The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Rhoderic]

I just feel like it's bad painful to live in such a spiky world.

"Let me put on my boot...ow!  Spikes!"

"Let me just grab my cap...OUCH!"

"Well, time to saddle up-OUCH!!!"

"Let's grab my axe and shi-DAMMIT!"

"At least my cape doesn't have an-GOODDDDD DAMMIT!"

"A spiky world"

All points very well made, however, do consider that if impaled, you need less mounts per unit, and therefore slightly cheaper? Maybe a special GW  10% discount per pack of three if you only have one mount?

Two knights dangling from the sides of the mount, fixed in place by spikes as they hack and slash opportunistically at any enemy that comes near like a pair of demented killer sponsons? I like it!

But let me up the ante: What if the mounts were all fixed to each other by spikes? One big amalgamated monster steamrolling over all opposition! Maneuverability would be tricky, but I'm sure that wouldn't bother GW rules designers. In homage to GW naming practices, I shall name it... a brawnmower!

Once again I have to agree with Rhoderic.

Maybe I'm the one who's confused, but you were quoting nullBolt there, not me.

But on these varanguard it's more like a confusing jumble. To me it looks like every little bit of trim, every detail, every highlight, painted in a contrasting colour, doesn't make the mini pop, so much as hide it. Pretty effective camouflage, breaking up their shapes.

Yes, precisely! The excessive, anything-but-sublime detail breaks up shapes and renders the figures difficult to make out.

In contrast, this is what I think of as "over-the-top done right":



The theme is clearly over the top (not necessarily in a bad way), but there's none of that jumbled effect that makes the figure difficult on the eyes. This figure is pleasing to look at, unlike the Caravan Guard... err, I mean Varangian Vanguard... whatever!

Another issue is relatability. The AoS starter comes with a hero riding some sort of monster that doesn't really look distinguishable as any specific "species" of mythical creature. Meanwhile there's nothing strikingly unique or inventive about it; it just looks like some aimless amalgam of the concepts of "dragon", "gryphon", "hippogriff", "basilisk", etc. Combined with all the esoteric and baroque knickknacks stuck to the creature and the rider, the overall effect for me is that the figure does not feel relatable. My mind doesn't even want to bother processing it. I feel like I need some sort of primer on the specifics of AoS esoterism before I can relate to it. By contrast, that bear rider has the virtue of being far more relatable. It "clicks" in my mind as soon as I see it. I know which figure I'd immediately gravitate to if the two were placed next to each other on the shelf of some miniature wargaming shop.

I've clicked on a couple of AoS battle reports and from what I could tell some spikes and chains had a fight with some scrolls and wings?

  This thread! I love this thread!

[nullBolt]

Once again I have to agree with Rhoderic. I take it you mean the kind of stuff by Wayne Reynolds? I'm quite fond of his art, meself, even if I have no idea where he comes up with half the bric-a-brac hanging from his characters. It sorta feels right.

It works just because that's how actual player characters dress. Covered in a layer of random items that they think they're going to need

[Mason]

I'm actually wondering if I could scrape off some lightning bolts and spikes, paint a couple silver, and use them as some kind of elf construct.

We are not too far apart in our thinking.....
 

(Although I want to use them in a 40mm world, so they would not be so large in comparison to a 'standard' human).

[Vermis]

There's something about that, that looks familiar to me... Oh yeah!


http://www.tazziepets.co.uk/drontal-flavour-bone-dog-wormer

"Does your bestial spiky carnivorous demon-horse suffer from intestinal infestations?"

You can make something look Chaos and "bad"...without rotating the knob to 11, then breaking the knob off and throwing it out the window...

Right! The first one looks like some sinister, foreboding man of the north. The best description of the second might be, well...

Maybe I'm the one who's confused, but you were quoting nullBolt there, not me.

No, I was agreeing there were different ways of doing over-the-top, e.g. Piazo vs. GW.

Another issue is relatability. The AoS starter comes with a hero riding some sort of monster that doesn't really look distinguishable as any specific "species" of mythical creature. Meanwhile there's nothing strikingly unique or inventive about it; it just looks like some aimless amalgam of the concepts of "dragon", "gryphon", "hippogriff", "basilisk", etc. Combined with all the esoteric and baroque knickknacks stuck to the creature and the rider, the overall effect for me is that the figure does not feel relatable. My mind doesn't even want to bother processing it. I feel like I need some sort of primer on the specifics of AoS esoterism before I can relate to it. By contrast, that bear rider has the virtue of being far more relatable. It "clicks" in my mind as soon as I see it. I know which figure I'd immediately gravitate to if the two were placed next to each other on the shelf of some miniature wargaming shop.

