The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Major_Gilbear]

The concept of grimdark in the 40K and Warhammer worlds used to be like: "Beware the [forest/underhive], for there are mutants somewhere in those murky depths, and it is whispered they worship dark and twisted things...". It had a sense of ambience, depth, profoundness and ensnaring allure about it.

Now it's more like: "GRRAAAAHHH!! LOOK AT MY MUSCLES!! LOOK AT MY SPIKES!! GRRAAAAHHH!!!!"

That is perfectly put! A cloven hoof glimpsed beneath a robe is much more sinister than Mr Universe rolled in barbed wire.

Agreed!

I feel the same way about overly graphic and over-coreographed action films too... The understatement of realism is absolutely chilling compared to the overblown fakeness of Hollywood's continuing efforts to shock through gore and crunchy sound effects. There's a relevant parallel there with GW's design and story choices, I'm sure.  

I was turned off KoW rules because there were elements still too similar to Warhammer for my liking. IGOUGO, characters as close combat beasts rather than commanders, things like orcs on 25mm bases when everything else is on 20mms, when it's all about the entire unit footprint anyway. I can understand it was to ease the transition of WFB players; but when rumours of WFB turning to a round-base skirmish game started popping up, and I wondered if KoW would eventually change some of those elements, I was met with a few blank stares. "Why would they do that?"

To be fair, the way the game works is fine (simple, but generally the most fun elements of playing WHFB have been retained, and the most tedious parts dropped).

Also, the way the unit basing works is actually quite liberating - you need fewer models and you can make the unit into an intersting vingette if you fancy (both reasons that things like unit fillers existed in WHFB).

Aside from that... Nearly all the races in KoW are just ports of WHFB races. Okay, some of them play a little differently or can be represented by different lists, but we're talking a veneer of difference here. I see perfectly well why Mantic did that, but I honestly think they missed an opportunity to do thier own thing; they are now stuck between trying to attract new customers, and not wating aliente those they already have.

To be fair to Mantic, they are trying a little more to do thier own thing now. Warpath has generally different factions than 40k, although you could rightly argue that Forge Fathers = Squats, Marauders = Orks, and Asterians = Eldar. They are also trying to make more and better models in sprued HIPS plastic.

However, when it comes to selling models for Warpath, they still insist of the GW-style units of 10 models with a heavy weapon, special weapon and leader with a close-combat loadout. Why? Why not 8 or 12 models? Why not different mixes of models and weapons?

It's infuriating to be honest, but at least they seem more keen to break away from GW's teat with Warpath. Who knows, in time they may yet make a reasonably-balanced and fun game with all plastic-sprued models that look nice. I guess we'll see!

Left.. kinda weird, right... kinda dorky, center... definitely badass...  

I think they all look kinda weird and dorky, and some of them look kinda badass I guess. The Knight is actually okay, as is the Jugger. I don't think the Varanthingy is 100% terrible either, but I don't see any simple way to customise it and make it "mine" besides a different paintjob.

I also think that the rider is basically lost on the mount - same problem as the new Archaon has IMO - which I find especially weird in a game that's supposed to be about character-driven narrative skirmishes (allegedly).


@ Dim Reaper:

Waaaay to much to respond to. I do want to touch on more detail = easier to paint though.

Basically, that's a fallacy.

More detail takes longer to paint, and also limits very severly any chance of casual customisation. For example, the Chaos star on the red barding of the Varan model above; what if I just wanted a plain red barding? Or a different symbol? Sure I could file it off, but it would look rough and would also remove a lot of the surrounding detail too. More detail also camouflages interesting details too, which genercises the models further.

I paint okay, but I am slow in completing things; however, I paint a lot more when I'm not bogged down with pointless detail that gets in the way of finishing a simple and striking paintjob in a reasonable time (and a lot of that excess detail quite frankly just isn't visible on a finished model anyway).

[Dim_Reaper]

@ Dim Reaper:

Waaaay to much to respond to. I do want to touch on more detail = easier to paint though.

Basically, that's a fallacy.

More detail takes longer to paint, and also limits very severly any chance of casual customisation. For example, the Chaos star on the red barding of the Varan model above; what if I just wanted a plain red barding? Or a different symbol? Sure I could file it off, but it would look rough and would also remove a lot of the surrounding detail too. More detail also camouflages interesting details too, which genercises the models further.

