which doesn't seem very fair.

And those people are welcome to measure the millimeters to the next gaming table. Move along neckbeards.

If only you could avoid players in tournaments that way

"...RAW you might be able to argue"??

Not might. Not argue. It is absolute and unequivocal. I have laid it out clearly and you have not been able to provide when shred of evidence against it (by evidence I mean quoted rules or FAQ). Your personal feelings don't count for RAW.... only rules matter, of which there are none that forbid it. There are no rules that state that you must use the new model.

That's still an argument But that's devolving into arguing about what constitutes an argument, which is rather meta a discussion, so moving on .

It is intended, that's why the Warhammer event FAQ specifically lays out the process by which older models can be fielded. If it wasn't intended then they wouldn't have bothered to give you instructions as to how to field the older model. They could just as easily have used that FAQ entry to say you can't field the old model. Your rationale for determining what is intended seems highly flawed, to the point where you are ignoring the text of the FAQ.

Imho, the intend here is that you can use your old models provided they aren't too different from the current ones. E.g. we can still use our saurus when the new saurus come out. They are roughly the same size, and their base is only slightly bigger (or even the same). The difference isn't particularly extreme. Consequently LoS (and other size-based) rulings won't really change for saurus, so using the old models isn't a particularly big deal.

However, Kroak has gone from a medium-ish model to a giant centerpiece behemoth. It's rather a large size difference, and constantly keeping the correct size in mind for size-based rulings is bound to create issues.

Also, minor sidenote; if we go with your interpretation then it's allowed to bring adeptus titanicus models for use in 40k, despite these models being an entirely different scale. They're official GW models, they have the right names, they have the correct loadouts for WYSIWYG. Which is rather silly, would love to see someone attempt to field a titan or a knight army like that.

I am so glad that is an AoS thing and not a WHFB thing.

I mean, that's mainly cuz WHFB never really saw any models changed to this degree. If WHFB had had similar updates you'd have this problem too.

 

[Just A Skink]

Most of the time it takes quite a while for a Rumour Engine to be solves, but both Rumour Engines of last week and the one prior to that were solved in the Las Vegas Open reveals.

So keep your hopes up

Grrr, !mrahil

I agree.

@Canas As you know, Seraphon/Lizardmen have a certain recognizable aesthetic, despite GW changing it up a little. Honestly, I think since the big Seraphon tease at LVO, it's just easier for GW to have Seraphon Rumor Engines. I think any Seraphon-looking rumor images are set to be solved around summer 2023. However, summer could still mean all the way into August.

That said, I wonder if it's more cost-effective for GW to splash loads of updated models at one time or if it would have helped them to trickle out an updated kit every year? I guess the anticipation and excitement helps "impulse" buys? Adding to that, it does make me think GW will change up our rules (at least somewhat) significantly. You don't have a big model update to just recycle rules.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

It's a bit complicated with kroak.
Normally you're supposed to assume the model isn't completly stupid, and will hide say a tail or speartip poking out when in cover, so you could argue that the only thing that matters is his actual chair, and even then some bits are pointless to hit. But Kroak is about 90% floating debris, so at that point you'd be ignoring most of his model, which doesn't seem very fair.

It was better laid out in 8th edition WHFB:


EEFL

If only you could avoid players in tournaments that way

Tournaments aren't really an issue. The tournament organizer makes those decisions. At their tournaments you either can or can't use the old model purely at their discretion. If the TO says it is okay, then the opposing player can suck a lemon. If the TO says that the old model isn't allowed, then it's up to you whether or not you wish to participate in the event. If the tournament is using GW's FAQ, then the choice has already been made.

Besides, tournaments account for such an astronomically small percentage of all games played.

Imho, the intend here is that you can use your old models provided they aren't too different from the current ones. E.g. we can still use our saurus when the new saurus come out. They are roughly the same size, and their base is only slightly bigger (or even the same). The difference isn't particularly extreme. Consequently LoS (and other size-based) rulings won't really change for saurus, so using the old models isn't a particularly big deal.

However, Kroak has gone from a medium-ish model to a giant centerpiece behemoth. It's rather a large size difference, and constantly keeping the correct size in mind for size-based rulings is bound to create issues.