I get you. I think the dracoth looks interesting, but there's no immediate context to it. It's a big, fangy snarly thing for the sake of a big, fangy, snarly thing.

Nullbolt: wot, no bags of holding? No henchmen?

Mason: nice.

[Hobgoblin]

^That's one big issue for me with the current AoS stuff I've seen...it's so busy you can't even tell what you're looking at.  I've clicked on a couple of AoS battle reports and from what I could tell some spikes and chains had a fight with some scrolls and wings?  As you said, it's a camouflage of details.

I guess I don't truly understand the change from this:


to this:


You can make something look Chaos and "bad"...without rotating the knob to 11, then breaking the knob off and throwing it out the window...

They used to do it so well. The old Warrior Knights of Chaos box set is brilliant - bizarre and appropriately Moorcockian, yet convincing and plausible. And, more importantly, chaotic. Why shouldn't a warrior of chaos use a bow? Or be a woman? Or be left-handed?

[Brummie]

I don't mind the multi-planar aspect of AoS, but it didn't have to involved destroying the warhammer world. They could have just extended the playing field, and had a Sigmarines Vs Chaos in some other dimension to rescue the mortal world, whilst creatures from said mortal world occasionally slipped into the multi-planar realms and inhabited them.

All the while life on the Warhammer world is shifted dramatically after 'End Times' with everything smacked to crap and on fire, plenty of opportunity to bring new factions to the game and reorganize the power dynamics between factions, without having to wipe it all.

Biggest problem I have with fantasy overall, especially for 28mm 'mass battles', and not just GW (although they are definitely at the spearheading one trend) is the lack of a 'greyzone', between OTT Fantasy of admittedly high quality, like GW but with a tendency to have everything so Over the top, it just becomes the new norm, with other companies, such as Mantic producing big units of bog-standard troopers (that should in my mind, make up the backbone of any force) but of fairly mediocre quality.

I can understand why people are turning more and more to historic plastic figures to build Human armies, as they at least provide numbers of troops, from various cultures that fulfill certain roles (heavy cav, light cav, archers, knights etc etc) and use occasional fantasy figs that are OTT to act as leaders or special units. GW used to do that but with fantasy; you could buy a bunch of regiments of Goblins or Orcs with spears or whatever to act as your rank and file. The Empire troops before the 'latest' iteration of 'Empire, bar some exceptions were simply the best rank and file troops GW ever made, better than all these bow legged muppets they had during 8th.

Also notice since destroying the Warhammer World on the tabletop, the sudden emergence of PC GAMES encompassing the Warhammer world: Man-O-War, Total War Warhammer, Mordheim, Vermintide etc. You'd think after making so many games in such a short period of time that may well urge more people to visit GW and maybe buy into that side of warhammer. Well not anymore.

[Too Bo Coo]

They used to do it so well. The old Warrior Knights of Chaos box set is brilliant - bizarre and appropriately Moorcockian, yet convincing and plausible. And, more importantly, chaotic. Why shouldn't a warrior of chaos use a bow? Or be a woman? Or be left-handed?

Duh, dont you know 'more spikes = more chaos'? 

[Vermis]

Why shouldn't a warrior of chaos... be left-handed?

That's just going too far.


 

Biggest problem I have with fantasy overall, especially for 28mm 'mass battles', and not just GW (although they are definitely at the spearheading one trend) is the lack of a 'greyzone', between OTT Fantasy of admittedly high quality, like GW but with a tendency to have everything so Over the top, it just becomes the new norm, with other companies, such as Mantic producing big units of bog-standard troopers (that should in my mind, make up the backbone of any force) but of fairly mediocre quality.

I know just what you mean, but with one proviso: I think a lot (not all) of GW's basic infantry wasn't too OTT - that was reserved for some special infantry and... everything else - but developed into pretty nice products. The thing is, they also developed into pretty expensive products. It's £2 for a fairly nicely designed dark elf spearman, or 75p for... a Mantic elf. (Such is my first world problem at the mo)

I agree about GW's OTT becoming the new norm, though. Is that why we have the likes of Mantic and Shieldwolf bringing out GW-style top-heavy green-gorilla orcs with oversized fangy jaws, with accompanying claims that they're 'new' and 'different'?

[Major_Gilbear]

Why shouldn't a warrior of chaos [...] be left-handed?

Because it would be too... Sinister?  

Is that why we have the likes of Mantic and Shieldwolf bringing out GW-style top-heavy green-gorilla orcs with oversized fangy jaws, with accompanying claims that they're 'new' and 'different'?

Yes, because they don't believe their customers want something different (and, to be fair, many don't).