I paint okay, but I am slow in completing things; however, I paint a lot more when I'm not bogged down with pointless detail that gets in the way of finishing a simple and striking paintjob in a reasonable time (and a lot of that excess detail quite frankly just isn't visible on a finished model anyway).

Of course it looks like a fallacy. It's not what I wrote. It's rather obvious that a plainer model is easier to paint (quickly) than a model with oodles of detail. The point I made was that it's easier to make a model look more epic with a paint job when there are details that you can highlight, instead of needing to freehand, or ruin with transfers. That's a completely different conception.

Speed is pretty irrelevant too. Because anyway, there are GW armies that are easy to paint quickly if that's what you're after. Really you're looking at a handful of set pieces, and those sorts of things deserve more effort put into them anyway.

Customisation is an issue, but it's still a perfectly doable thing with very minor work on most of GW's miniatures. Chaos stuff is very problematic in that case, so I think they're a pretty unfair example to use for general terms.

[grant]

TL, DR: more crazy models, GW gets crazier! Prices still bonkers.

 

[Vermis]

The concept of grimdark in the 40K and Warhammer worlds used to be like: "Beware the [forest/underhive], for there are mutants somewhere in those murky depths, and it is whispered they worship dark and twisted things...". It had a sense of ambience, depth, profoundness and ensnaring allure about it.

Now it's more like: "GRRAAAAHHH!! LOOK AT MY MUSCLES!! LOOK AT MY SPIKES!! GRRAAAAHHH!!!!"

What Hobgoblin and the Major said. Well said.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen her dragons.

Well, she's been GW's go-to monster sculptor for years before I turned up in wargaming, only giving some ground to Seb Perbett since he arrived to redo the Skaven and sculpt some lizardmen monsters.

My attitude to her sculpts might be a bit similar to Dim's attitude to Mat Ward, but maybe a bit more mellow. Long story short, and to crib from Dim: after 20+ years of observing, researching, and drawing animals and fictional creature designs of all sorts, her GW dragons offend almost every sensibility I've developed.

Over the top? Certainly. But that fits with the feel that GW is going for. It is a perfectly valid direction to go in

Hate to say it, but you have a point.

I might have to go sit with Grant, though. I read the whole post, but I think the best response I can give is 'okay!' Although...

I am rather tired, it must be said, of gamers letting companies get away with nonsense like this, or to talk about expecting similar corporate shenanigans from companies just because they're not GW.
... it doesn't seem like any of them have the talent to try anything different, and resort to similar tricks as GW, and very rarely get called out on it.

For me it comes out in the way a lot of the 'blockbuster' games seem to foster the attitude that their minis, rules and setting are indivisible, one and the same, apparently in order to hook gamers on their products and respond to their little purchase prompts in the rules. And while I agree it's nice and convenient to have a tailored, all-in-one product, I've just recently seen some gamers horrified at the idea of using KoW rules, 'cos then they'd have to use Mantic models and fluff. Not the first time I've seen something like it. There's brand/game loyalty, and then there's psychosis...

To be fair, the way the game works is fine (simple, but generally the most fun elements of playing WHFB have been retained, and the most tedious parts dropped).

Also, the way the unit basing works is actually quite liberating - you need fewer models and you can make the unit into an intersting vingette if you fancy (both reasons that things like unit fillers existed in WHFB).

Agreed! Especially about keeping the fun elements and dropping the tedious. But I also agree that breaking out of a 'Warhammer lite' image might be a benefit.

Oh, and here's what I really came here to post about:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Starbeast-Constellation

Two hundred models. Over half a grand. One warscroll formation. Remind me how this game was supposed to to be a small, quick skirmish, and a fresh new direction for GW?

[Dim_Reaper]

Hate to say it, but you have a point.

I might have to go sit with Grant, though. I read the whole post, but I think the best response I can give is 'okay!'

Kinda what I deserve for sticking up for GW for once.

[Hupp n at em]

What does TL . DR mean?

AFAIK its origin lies with reddit but it stands for Too Long; Didn't Read.  People use it to preface a very brief summary at the end of a very long post. 

[Dim_Reaper]

What does TL . DR mean?

Too long, didn't read. Or Too Long Dim Reaper. Rather used to both at this stage. 

[grant]

What does TL . DR mean?

"Too long, didn't read". - executive summary. My response to the the exceeding long posts that have become this section. Skim, get the point, some. I don't have time for a novella. 