No, that is not the intention, the FAQ itself says otherwise. If the model was essentially the same size, there would be no reason for the FAQ to deliberately detail that players must be flexible and not use the size discrepancy to their advantage. The FAQ makes no distinction about the relative sizes between the old models and their replacements. You are interjecting that yourself. That is your personal stance and should not be construed as GW's intention.

I mean, that's mainly cuz WHFB never really saw any models changed to this degree. If WHFB had had similar updates you'd have this problem too.

Exactly, WHFB had far better model-to-model consistency. Not perfect, but much better. I've personally never heard of an old model being disallowed.

We saw some of it (scale creep) in the End Times... but that isn't even real 8th edition WHFB anyways. Just an ill-conceived campaign expansion.




Like I said, you have provided no evidence to invalidate the older Kroak model. The rules are either silent on the topic or, in the case of tournaments, they outright support the usage of the outdated model. However, I'll leave you with this. You can personally play it however you wish. If you want to be the guy at the hobby shop or tournament that tries to disallow another player's model, then that is on you. That is a reflection of you. Maybe you'll even be successful at bullying other players into it, but eventually you'll run into someone who will not put up with it. As for the rules though, they are clear and they are not in your favour.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

From my vantage point, here are the issues:

• bias leading to imbalance (more so than the usual GW imbalance)

I personally don't have an issue with bias.

You really believe that don't you? Everybody has bias. You, me... everyone. You claiming not to have bias is biased.


I'm not saying that you would deliberately try to unbalance your army books against armies that you dislike, that would be a foolish waste of your time. You are no fool. I believe you will try your best to balance things. However, you will write your rules guided by your own personal biases, even if only guided subconsciously.

For instance:


Despite all sorts of evidence against your beliefs surrounding Chaos Warriors, you still cling to that idea. We went through an entire mathhammer tournament where they came in second to last place. Admittedly many of those units were special or rare choices, but they were thoroughly outperformed by the core choices in the tourney as well (Witch Elves, Savage Orc Big'uns and Chaos Trolls which can be made core). And that is before we even begin to factor in that they are only M4 infantry in an army with virtually no shooting. They have great stats but they are also prohibitively expensive, ranging between 17 to 19 points per model (for the most widely fielded builds).

If you were to nerf them further by increasing their costs or reducing their stats, why would a WoC player go along with that? They aren't that highly praised among WoC generals to begin with.

As for Chosen, they aren't played in many WoC lists because they are massively overcosted. Nerfing Chaos Warriors won't solve that.

splintering of an already small player pool (everyone playing different sets of rules)

There lies the importance of advertising. I must admit I perhaps should join more forums and advertise mine. Fortunately Matthias Eliasson, the previous king of Fantasy fan-made rules, has become too obsessed with his own 9th Edition to care about 8th anymore, so there's a chance for me to usurp his throne. Additionally, wherever possible I've left armies to use 'official' 8th works, my main objective is writing rules for new armies and bumping up those on the weak side, relying on existing 8th sources wherever possible. In other words, the minimum to keep 8th alive and fun for everybody.

If you were to successfully advertise and pull more players into your system, you'd only end up splintering the player base further. The standard rules will always make up the bulk of the player base. Even your Matthias Eliasson only managed to garner the smallest fraction of WHFB 8th edition players, but that still splintered the community, even if only marginally. The more you pull away from the standard GW game (through advertising or creating a truly great system), the more diffuse the 8th edition player base becomes.

Not to mention the effect that TOW will have on our already small community. I suspect that the 8th edition community will shrink significantly (unless TOW is absolute rubbish).

unfamiliarity for the opponent

Simple, let them have a read of the book in advance of the game, so they have an idea of what they're up against before you play. That also gives them a chance to raise any concerns over balance in which case that's more opportunity to tweak things slightly to get it right.

It's another thing to read... and it is something that isn't official. Not everyone wants to go down that path. For instance, when searching for YouTube battle reports to watch I would always skip the Warhammer Armies Project ones because I don't want to invest the time to learn the new system. Even more so, I don't want to muddy the waters between his house rules and the real rules.


Lastly, consider player bias towards the official rules. If GW releases a poorly balanced rule/unit/army, people will complain but will usually accept it. If you release a poorly balanced rule/unit/army, people are far more likely to abandon it and play the official game. That's not slight against you, it would be the same for anyone putting forth their own rules.