So apparently, not only are we not the target audience for GW stuff, we are also not the target audience for much non-GW stuff either!

[Hupp n at em]

I agree about GW's OTT becoming the new norm, though. Is that why we have the likes of Mantic and Shieldwolf bringing out GW-style top-heavy green-gorilla orcs with oversized fangy jaws, with accompanying claims that they're 'new' and 'different'?

I hate that crap with a burning passion.  I don't even really like the idea of orcs outside of Tolkien anyway, but it would still be nice to get some Elder Scrolls style orcs for a change. 

[Dim_Reaper]

I'm going to stir the pot a bit. I'm all for criticising GW, even the miniatures, but I do think there has been much improvement in their miniatures over the years in a number of ranges. We have lost something from the Older Models, and I'd say the word is "character", but it's worth remembering that the fluff, and the visuals of a lot of the old citadel models are exceptionally twee these days. I'm much more of a fan of the oft-maligned Grimdark feel than the 'takes itself less seriously' lark. I must confess, it makes me think of Metal Fans who go on about selling out: "Oh I liked this band when no one had heard of them and they were living in poverty moving from crappy pub gig to crappy pub gig!" GW was better when it sucked and knew it, than when it tried to be much better than it was and failed. Just sayin', but the aspiration is kind of worth applauding.

40k, Rogue Trader, whatever, has always been Grimdark. I've read most of the Rogue Trader bits and pieces (I was a little too young to play it when it was out), and the Universe is pretty dark and gritty anyway. I'm going to illustrate the change, and lack of with Orks, as they're basically my specialist subject. On an Ork Forum I write articles about things people get wrong about them. I'm sad like that. Anyway, Orks haven't changed all that much since Rogue Trader. The "beast" element was always there. If anything, it's been emphasised appropriately. Waaargh The Orks, the primary Ork fluff book from Rogue Trader, is from the Ork perspective. Orks from their own perspective are quite fun, and comedic, even innocent in an odd way. But from the Imperial Perspective they're horrifying. They conquer worlds, force the inhabitants into slavery, and any planet that ends up with Orks on it is going to struggle massively to get rid of them and probably fail in the long run. Skaven are quite the same in tone in the Warhammer Fantasy world.

To some, Orks and Skaven detract from the rest of their fluff. I have no idea why this is. It's as if something really dark has to be sinister, when in fact, anyone who's dealt with a dark event probably has a reasonably depraved sense of humour. Laughing about stuff like that, helps you deal with it. Besides, it's not as if a particular setting has a script of acceptable behaviours that everyone has to run off.

I found 3rd-4th Ed Grimdark 40k as the best few editions, particularly 4th Ed. Things were moving in the right direction, the game was getting tweaked, noticeably, moving in a direction the fans wanted. Then all of a sudden Chambers leaves, and the Codexes descend into blatant ante-upping of obvious cheese. The likes of Mat Ward come in (the moron can't even spell his own name) and write horrendous cheese to promote their position, whilst making the fluff loltastically over the top, and this is where things start to go wrong.

Take the Grey Knights, who were struggling bravely in a futile war with Daemons, constantly trying to stay one step ahead, and banishing daemons to keep the universe, into memetastic, genocidal arseholes who can kill greater daemons with one flick of their index finger. Space Marines have gone from vaguely interesting, to essentially, a complete and total joke.

What is ultimately the problem with GW is their attitude. That's the only thing that is actually costing them. It's their corporate greed, that overemphasises sales stimulus and IP protection, their arrogance which typifies their deaf attitude to their critics and unhappy fans. These are the people who will change to address criticism by coming up with some way of covering the criticism without actually addressing it (fans are unhappy about particular writers? Well now you don't know who is going to write the books! Don't like Finecast Resin? We'll stop calling them Finecast, but only after 4 years of ridiculing anyone who criticised the decision to move to resin! People don't like our rules writing? Well fuck you fans, we're a miniatures company!)

The miniatures are typically somewhat over the top, but I happen to like some of them. I certainly don't often find myself considering Historical Games. But again, most of that is Regimental, and Regimental is madness in 28mm unless you own a Sports Hall or Aeroplane Hangar. I do think that GW are a bit overly keen on "detail porn", and certainly, much of their business practice seems overly reliant on Computers. CAD, Reprographics, Hi-Def Pictures, etc. It's almost as if they think these things are USPs, or that are sufficient that they exonerate GW from the need for more talent. That, ultimately, is why they are failing.

