The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Ray Rivers]

it's not even trying to be "Warhammer" in my eyes.

Indeed,

And that was a major factor of "okay, we ended this here" (end of times) and we start all over again.

Right off, with AoS, GW told folks that instead of building huge same faction armies (like in the old world), you would instead have different forces fighting together in alliances. So when you do your gaming, I could bring my Stormcast and you would bring your Sylvaneth and we would fight on the same side (Order).

I read on another forum about a guy who painted up a 2,000 pt army of Stormcast so he could play AoS with his buds and he stated that he didn't want to paint gold ever the rest of his life. That isn't the way it was supposed to be.

I think I'll probably stop painting Stormcast at about 30 models (just about there) and then change to another faction.

From what I am reading, they are moving in the same direction with 40K.

[stone-cold-lead]

As for the Shadow War... Hmm. Disappointed that it's not actually Necromunda. Also a little disappointed that the opportunity wasn't used used to update some fairly old and horrible kits - but I guess the point of the game is to try and shift them.

I think the point of the game is to sell scenery. That's what many people will be buying it for and just like the Horus Heresy boardgames people will buy multiple sets. Maybe to a lesser extent it'll also act as a replacement for Kill Team which might die out with the new edition of 40K.

[Hobgoblin]

Indeed,

And that was a major factor of "okay, we ended this here" (end of times) and we start all over again.

Right off, with AoS, GW told folks that instead of building huge same faction armies (like in the old world), you would instead have different forces fighting together in alliances. So when you do your gaming, I could bring my Stormcast and you would bring your Sylvaneth and we would fight on the same side (Order).

Oddly enough, that's exactly what Warhammer was originally like. I've just had a glance at The Book of Battalions, a first-edition supplement. Gyokurinti's Raiders, for example, features hobgoblins, trolls, beastmen, chaos warriors, human wizards and a chimera. In second edition, the rules were that neutral forces could be allied with evil or good ones. I think the factional rot crept in with Ravening Hordes.

Also, if you look at some of the photos of early Warhammer games, the forces were far more varied and colourful than later came to be the case. The terrific Dever/Chalk poster that was used to advertise second edition shows an army of lizardmen, orcs, pig-faced orcs (!), hobgoblins, night goblins, great goblins and chaos warriors attacking a fortress.

In second edition (and third too, possibly - I forget), you could stat up anything you liked. I recall seeing an orc riding a huge flightless reptile in some of the photos used to illustrate third edition, for example.

So you could argue that Warhammer is going back to its freewheeling roots, albeit in a steampunky, wide-hipped and heavily armoured fashion.

[Major_Gilbear]

Right off, with AoS, GW told folks that instead of building huge same faction armies (like in the old world), you would instead have different forces fighting together in alliances. So when you do your gaming, I could bring my Stormcast and you would bring your Sylvaneth and we would fight on the same side (Order).

...And yet, in the stories, battle reports, photographs, displays, etc, it's normally huge armies of mono-subfaction vs mono-subfaction.

I would also gently point out that GW always encouraged players to use alliances (and even back in the days of "Hero Hammer" WHFB 4/5E, the Empire army book had dwarves, halflings, etc that could be freely included), but that players themselves insisted on greater separation - so over the years GW ceded and made the subfactions increasingly separate. I should also point out that part of the players' desire for the self-contained separation of factions was to deliberately limit the army-building shenanigans that a small core of players in every gaming group always insist on exploiting. You should search out some of Hobgoblins LAF threads on the matter, as there was some good discussion about the matter in them. (Edit: beaten to the punch by the man himself!)

So, whilst I don't disagree with you, I find it interesting how GW more or less did the exact opposite of what the intention was right from the very start of AoS's launch.

I also sympathise with the tedium of painting (or removing mouldlines from) the same thing again and again - I'm batch-painting 20 Khorne warriors, and it's been a struggle!    Ah well, they'll look good when they're done

I think the point of the game is to sell scenery. That's what many people will be buying it for and just like the Horus Heresy boardgames people will buy multiple sets. Maybe to a lesser extent it'll also act as a replacement for Kill Team which might die out with the new edition of 40K.

Hmm, I get the impression that the scenery has always sold well enough - usually with some in-game rules to help it along.

I wonder if this is actually preparation to "pay off" the mould in advance of an actual re-release of Necromunda boxed game release in the future. I say this as:

> The minimum amount of terrain required for Necromunda is still quite a lot.

> I imagine GW will want to do the terrain in plastic and not cardboard

> Necromunda does actually need the terrain to function as a game, and I just don't think it would work at all as a board game.

> The minimum amount of terrain included in a starter box would still make the set prohibitively expensive (even with terrain add-on sets released separately). Looking at Cities of Death for example.

On the other hand, if the moulds for half the scenery in the starter are already paid off, then the set could be relatively heavily discounted, in which case it would easily sell well enough to make GW a lot of money over it's release life.

[Elbows]

Well, pictures and details are leaking for Shadow World and I desperately hope they're as good as they look.

I've been secretly hoping GW would prove me wrong, and so far the pics show some good things:

1) A thick rulebook (like 2nd ed. codex thick)
2) A pad for keeping track of your band (nice and old school)
3) A (gasp!) Movement stat back on the profile!