None of this is to say that you shouldn't write your rules. I'm not claiming that I could design a better set of rules. It sounds like a fun project that you enjoy and you will likely find people that will have fun playing your system. I encourage you to see your project through, but be aware that the vast majority of people are unlikely deviate from the official GW game. I'm one of those guys that likes to play the "real" rules, but that doesn't mean that I think others are obliged to. I'm just trying to give you a clear lay of the land.

 

[Canas]

It was better laid out in 8th edition WHFB:
View attachment 128015

EEFL

Basicly the same as for AoS, minus the explicit "from their eyes" which would createsome awkward lines with some of the dynamic poses and heads bend in funky ways (on that note, who do you measure from with mounted models? From the carnosaur or the oldblood?). Now it's just from the center of the model.

No, that is not the intention, the FAQ itself says otherwise. If the model was essentially the same size, there would be no reason for the FAQ to deliberately detail that players must be flexible and not use the size discrepancy to their advantage. The FAQ makes no distinction about the relative sizes between the old models and their replacements. You are interjecting that yourself. That is your personal stance and should not be construed as GW's intention.

Humans are pretty bad at accuratly judging sizes, playing with a proxy that is half the size of the "proper" model is basicly guaranteed to result in issues.
The F.A.Q. explicitly states you can't take advantage of size differences.
Given this explicit statement the rule should have been written with our general inability to judge sizes in mind, cuz why else bother mentioning the size differences if all it takes is to stick your model on the right base.

Then again, GW often makes absolutly absurd jumps of logic, so who knows. Maybe they're happy with people using an old Kroak when the new Kroak is twice his size. And similarly they are happy with people using the old guardsman sized Magnus in 40K as opposed to the current knight-sized Magnus. Or the adeptus titanicus models as knights and titans in 40K.

Exactly, WHFB had far better model-to-model consistency. Not perfect, but much better. I've personally never heard of an old model being disallowed.

We saw some of it (scale creep) in the End Times... but that isn't even real 8th edition WHFB anyways. Just an ill-conceived campaign expansion.

Mwha, AoS isn't exactly bad in terms of scale creep. This feels more like a unique one-off scenario created due to Kroak coming from a previous game. I don't think there's any other unit that's seen anywhere near this level of change.

Which is probably also why the rules don't explicitly forbid and only imply it by stating you shouldn't take advantage of size differences. Up till now the size differences where 1-2 cm at most. Not a model suddenly being twice as big as it's previous incarnation. So up till now it simply wasn't ever relevant.

And that's the biggest issue here. Are you okay with someone using an proxy/alternate model/old version/whatever you want to call it, that is essentially half the size of the "proper", current, model? Imho, that's a bit of a large difference. Doesn't really matter if it once was official, is a third party proxy, or some wonderfull kitbash, the difference is simply too big.

And honestly, ultimatly I doubt it's a common real issue anyway. I very much doubt there's a lot of people walking around demanding they get to play with the old Kroak model a year after the model has been updated. Making it mostly a theoretical discussion anyway.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Basicly the same as for AoS, minus the explicit "from their eyes" which would createsome awkward lines with some of the dynamic poses and heads bend in funky ways (on that note, who do you measure from with mounted models? From the carnosaur or the oldblood?). Now it's just from the center of the model.

If that is true, then this debate is completely nonsensical. Most of Kroak's size comes from the useless crap floating around his palanquin. In the 8th edition rules that I provided you, all that stuff doesn't apply to drawing line of sight as it is not his head, torso, arms or legs. If the AoS version of this rule is largely the same, as you state, then this entire discussion is moot. The actual Kroak model isn't that much bigger than the old one.

Humans are pretty bad at accuratly judging sizes, playing with a proxy that is half the size of the "proper" model is basicly guaranteed to result in issues.

Some people might exhibit such and deficiency, but others are quite good at judging sizes. In most instances it will be fairly easy to make the determination. Often it will be completely obvious that a model is hidden or visible. On rare occasions you might be faced with a situation where it is actually a close call, but as you're playing AoS, I'm sure you have some sort of measuring tape or stick around. And those things are exceptionally good at "judging" sizes.

