*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 01:17:13 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1686604
  • Total Topics: 118111
  • Online Today: 626
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 12:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread  (Read 1683243 times)

Offline Duncan McDane

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1191
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11325 on: October 10, 2020, 11:36:06 AM »
Height is about 18 cms, just as the Mantic Giant. So there's your reference point when looking for cheaper alternatives. Might want to check out the larger Reaper Bones Giants for size as well or maybe toys dollies in that scale.  ;).
Leadhead

Offline zemjw

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • *
  • Posts: 2091
    • My blog
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11326 on: October 10, 2020, 12:36:50 PM »
There's also the new Mantic one, 19cm tall - link

It has a couple of variations, but they're separate kits

Offline Cubs

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4914
  • "I simply cannot survive without beauty ..."
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11327 on: October 10, 2020, 02:07:05 PM »
I do like the general proportions of the GW giants now - big feet, big guts and small heads. But the sheer size of them is ... bewildering. Seriously, what's the point of them as a gaming piece? Half a dozen strides and they'd be off the table. As a display model? Sure, they look fun, lots of compulsory fiddly bits and dangly stuff that GW love to put on things (no point seeing something unless you tie it to yourself and carry it around forever) and I like that the weapons look like something a giant may have collected and bashed together.
'Sir John ejaculated explosively, sitting up in his chair.' ... 'The Black Gang'.

Paul Cubbin Miniature Painter

Offline Vladimir Raukov

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 538
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11328 on: October 12, 2020, 06:19:35 AM »
I'll admit that there's bits I like about the new giant kit, but at $320 and brimming with spare hands and heads that can't really be used elsewhere (except maybe on very large bases as scenery or objective markers) I'm going to give it a miss.

Offline Plynkes

  • The Royal Bastard
  • Elder God
  • Posts: 10212
  • I killed Mufasa!
    • http://misterplynkes.blogspot.com/
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11329 on: October 12, 2020, 08:46:56 AM »
I found two unopened pots yesterday. Devlan Mud and Gryphonne Sepia. That takes me back. Hope they are still good to go. I really depended on those two back in the day.  :)



With Cat-Like Tread
Upon our prey we steal...

Offline Cubs

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4914
  • "I simply cannot survive without beauty ..."
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11330 on: October 12, 2020, 08:48:52 AM »
Jesus wept £120ea for the plastic giants. Right, okay.

Offline tin shed gamer

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • *
  • Posts: 3332
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11331 on: October 12, 2020, 11:01:51 AM »
That's  ridiculous  ::)
I spent no where near that building an Empire force complete with war alter , steam tank, 45 + cavalry Including a 5 Marauder knights as the Army standard.(still painting). Franz and his Griffin, marauder Pegasus, and a Marauder Giant. 20 metal great swords and a couple of plastic infantry units.
It's one of those models that expose the finite nature of the current system/ programme. You build your self into a corner. The bigger the models get the less movement can be achived by the gamer. Less movement leads to less varriation  which in turn leads to stagnation. To the point you've nothing more than huge chunks of scenery that you throw buckets of dice for. Which leads on to monotony and disinterested gamer's Whole turn away from the old just in time for the Shiny new system.  It's a rince and repeat strategy which will reboot with the return of square bases. Thus a new generation gets drawn in . Which is great for business.
Pretty enough model but its on the verge of being a shelf sitter rather than a gaming piece.

Offline Belligerentparrot

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 480
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11332 on: October 12, 2020, 12:40:20 PM »
Not going to argue with anyone saying it is overpriced! It is a lovely kit though. I mean, that Mantic giant linked to above looks awful in comparison.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Blanchitsu crowd do with this mini.

Also, I assume it does something good on the table? Back in the mid-90s I would have spent the equivalent (in today's money) on a unit of ten Cold One riders. Jesus they were terrible. My younger self didn't think through the possibility that heavy cavalry with a 4+ save at best and prone to stupidity were perhaps not an ideal army centre-piece.

Moral of the story, I guess: it has always been possible to spend way more than you should on Citadel/GW stuff. These days I just appreciate the sculpting and don't buy it if I don't want to pay for it.

Online Mammoth miniatures

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 565
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11333 on: October 12, 2020, 12:48:15 PM »

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Blanchitsu crowd do with this mini.



It's tempting and I can think of several ways to hack it up and put it back together, But I'm not sure I can stretch to £120 for one.Even if it would be an excellent warband.

Offline Cubs

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4914
  • "I simply cannot survive without beauty ..."
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11334 on: October 12, 2020, 12:53:18 PM »
My younger self didn't think through the possibility that heavy cavalry with a 4+ save at best and prone to stupidity were perhaps not an ideal army centre-piece.