Mantic on the other hand? Sure they're cheaper. You pay for it. Cheap, awful plastic. Horrible restic nonsense, with mould lines in the detail and an overall nasty feel. Stupid release concepts, incomplete starter sets (I thought everyone learned not to do this when Rackham went under?) and a certain level of arrogance and snide GW stabbing, whilst producing some of the worst quality miniatures in the industry, and making a living off essentially being a GW rip off that evidently GW could do sod all about, and people wonder why the Warhammer world exploded.

TLDR: I like Grimdark, I like Orks, and I like GW trying to be epic, but failing, over twee old citadel models, and I dislike Mantic Models. With a passion.

[Major_Gilbear]

Well, that's what happens when everything in the background and aesthetic is OTT all the time - you just run out of ways to top it or follow it up in an interesting way, and the stories lose both focus and meaning. It's like writing everything ALLINCAPSALLTHETIMELOLOL! It just hurts. 

As for Mantic; yes, it's true that they copy GW and ride their coat tales to drum up business.
However, theirs is a peculiar problem now of wanting to sell huge armies, for huge games, for "cheap". Well, the only sci-fi and fantasy games of note like that (in 28mm no less) are GW's, and so all the potential customers who come to Mantic ask "can I use my existing army"? Mantic say yes, and that leads their path round into a circle.
I personally think that aiming for better models and better quality whilst also reducing the number of models required for their games would really help them, (and allow them to forge their own path) but... They don't seem to want to.

[Cubs]

GW were market leaders for a long time before they got crap, so no, it's not just the 'I liked them before they were successful' thing. It was when they became market overlords they started to become crap. It was by doing all the good stuff they went from just another miniature company, to the leading miniature company, to a monopoly. Along the way they copied a lot of fantasy and sci-fi ideas from other sources, but that's okay, because there's nothing truly original under the sun, every idea comes from somewhere. Unfortunately it's what they did next that was the problem, ironically, this is arguably a direct result of having no real competition.

[3 fingers]

I got some 40 k ork stuff in a job lot and couldn't believe the scale of it,I did wonder if my judgement was clouded by fond memories of rogue trader orks, wish I could get some sensibly priced sci fi orks of similar style.
I did consider taking horns off ungor heads and using Catachan bodies to make orks?
I do like the Wild West orcs that were on kickstarter other day.

[Hobgoblin]

GW were market leaders for a long time before they got crap, so no, it's not just the 'I liked them before they were successful' thing. It was when they became market overlords they started to become crap. It was by doing all the good stuff they went from just another miniature company, to the leading miniature company, to a monopoly. Along the way they copied a lot of fantasy and sci-fi ideas from other sources, but that's okay, because there's nothing truly original under the sun, every idea comes from somewhere. Unfortunately it's what they did next that was the problem, ironically, this is arguably a direct result of having no real competition.

This is very true. Citadel were the dominant fantasy miniature company in the UK from at least the time of the Fantasy Tribe ranges. And their products were sold in some rather unlikely places - for a while at least, they had huge exposure. When I bought my orc, night goblin and fighter in the Jenners of the early 80s, no other miniatures company was selling its products in upmarket department stores. I remember seeing the first Warhammer 40K miniatures (including the "space orc" [sic] with the battle-axe gun and the tube in its mouth) in a toy shop in Stockbridge. Harburn Hobbies, a model-railway shop on Leith Walk, stocked Citadel miniatures for a short while at least (it's still going, and I doubt it has ever stocked wargames stuff since). In other words, Citadel had mainstream exposure of a really remarkable sort in the early 80s.

It took me some time to realise that there were other companies doing fantasy miniatures - and for a while, my only exposure to those was through ads and the Tabletop Heroes column in White Dwarf. Although lots of kids at my primary school had Citadel miniatures, I was in secondary before I saw other manufacturers' figures in the "flesh".

And, with the exception of Ral Partha, which they distributed in the UK and pretty much co-opted into their own ranges, Citadel were well ahead on quality right from the start.

As to "tweeness", I don't really see it. The knights of chaos in the image I posted before would fit in plausibly with historical miniatures; most of their equipment is plausible if extravagant. Given any one of them a bunch of Sassanid or Seljuk or Varangian followers from a good historical manufacturer and you'd have a decent fantasy warband. As I type, I'm looking at goblins: some of the plastic ones from a Warhammer boxed set (which are quite good) and some Perry solid-based ones from the 1980s. I like both, but the Perry ones are better for a number of reasons - less cartoonish, more natural-looking posture, more plausible hoods where they have them (those goblins must get through a lot of starch!), less stylised weapons and greater variety. And yes, they have more character, but they're certainly less twee. If you were to size either set up to use as garden gnomes (there's surely nothing more twee!), then you'd go for the plastic ones every time!