The F.A.Q. explicitly states you can't take advantage of size differences.
Given this explicit statement the rule should have been written with our general inability to judge sizes in mind, cuz why else bother mentioning the size differences if all it takes is to stick your model on the right base.

Which is probably also why the rules don't explicitly forbid and only imply it by stating you shouldn't take advantage of size differences. Up till now the size differences where 1-2 cm at most. Not a model suddenly being twice as big as it's previous incarnation. So up till now it simply wasn't ever relevant.

And that's the biggest issue here. Are you okay with someone using an proxy/alternate model/old version/whatever you want to call it, that is essentially half the size of the "proper", current, model? Imho, that's a bit of a large difference. Doesn't really matter if it once was official, is a third party proxy, or some wonderfull kitbash, the difference is simply too big.

The FAQ makes no mention of a relative size discrepancy where the rule breaks down and the model is deemed illegal. That is purely a subjective determination that you are personally interjecting. It's what you feel is fair and reasonable, but has nothing to do with what the actual rules state is fair and reasonable. The FAQ seems pretty clear in what it is ascribing, all the rest of this is simply stuff that you are adding yourself. None of this "twice as big as the previous model" stuff is RAW or RAI.

Mwha, AoS isn't exactly bad in terms of scale creep. This feels more like a unique one-off scenario created due to Kroak coming from a previous game. I don't think there's any other unit that's seen anywhere near this level of change.

Some models underwent major transformations or additions (mounts), such as Teclis, Morathi and Alarielle, but I wouldn't count those.

Sigvald legitimately got much bigger, didn't he? Same for that big Orc Warboss.

The Greater Daemons got MUCH bigger.


There might be other examples as well, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I believe it was the end times that started all this accelerated scale creep.

And honestly, ultimatly I doubt it's a common real issue anyway. I very much doubt there's a lot of people walking around demanding they get to play with the old Kroak model a year after the model has been updated. Making it mostly a theoretical discussion anyway.

I can't say for certain, but I'd imagine that there are probably a good number of players that only own the old Kroak model, seeing as it was a model that had been around for decades and the new model is prohibitively expensive.


At the end of the day, play it as you wish. If you want to turn players away for fielding an older version of Kroak (that rules-wise is completely legal), then that's on you. But you become "that guy" at the gaming store. If it is at a tournament, then you have to abide by the T.O.'s rules.

 

[Canas]

If that is true, then this debate is completely nonsensical. Most of Kroak's size comes from the useless crap floating around his palanquin. In the 8th edition rules that I provided you, all that stuff doesn't apply to drawing line of sight as it is not his head, torso, arms or legs. If the AoS version of this rule is largely the same, as you state, then this entire discussion is moot. The actual Kroak model isn't that much bigger than the old one.

The thing is that in the case of Kroak, 99% of him is inorganic floating stuff.
Usually the bits that don't count are the end of a tail, or a raised swordtip. It's the prolonged things poking out from the general silhoute that a model in cover would activly hide because it's not going to be standing in some heroic pose while n cover.

In the case of Kroak his sillhoute is pretty compact, with very few bits actually poking out (like a spear would poke out), and 90% of the model is essentially just a bunch of random stones. But only counting his mummified body as targetable seems a bit unfair given that it's only a fraction of the model (not to mention that if you can only target his body then the model partially creates it's own cover with all the floating junk, trees & the giant chair, which is sort of silly)

Some people might exhibit such and deficiency, but others are quite good at judging sizes. In most instances it will be fairly easy to make the determination. Often it will be completely obvious that a model is hidden or visible. On rare occasions you might be faced with a situation where it is actually a close call, but as you're playing AoS, I'm sure you have some sort of measuring tape or stick around. And those things are exceptionally good at "judging" sizes.

The issue is that things are a bit difficult to measure without the actual model. And 99% of players won't be able to tell you if Kroak is exactly 8" tall or not. At which point things get complicated when you try to determine if he can hide behind an 8" tall wall or not.

None of this "twice as big as the previous model" stuff is RAI.

Strongly disagree, but that much is obvious I hope

Some models underwent major transformations or additions (mounts), such as Teclis, Morathi and Alarielle, but I wouldn't count those.
Sigvald legitimately got much bigger, didn't he? Same for that big Orc Warboss.


