The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Hobgoblin]

I wonder if we're of the same vintage? Do you remember Mac's Models down the bottom of the Canongate (the original location?) That's where all my Citadel stuff came from before GW opened on the High Street, and I remember it being a pocket-money hobby.

Yes, indeed! I used to paint for the shop's miniature-painting service! Many moons ago ...

[Cubs]

I still think there can be a little too much nostalgia in Oldhammer, though. The point that made me think that was one too many blog posts hyping Kev Adams sculpts that were... not pleasing.

Yeah, there is plenty of evolution between then and now. I think one area of improvement that can't be argued with is cast quality and finishing. Certainly the models look pretty rough compared to new ones - miscasts and horrible lumps of spare metal were accepted back then as par for the course, as were some pretty average sculpts on occasion. Nick Lund, for example, has such a distinctive style and sculpted some of my all time favourites. But oddly enough, overall I don't really like his sculpting style! Seems odd to say that, but there we go.

The Perry twins aside perhaps, a lot of the sculptors were able to produce wonderful miniatures that people still coo over, but also they could churn out some mins that ... well, let's say divided opinion.

[Hobgoblin]

Yeah, there is plenty of evolution between then and now. I think one area of improvement that can't be argued with is cast quality and finishing. Certainly the models look pretty rough compared to new ones - miscasts and horrible lumps of spare metal were accepted back then as par for the course, as were some pretty average sculpts on occasion. Nick Lund, for example, has such a distinctive style and sculpted some of my all time favourites. But oddly enough, overall I don't really like his sculpting style! Seems odd to say that, but there we go.

The Perry twins aside perhaps, a lot of the sculptors were able to produce wonderful miniatures that people still coo over, but also they could churn out some mins that ... well, let's say divided opinion.

That's all very true. I think Nick Lund is probably the most variable - and the quality of his stuff seemed to go up and down. Some of the early ogres are brilliant, as are many of the slotta-based hobgoblins. The Ugezod boxed set is probably the peak. But the later Grenadier stuff isn't so hot. Then again, some of his earlier, cruder stuff is just magnificent - the pointing, masked solid-based hobgoblin shaman, or the Chronicle wolfriders. Those miniatures are primitive, but they transcend the crudeness through overall visual impact.

On the other hand, I think a lot of the earlier stuff benefited from a "necessity is the mother of invention" situation. Precisely because there were limitations in what could be done with solid-based metal figures, there was often a lot of great, subtle invention. Aly Morrison's solid-based hobgoblins, for example, often have quite subtle standing poses that surpass the later, more dynamic slotta-based ones. And there's a huge amount of invention in Jez Goodwin's Asgard orcs - low, slinking, almost flat-to-the ground poses. Tom Meier did similar things with some of his Ral Partha orcs and was really inventive with poses for his lizardmen and troglodytes - I don't think anyone has produced more convincing reptilian humanoids since. When first slotta bases and then plastics came in, anything was possible and poses became less inventive and more cartoony. There are analogies with cinematic special effects; think of all that unconvincing CGI ...

And the same applies to detail. Less is often more. The current Citadel lizardmen are really annoying to paint, I find, because of all their fiddly accoutrements. The Meier and Trish Morrison ones are much more satisfying in this regard; there is detail, but it's not excessive (the odd bone gewgaw or rune-etched shield, rather than endless spike-caps and tassels and ribbons and whatnot).

Here's an irony. When plastic shields and weapons came in, Citadel made some excited noises about "realistic thickness". But then they went down the path that led to the Sigmarine hammers (with even worse along the way). This is what a warhammer looks like:

[Hobgoblin]

I should say that GW aren't necessarily the worst offenders with regard to oversized weapons. Mantic are pretty bad - those trolls! - and Reaper can be shocking. But it hurts all the more with GW because they used to be so good at "fantastic realism". 

[Cubs]

All true.

[richstrach]

Yes, indeed! I used to paint for the shop's miniature-painting service! Many moons ago ...

Those were the days! I still remember my dad taking me along to Mac's Models on my 12th birthday to buy the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay rulebook... [puffs nostalgically on pipe]

[nullBolt]

The new Chaos Knight models are so packed full of junk. It's like they looked at Pathfinder Paizo character art and said: "I want that in my Warhammer!"

This picture summarises my opinion quite succinctly:

[Rhoderic]

The thing for me is that I don't dislike "over-the-top" fantasy as such (nor do I dislike subtle, nuanced, down-to-earth fantasy or "fantastical realism" - they're just two themes of different qualities but equal value), but there's a right way to do OTT and there's a wrong way. GW is mostly getting it all wrong. Some good examples of OTT done right would be Warbears & Stagriders (especially this one), Celtos and many of the boutique games such as Alkemy. Unlike AoS they don't overwhelm the senses in a bad way.

The funny thing is that, notwithstanding the fact that GW literally destroyed the Warhammer world, I don't actually hate the idea of "multi-planar" wars between celestial, daemonic and other transcendental/elemental/demigod-like hosts fought over numerous hyper-magical realms. I even considered taking up a project like that a few years ago when I was re-reading some Moorcock stories and looking over my old Magic the Gathering cards (a game I picked up and quickly dropped again around age 12-13 - to those who don't know, the MtG setting is very much one of "multiplanar fantasy" and I suspect GW drew some inspiration from it when designing the AoS setting).

I don't even hate the look of the basic Sigmarine troopers - but that sentiment only extends to the basic troopers, which if I were to use them in my own projects would count as anything but "basic" or "troopers". Most or all of the other AoS figures are just way too much, like those "Varanguard" (bleh again - those names are just plain awful).

[beefcake]

How can you hate the name Varanguard... Its Vanguard but with more RA! 

[Rhoderic]

No, it's Varangian Guard but with less GIAN!

[Elbows]

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!"

Look at the Varanguard and imagine them riding in any kind of close proximity?  They'd impale each other. 

[Tactalvanic]

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!"

Look at the Varanguard and imagine them riding in any kind of close proximity?  They'd impale each other. 

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?

[nullBolt]

The funny thing is that, notwithstanding the fact that GW literally destroyed the Warhammer world, I don't actually hate the idea of "multi-planar" wars between celestial, daemonic and other transcendental/elemental/demigod-like hosts fought over numerous hyper-magical realms. I even considered taking up a project like that a few years ago when I was re-reading some Moorcock stories and looking over my old Magic the Gathering cards (a game I picked up and quickly dropped again around age 12-13 - to those who don't know, the MtG setting is very much one of "multiplanar fantasy" and I suspect GW drew some inspiration from it when designing the AoS setting).

I'd love it too.

... If it wasn't GW trying it.

[Vermis]

The new Chaos Knight models are so packed full of junk. It's like they looked at Pathfinder Paizo character art and said: "I want that in my Warhammer!"

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. 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.

I don't even hate the look of the basic Sigmarine troopers - but that sentiment only extends to the basic troopers, which if I were to use them in my own projects would count as anything but "basic" or "troopers".

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.

[Elbows]

^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...