[Tactalvanic]

Too long, didn't read. Or Too Long Dim Reaper. Rather used to both at this stage. 

Actually, quite like your and other members longer posts, especially sitting at work running up database changes, scripts and email replies to colleagues without swearing.

Sad I know but there you go.

The mixture of points of view and feelings about the GW is an interesting boiling pot to read sometimes.

Whereas I normally stick to the odd comment about skulls and things.

Not seeing a particular need beyond the  "charging me to much/rules not so good" bits to worry.

I like many of their models, I own quite a few, mostly older, granted, and granted, my all time favourites are mostly different manufacturers, but still I like what I like.

Some twee, some not, even some with skulls and spikes on them.

It would be far to boring if we all liked the same things all the time. 

[Major_Gilbear]

One of the things that is good about having so much detail, is that a few simple techniques that anyone can learn can be applied to these and have very, very good effects. One of the things GW has been good at is making paints that help the inept, and having models that partly paint themselves. That's one of the upshots of so much detail. There are recesses that acquire ink, and that can be drybrushed over, that can be layered over and edge-highlighted without much effort.

Apologies if I misunderstood (it was late!), but in this section you seemed to imply that more detail was easier (and therefore faster) to paint. I do get that having a moulded icon to paint over is easier than using a transfer or freehanding though, but my point is that you are then pretty much forced to paint that exact icon just like everybody else with no real scope for personalising. You are also pretty much forced to deal with that moulded icon too, whereas if it wasn't there you might not feel obliged to even bother with it at all.

Speed is pretty irrelevant too. Because anyway, there are GW armies that are easy to paint quickly if that's what you're after. Really you're looking at a handful of set pieces, and those sorts of things deserve more effort put into them anyway.

Customisation is an issue, but it's still a perfectly doable thing with very minor work on most of GW's miniatures. Chaos stuff is very problematic in that case, so I think they're a pretty unfair example to use for general terms.

I also don't really see why I should have to be herded towards a specific army if I want to actually have a chance of finishing a nicely-painted army in my lifetime? And too many colossal and overly-delicate set pieces is exactly what's wrong with models supposedly made for playing a game with.

As for the Chaos example... Okay, take some other recent releases from the Sigmarines or undead then - pretty much the same issue. <shrug>

Oh, and here's what I really came here to post about:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Starbeast-Constellation

Two hundred models. Over half a grand. One warscroll formation. Remind me how this game was supposed to to be a small, quick skirmish, and a fresh new direction for GW?

Ah, but you can just play the game with 10 models if you want - you don't need all 200. The old days of needing 200-model armies are behind us because this is clearly a skirmish force - and you can tell because they are all on round bases.

Now, it may not be much of game with 10 models (or even 200...), but golly gosh if little Jimmy can't at least join in with his half-painted box of Saurus Warriors. I mean, if that isn't lowering the entry barrier, then who knows what is! 

[Modhail]

Oh, and here's what I really came here to post about:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Starbeast-Constellation

Two hundred models. Over half a grand. One warscroll formation. Remind me how this game was supposed to to be a small, quick skirmish, and a fresh new direction for GW?

"Hey, let's play a quick single-warscroll game to get you used to the rules!"
Little Timmy shows up with his freshly painted 5 Stormcast Eternals and Joe Noobstomper shows up with the above... 

There are some good points made in the various previous longer posts, maybe I'll add my own .02 when I'm on a proper keyboard.

[Cubs]

Well put Rhod.

[Ray Rivers]

"Hey, let's play a quick single-warscroll game to get you used to the rules!"
Little Timmy shows up with his freshly painted 5 Stormcast Eternals and Joe Noobstomper shows up with the above...  

Well... actually it is not a single warscroll game. Let me try to clear some things up for you.

- Each unit/hero has a warscroll. The warscroll gives the units capabilities.
- Units can be further grouped together to form a warband, battalion, host, etc., which gives the group an additional warscroll.
- The players then determine which realm they are going to play the game on. Realms have special rules and terrain.
- The players then place terrain on the board, some of which have special capabilities and their own warscroll. Each terrain piece is then given a special quality based on the terrain table and a dice roll.
- If the players are playing a certain scenario (which is what the game was designed for), each general will have an additional special ability and further special rules may apply in the game. The scenario will state which forces are to be used.