The Greater Daemons got MUCH bigger.

There might be other examples as well, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I believe it was the end times that started all this accelerated scale creep.

All of those have had only one model in AoS. They got updated in end-times, unlike Kroak.
E.g. the old official Teclis model never made it into AoS to begin with, we've only ever had god-size Teclis.
So as far as AoS is concerned, none of them ever changed size, except Kroak.

As for warbosses, it isn't that they introduced bigger models, it's just that the smaller orks from the WFB greenskins just don't exist anymore.
But I don't think any of the orks are supposed to be replacements. The kruleboyz are a completly new race, and i think the ironjawz & savage orks haven't had any new models (except for some underworld stuff).

At the end of the day, play it as you wish. If you want to turn players away for fielding an older version of Kroak (that rules-wise is completely legal), then that's on you. But you become "that guy" at the gaming store. If it is at a tournament, then you have to abide by the T.O.'s rules.

Imho, asking people to play with models that are at roughly the right size is absolutly not "that guy"-behaviour.

Also, for clarity, I'd be fine with a proxy, or an old Kroak model that's been altered a to be (roughly) the right size. I really don't care if someone uses the official model or not. I just want it to be (more or less) the right size.
I just find simply sticking the old model on a new base and calling it a day to be a bit of a cop out. At least attempt some kitbashing to approximate the new model size while you're rebasing it anyway.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

The thing is that in the case of Kroak, 99% of him is inorganic floating stuff.
Usually the bits that don't count are the end of a tail, or a raised swordtip. It's the prolonged things poking out from the general silhoute that a model in cover would activly hide because it's not going to be standing in some heroic pose while n cover.

In the case of Kroak his sillhoute is pretty compact, with very few bits actually poking out (like a spear would poke out), and 90% of the model is essentially just a bunch of random stones. But only counting his mummified body as targetable seems a bit unfair given that it's only a fraction of the model (not to mention that if you can only target his body then the model partially creates it's own cover with all the floating junk, trees & the giant chair, which is sort of silly)

But the rule is the rule! You may not like it and you may not think it fits very well, but that's all we have to go by (at least officially). If you want to house-rule it in your own games, that's great if your opponent is okay with it. However, by the letter of the law (the actual rules) you have no standing.

The new Kroak model isn't ideally designed for gaming anyways. Over bloated with unnecessary stuff just so GW can sell it for "centerpiece" prices. Too many overextended fragile fiddle bits that better work in a display cabinet than on a wargaming table. It doesn't fit well within the rules because it wasn't designed with the actual game in mind. Either way, it's irrelevant, the rules are clear.

Personally, if it were up to me, I would count him plus his actual palanquin for line of sight purposes and ignore the trees and floating crap. That said, I recognize that this is a deviation from the actual rules, and if pushed, I'd have to abandon the stance.

None of this "twice as big as the previous model" stuff is RAW or RAI.

Strongly disagree, but that much is obvious I hope

RAI is supposed to stand for rules as intended (by the author) not rules as interpreted (by Canas)!

There is no way to read the rules and come to your interpretation without adding a bunch of personal bias and opinions. The problem with your stance is that it is purely subjective.... older models can be used unless the new model is much bigger. There is no distinct boundary for such an interpretation. What is too big of a size difference? Plus 10%, 40%, 75%, 100%? What constitutes a model being "just a little bit bigger" versus "much too big"? That answer would fluctuate from person to person. So not only is your stance a complete deviation from the actual rules, it is also entirely subjective and inconsistent.

All of those have had only one model in AoS. They got updated in end-times, unlike Kroak.

Wasn't the new Bloodthirster the only model to have been updated during the End Times? I am 100% certain that the new Keeper of Secrets was released under AoS. Probably the Lord of Change and Great Unclean One as well.

Imho, asking people to play with models that are at roughly the right size is absolutly not "that guy"-behaviour.