So, small things, but could hint at a genuine effort behind the game as opposed to a cheapo starter...(fingers crossed).  That could actually get me interested in the game itself.

[Andrew Rae]

Surely it shows the opposite? Rather than write a whole new system, or update to suit modern 40k, they can copy and paste much of the Necromunda rulebook and retrofit some new weapons and special rules for things that weren't around then. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, mind, but considering Betrayal at Calth, Silver Tower, Gorechosen and to a lesser extent Deathwatch Overkill all showed some interesting mechanics, there's very little genuine effort going on here, beyond making a good boxed product.

[Ray Rivers]

...And yet, in the stories, battle reports, photographs, displays, etc, it's normally huge armies of mono-subfaction vs mono-subfaction.

I would also gently point out that GW always encouraged players to use alliances (and even back in the days of "Hero Hammer" WHFB 4/5E, the Empire army book had dwarves, halflings, etc that could be freely included), but that players themselves insisted on greater separation - so over the years GW ceded and made the subfactions increasingly separate.

Interesting.

Thus, for a company that doesn't "listen" to it's players, they certainly seem to bend, in the end, to their wishes. The "General's Handbook" for AoS was lauded my many folks and especially competitive players.

I, OTOH, could care less about competition and could never sustain a commitment to put hundreds of minis of the same faction onto a table... unless it's historic gaming... but that is another creature. Even when I was hot on 40k, I just couldn't bring myself to painting up tons of minis for a mass battle and in AoS (because of the General's Handbook) has led from what I understand to be exactly what you describe... mono faction armies.

Which is why I always wanted GW to do 40k in 15mm. For that, I would have bought a lot of minis and been a BIG fan. Even then though, I don't think I would have fielded an army of just Ultramarines, for example.

[Elbows]

Surely it shows the opposite? Rather than write a whole new system, or update to suit modern 40k, they can copy and paste much of the Necromunda rulebook and retrofit some new weapons and special rules for things that weren't around then. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, mind, but considering Betrayal at Calth, Silver Tower, Gorechosen and to a lesser extent Deathwatch Overkill all showed some interesting mechanics, there's very little genuine effort going on here, beyond making a good boxed product.

I'll gladly take anything 2nd ed. inspired over current GW rules abominations, and that's saying something because 2nd ed. aren't great rules.  If my choice is 2nd-ed based material vs. modern 40K or AoS?  I'll take 2nd ed. all day long.

[Dr Mathias]

I thought 3rd edition 40K was decent. Anything after that seemed to get very 'meta' and ushered in the mathhammer era.

I really wish I had the time to paint all the Mechanicus and Genestealer Cult releases. I think GW knocked them out of the park.

I also picked up the Dark Eldar gangfight game, I haven't built the figures yet but it looks fun.

Games Workshop is actually making games again... good times.

[Major_Gilbear]

Thus, for a company that doesn't "listen" to it's players, they certainly seem to bend, in the end, to their wishes. The "General's Handbook" for AoS was lauded my many folks and especially competitive players.

It's funny that the relationship is (or has long been) quite symbiotic though, and I feel that for a time GW forgot that until their bottom line could no longer be ignored or explained away.

For what it's worth, I am a player how does care about game balance (not so much competitiveness), and I also tend towards preferring mono-subfaction armies.

I have no issue with those who prefer allied/mixed forces though, nor those who prefer to not use points/army restrictions to determine a game size or army composition.

[horridperson]

I'm hoping for the best on this one.  The terrain is pretty but I'm most interested in what they are doing for the game itself.  I like my old school but I would really like to see them work from the old bones and flesh it out with some of the ideas they have collected over the years.  I would have been hesitant to make a statement like that a couple years ago but I have been impressed with what they have been doing more recently.  Is it a change of heart or a realization that it's easier to sell to people who like them?  I don't really care.  They have cleaned up their act a bit in my opinion and that's the one that matters when it comes to loosening my hobby purse strings.  Hoping for a good one .

[The Voivod]

Bell of lost souls mentioned a GW presenter said Shadow wars mirrors Necromunda so much, you could theoratically fight against the old gangs.
This game peeked my interest. Necromunda wasn't without it's flaws, but great fun.
I do tend more to skirmish games of late, due to time restrictions and a tendency to flutter from project to project.

An excuse to dust of some old 40k models? Yes please.
An excuse to buy some GW models I'd otherwise never buy? Oh dear.

If they do this right, I'm afraid GW might just get their sticky fingers in my wallet.

[von Lucky]

And your soul.

My eye is spending time on the GW website for more than a minute or two. What's with that?

[beefcake]

Well I hope they bring out an actual Necromunda game with gang wars but seeing this I highly doubt it. Maybe a Hiver gang expansion?

[stone-cold-lead]

And your soul.

My eye is spending time on the GW website for more than a minute or two. What's with that?

You're not the only one! In between all the facebook comments of 'not more Stormcast' and 'redo [insert army of choice]' there are people mentioning that this past year or so has brought them back into GW. Even the letters page of White Dwarf echoes that, although I'm sure the Alex Jones' of the miniatures world would say they're fake letters.