I hate the stupidity rule. It always seemed to apply to really (points) expensive stuff that you loved, so you either had to just shrug and try not to cry when they did nothing, or invest even more points in an expensive hero/wizard with a high enough Int/Ld (mounted, because stupid stuff always seemed to be fast as well) who did little expect chaperone them around.

Offline Hobgoblin

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4912
    • Hobgoblinry
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11335 on: October 12, 2020, 01:22:31 PM »
Yeah, the stupidity rule was wrecked by Warhammer's insistence on a long stat line. If stupidity had been tested on Ld rather than Int (i.e. if there had been no Int), it would have been fine, and troglodytes, trolls and cold ones would have all worked OK - a bit unpredictable, but not completely redundant. Troglodytes, for example, would just have been occasionally prone to brainfartery rather than being colourful and occasionally dangerous terrain pieces. But because the statline had Int, and stupid creatures must by definition have low Int, it was always absurd.

Offline TWD

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1708
    • Tom's Toy Soldiers Blog
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11336 on: October 12, 2020, 06:56:05 PM »
INT disappeared after 3rd edition.
4th edition was released in 1992.
You appear to be complaining about a rule that hasn't existed for almost 30 years.

Fot all that time Stupidity has been tested against LD, the way you want.  :)

Offline Belligerentparrot

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 480
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11337 on: October 12, 2020, 07:43:51 PM »
I hate the stupidity rule. It always seemed to apply to really (points) expensive stuff that you loved, so you either had to just shrug and try not to cry when they did nothing, or invest even more points in an expensive hero/wizard with a high enough Int/Ld (mounted, because stupid stuff always seemed to be fast as well) who did little expect chaperone them around.

Totally agree, and I was thinking of 4th ed in making the point. It was OK if you played orcs and/or gobbos because pretty much everything good you had on the table could be totally useless if you rolled the wrong result on some unit specific "wacky greenskins" table. One more unit not quite functioning as you'd hoped didn't make a difference. Shrugging and trying not to cry was just life for the orc/gobbo general.

In any other army, though, it just wasn't fun: your plans should be foiled by a good enemy, not your own unit of crack heavy cavalry  >:(
The really stupid unit was probably me, for continuing to use them. But I paid a lot for 'em at the time.
 

Offline Hobgoblin

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4912
    • Hobgoblinry
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11338 on: October 12, 2020, 08:02:13 PM »
INT disappeared after 3rd edition.
4th edition was released in 1992.
You appear to be complaining about a rule that hasn't existed for almost 30 years.

Fot all that time Stupidity has been tested against LD, the way you want.  :)

Ah - but I have never played any edition after third, so they don't count!  ;)

Glad to hear they fixed it. But my complaint - fresh in the mind after a recent nostalgic game of third - is really part of a larger one about 'classic' Warhammer: that all the fiddly little differences in the long statline tend to cancel out.

In our recent game, beastmen, lizardmen, orcs, hobgoblins and chaos warriors (and troglodytes, too, had they managed to fight anything) were all radically different in statlines, but all ended up as 'tough, durable infantry'. I think that was always a problem with Warhammer (at least in the editions I played): too much micro-differentiation between troop species and not enough high-level differentiation between troop roles.

I always compare Warhammer with Hordes of the Things, which was a revelation when we began playing it instead. It only has a few main infantry types (blades, warbands, spears, hordes, shooters), but they provide much more variety because their roles are so much more distinct. Warhammer should have much more variety with its gazillions of troop types, but when high WS is cancelled by middling S (or the opponent's high T or W), so much of that variety gets sucked out by the system.

Offline Belligerentparrot

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 480
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #11339 on: October 12, 2020, 08:15:23 PM »
Warhammer should have much more variety with its gazillions of troop types, but when high WS is cancelled by middling S (or the opponent's high T or W), so much of that variety gets sucked out by the system.

Nail on the head there. The (in my view irritating) roll-to-hit then roll-to-wound system is to blame. Compare 2nd ed. Space Marine (if that isn't too recent for you  lol), which also had gazillions of troop types, but also had a tonne of variety in unit roles. Quite striking to see the "gazillions of units" ethos working differently with a different combat system. 

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
73 Replies
19812 Views
Last post June 20, 2008, 05:41:42 PM
by TJSKI
26 Replies
15975 Views
Last post January 18, 2015, 10:23:57 AM
by Arlequín
250 Replies
89997 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 02:11:30 AM
by syrinx0
146 Replies
21888 Views
Last post February 08, 2018, 04:50:06 PM
by Bahir
36 Replies
5952 Views
Last post February 16, 2022, 03:51:55 PM
by Easy E