Sure it is. If someone set up to play a game against you, and all he had was an older Kroak model, you would have to deny him the game. And you would have to do so without being able to point to a single rule that justifies it... only your highly subjective reading of a FAQ that is meant for GW events only. Imagine telling a guy that he can't play a game because the model that he bought, assembled and painted is magically invalid because the new model has a bunch of useless rocks floating around it (which by rules sake, shouldn't be counted for LoS purposes anyways). I would speculate that such a thing would not go over very well. But since I don't play AoS and we have zero chance of ever playing a game against one another, you do as your heart desires.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

Regarding the whole models and line of sight discussion this thread, more or less, has turned into, I have got to agree with NIGHTBRINGER, in terms of what is the rules and what is not - however one chooses to play it personally or wants it to function, is of little importance to a factual argument. Not that it's invalid in terms of playing the game, and something that should be discussed with ones opponent if one party finds it necessary, the purpose is to play a game and have fun after all

At the end of the day though, personally I find it silly to use the models for LoS at all, and the whole debate could be easily avoided by just using a model's base and stating which kind of models can be seen behind what terrain. Then anyone could do any kind of conversions and use any models they wanted with no issues - but that's not how the rules are written sadly, no matter if I feel they should be

With that said I think you two have both made your points, and won't come to an agreement - as far as I can tell and that's okay, and pretty easy as none of you will have to play against each other, one playing WHFB and the other AOS - then again who am I to butt in, in a debate by two great Slann

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

and won't come to an agreement - as far as I can tell

Hahaha... I'm not sure if we've ever agreed on anything. Even @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl and I sometimes find ourselves in agreement (an admittedly rare occurrence which seems to unnerve poor @Lizards of Renown )

 

[Canas]

The new Kroak model isn't ideally designed for gaming anyways. Over bloated with unnecessary stuff just so GW can sell it for "centerpiece" prices. Too many overextended fragile fiddle bits that better work in a display cabinet than on a wargaming table.

Minor sidenote, Kroak is actually fairly sturdy as far as fiddly bits are concerned, they're pretty thick and have multiple connecting points so the force of it being knocked over won't be focused on one thin bit.

More generally speaking, LoS is always going to be a flawed mechanic. Flying models that can't land and thus appear to be 2-3" taller than they actually are, exposed bits that imprevious to (most forms of) damage (e.g. who cares if a plaguerat stabs at a Slann's palaquin, or if a skink blows a blowpipe at a plagueclaw), Vampires that sit elevated on a rock, a Stonehorn's tusks which he can't hide, unlike his tail.
Concessions constantly need to be made for the sake of LoS.

Which is why generally you simply look at how wide the base is, and ignore bits that poke out.
In the case of Kroak, he fits pretty neatly on his base.

RAI is supposed to stand for rules as intended (by the author) not rules as interpreted (by Canas)!

The rule stating you're allowed to use old models was created so that older models that are only slightly different from the current models don't need to be removed. Hence the very explicit mention of not taking advantage of size-differences.
E.g. our saurus models being replaced soon, or the new chaos warriors a little while back

It was not intended to cover a model that's changed from a foot soldier, into a giant behemoth.

Noone's trying to use the old WHFB teclis model to proxy the current Teclis god. Or the ancient Nagash model, or old Archaon, or old allarielle, or the old Magnus in 40K, or the super old greater demons. All models that at least doubled in size.

So why would Kroak be any different when undergoing similar massive changes?

And if it isn't intended to just target models that only slightly change, but is genuinely intended to mean that any and all models GW has ever officially released are still officially supported so long as its stuck on a new base then it's a pretty pointless rule.
The point of the rule, and the reason it mentions the proper base-size & that you can't take advantage of height differences is, is to keep the game consistent. Allowing models with massive size differences removes that consistency.

Then again, GW is consistently inconsistent so who knows, maybe they just forgot. Or more likely, people update their models quickly enough, and big size changes are rare enough, that it's never really been an issue so they never really needed to consider it. (On that note; I suspect that outside of some old WHFB die-hards like you there's not going to be many people still trying to use the old Kroak 1-2 years after it's been updated... let's face it, we're all addicted to the grey plastic and generally update our favourite armies quite quickly. And those old die-hards aren't playing AoS to begin with... so it's probably a non-issue anyway)

There is no way to read the rules and come to your interpretation without adding a bunch of personal bias and opinions. The problem with your stance is that it is purely subjective.... older models can be used unless the new model is much bigger. There is no distinct boundary for such an interpretation. What is too big of a size difference? Plus 10%, 40%, 75%, 100%? What constitutes a model being "just a little bit bigger" versus "much too big"? That answer would fluctuate from person to person. So not only is your stance a complete deviation from the actual rules, it is also entirely subjective and inconsistent.

When visually it gets hard to tell the difference between the "real" model and the proxy. So 10% max.
Which is the same for regular proxies, I don't really know anyone who'd be happy if you show up with a proxy half the size of the intended model.

Wasn't the new Bloodthirster the only model to have been updated during the End Times? I am 100% certain that the new Keeper of Secrets was released under AoS. Probably the Lord of Change and Great Unclean One as well.

The keeper of secrets was released during AoS, but there was no old keeper of secrets to replace as it didn't have any rules untill the new model was released together with the Slaanesh tome. Same with the great unclean one. Not sure about the LoC, I think that one might've already been updated during the end-times, though much like Slaanesh & Nurgle it's always been the current model since Tzeentch's first tome.

Sure it is. If someone set up to play a game against you, and all he had was an older Kroak model, you would have to deny him the game. And you would have to do so without being able to point to a single rule that justifies it... only your highly subjective reading of a FAQ that is meant for GW events only. Imagine telling a guy that he can't play a game because the model that he bought, assembled and painted is magically invalid because the new model has a bunch of useless rocks floating around it (which by rules sake, shouldn't be counted for LoS purposes anyways). I would speculate that such a thing would not go over very well. But since I don't play AoS and we have zero chance of ever playing a game against one another, you do as your heart desires.

Outdated models belong in the same catagory as proxies. They can only be used when previously agreed upon, and as a general rule need to at least roughly resemble the official/"current" model. I'd be similarly annoyed at someone showing up with the WHFB Teclis that's simply glued to a larger base with no effort of making it resemble the scale of the current model.

At the end of the day though, personally I find it silly to use the models for LoS at all, and the whole debate could be easily avoided by just using a model's base and stating which kind of models can be seen behind what terrain. Then anyone could do any kind of conversions and use any models they wanted with no issues - but that's not how the rules are written sadly, no matter if I feel they should be

The main issue with that is that it doesn't take into account height. It's fine for width though.

Hahaha... I'm not sure if we've ever agreed on anything. Even @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl and I sometimes find ourselves in agreement (an admittedly rare occurrence which seems to unnerve poor @Lizards of Renown )

It's happened once or twice.

Anyways; is there some new news yet? Cuz this is getting somewhat repetitive

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Minor sidenote, Kroak is actually fairly sturdy as far as fiddly bits are concerned, they're pretty thick and have multiple connecting points so the force of it being knocked over won't be focused on one thin bit.

More generally speaking, LoS is always going to be a flawed mechanic. Flying models that can't land and thus appear to be 2-3" taller than they actually are, exposed bits that imprevious to (most forms of) damage (e.g. who cares if a plaguerat stabs at a Slann's palaquin, or if a skink blows a blowpipe at a plagueclaw), Vampires that sit elevated on a rock, a Stonehorn's tusks which he can't hide, unlike his tail.
Concessions constantly need to be made for the sake of LoS.

Which is why generally you simply look at how wide the base is, and ignore bits that poke out.
In the case of Kroak, he fits pretty neatly on his base.


The rule stating you're allowed to use old models was created so that older models that are only slightly different from the current models don't need to be removed. Hence the very explicit mention of not taking advantage of size-differences.
E.g. our saurus models being replaced soon, or the new chaos warriors a little while back

It was not intended to cover a model that's changed from a foot soldier, into a giant behemoth.

Noone's trying to use the old WHFB teclis model to proxy the current Teclis god. Or the ancient Nagash model, or old Archaon, or old allarielle, or the old Magnus in 40K, or the super old greater demons. All models that at least doubled in size.

So why would Kroak be any different when undergoing similar massive changes?

And if it isn't intended to just target models that only slightly change, but is genuinely intended to mean that any and all models GW has ever officially released are still officially supported so long as its stuck on a new base then it's a pretty pointless rule.
The point of the rule, and the reason it mentions the proper base-size & that you can't take advantage of height differences is, is to keep the game consistent. Allowing models with massive size differences removes that consistency.

Then again, GW is consistently inconsistent so who knows, maybe they just forgot. Or more likely, people update their models quickly enough, and big size changes are rare enough, that it's never really been an issue so they never really needed to consider it. (On that note; I suspect that outside of some old WHFB die-hards like you there's not going to be many people still trying to use the old Kroak 1-2 years after it's been updated... let's face it, we're all addicted to the grey plastic and generally update our favourite armies quite quickly. And those old die-hards aren't playing AoS to begin with... so it's probably a non-issue anyway)


When visually it gets hard to tell the difference between the "real" model and the proxy. So 10% max.
Which is the same for regular proxies, I don't really know anyone who'd be happy if you show up with a proxy half the size of the intended model.


The keeper of secrets was released during AoS, but there was no old keeper of secrets to replace as it didn't have any rules untill the new model was released together with the Slaanesh tome. Same with the great unclean one. Not sure about the LoC, I think that one might've already been updated during the end-times, though much like Slaanesh & Nurgle it's always been the current model since Tzeentch's first tome.


Outdated models belong in the same catagory as proxies. They can only be used when previously agreed upon, and as a general rule need to at least roughly resemble the official/"current" model. I'd be similarly annoyed at someone showing up with the WHFB Teclis that's simply glued to a larger base with no effort of making it resemble the scale of the current model.


The main issue with that is that it doesn't take into account height. It's fine for width though.


It's happened once or twice.

Anyways; is there some new news yet? Cuz this is getting somewhat repetitive

When visually it gets hard to tell the difference between the "real" model and the proxy. So 10% max.

This sums up my point exactly, you're just making this stuff up. All of your justifications are completely unfounded and subjective. You are reading things into the rules that aren't actually there.

This discussion is utterly pointless. I use the rules at hand to inform my opinion, while you use your opinion to inform what you see in the rules. I've been into war gaming for a long time and I've never seen such an extreme contortion of the rules to fit one's narrative as I'm reading here. What's happening here is not an interpretation of rules, but a work of fiction. Such creativity might be better placed in a short story contest. I know @Scalenex and @Killer Angel are always looking for new entrants.

The rules are clear. If you choose to ignore or re-write their meaning that's up to you. Do it to your heart's content.

 

[Canas]

This sums up my point exactly, you're just making this stuff up. All of your justifications are completely unfounded and subjective. You are reading things into the rules that aren't actually there.

This discussion is utterly pointless. I use the rules at hand to inform my opinion, while you use your opinion to inform what you see in the rules. I've been into war gaming for a long time and I've never seen such an extreme contortion of the rules to fit one's narrative as I'm reading here. What's happening here is not an interpretation of rules, but a work of fiction. Such creativity might be better placed in a short story contest. I know @Scalenex and @Killer Angel are always looking for new entrants.

The rules are clear. If you choose to ignore or re-write their meaning that's up to you. Do it to your heart's content.

Good luck convincing someone to play against proxies and old models half the size (or smaller) of their current, official, counterparts, on any sort of regular basis. And have fun arguing that only like 30% of Kroak's model should count for LoS cuz the rest is floating debris...

Anyways, let GW release some news yet so we can talk about that instead.

 

[Imrahil]

WELL SAY HELLO TO OUR NEW ASTROLITH BEARER



https://www.warhammer-community.com...r-seraphon-with-the-saurus-astrolith-bearers/

Grrr, !mrahil

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

WELL SAY HELLO TO OUR NEW ASTROLITH BEARER

View attachment 128226

https://www.warhammer-community.com...r-seraphon-with-the-saurus-astrolith-bearers/

Grrr, !mrahil

Fine for a Saurus BSB, no issues there apart from the usual fat feet and short jaws. I wish they would kick that sculptor who's been sculpting Saurus since the Carnosaur kit and bring back the one who sculpted the first plastic Oldblood. He knew what Saurus were all about.

 

[Warden]

WELL SAY HELLO TO OUR NEW ASTROLITH BEARER

View attachment 128226

https://www.warhammer-community.com...r-seraphon-with-the-saurus-astrolith-bearers/

Grrr, !mrahil

Cool model, but why did the glyphs have to be gibberish?! Missed a great opportunity for an Easter egg there.

Cool looking saurus, his mask is interesting didn’t think he had a face at first.