So actually, no one would ever bring a Starbeast Constellation battalion to the game board though I haven't read the Seraphon Battletome (and that does include 3 Battleplans/scenarios) and even so, I doubt that the opposition would be a single unit.

So actually Little Timmy wouldn't be playing Joe Noobstomper as everyone knows Joe is a jerk. Instead he would be playing in a scenario driven game with Big Bobby... and having a lot of fun.

And as I said before... soooo much mis-information and just plain ignorance about how this game is played.

[Rhoderic]

Not in aggrieved reaction, Dim Reaper, but some things you've said I do have to disagree with.

As far as I'm concerned, freehand is timeless and will never wane in relevance. To consistently preempt freehand painting by covering every surface in sculpted details is to preempt an elemental aspect of miniature painting. I'm not good at painting freehand and I rarely do it, but if a range of miniatures literally does not allow me to even try, then that is an undesirable feature of that range for me. Besides, there are times when a plain old block of colour does a miniature good.

Also, I think beauty in miniatures is timeless, as is ugliness. It's my belief that had those exact Varanguard figures been (by some magic) produced and released 30 years ago, well... they would have turned some heads for sure, but they still would fundamentally have suffered from the same problem then that they do today: A "camouflage of details" obscuring the basic essence of the figures. I genuinely can't fully make out their shapes and contours. Come to think of it, I know I've seen some "vintage" miniatures that do suffer from a similar problem, although I can't provide examples as I'm not thinking of any one explicit figure or even any one explicit range, manufacturer or sculptor. They don't look bad now because they haven't aged well - they look bad now because they always have, due to an excess of ill-considered details that don't really help the figures along or amount to more than the sum of their parts.

At least with old figures like that, the problem can be ascribed to the odd overenthusiastic or eccentric sculptor. With GW today, the excess of details largely feels perfunctory, like the product of some automated, self-enforcing process that can't escape its own programming. A process that has inadvertently subverted its own original purpose by having reached the point where it is now homogenising miniatures instead of diversifying them. "If blank surface then add skull, spike, chain, scroll, wickedly curved hook, Chaos symbol or electric hammer symbol". To be fair, one of the reasons I find the basic Sigmarine troopers acceptable is that they come with blank pauldrons ("shoulder pads").

I just keep picturing countless permutations of the the following conversation taking place at GW:

A: "So, I've almost finished this concept drawing of the new Screamslayer Mortificator Predatorian Guardscreamer, there's just one thing I haven't decided on yet."

B: "Yes?"

A: "I don't know whether to leave the helmet as it is, or put a cluster of spikes on it."

B: "Well... we are Games Workshop. What would be the Games Workshop thing to do?"

A: "Put spikes on it."

B: "Well there you go, then!"

Actually, if I can be cheeky for a moment, I then imagine the conversation to continue as follows:

A: "But... I mean, come on... is that really to be our overriding imperative? To do what Games Workshop "would" do as defined by its aggregated history on the basis that we are Games Workshop and that's what we as Games Workshop would do?"

B: "I'm sorry. That question falls outside my parameters. Would you like me to relay the question to a Tier 2 data processing node?"

A: "Err... no, that's fine. Thanks anyway, computer. The last sod who drew the attention of a Tier 2 ended up in some weird fractal loop where he had to just keep drawing spikes sticking out of more spikes sticking out of even more spikes. Messy business. Come to think of it, I haven't seen him around for weeks."

B: "..."

A: "Ah, I see. Forget I brought it up. Could you just order me a sandwich?"

B: "Sure! Your aggregated history logs tell me you prefer ham and cheese. Would you like me to order you a ham and cheese sandwich?"

A: "Actually, I don't prefer ham and cheese. That's just what I had on my first day here and it's what you've gotten me every day since because of my aggregated history logs. Any chance for a coronation chicken?"

B: "I will order you a ham and cheese sandwich."

A: *sigh* "Yes, I thought so. Thank you, computer."

B: "You're very welcome."



(Yes, I know I'm just taking the piss at this point, but I think that's part of what this thread is for. And I don't know why I suddenly had speaker B be a computer. It just felt right.)

I suppose what I'm trying to say with the word "perfunctory" is that many of GW's figures these days have a "forced" and uninspired quality to them. As if the underlying motivation for their conception is not the creative drive or the inspiration of GW's concept artists or sculptors, but something rather more cold, corporate and computational (alliteration not intended). The fact that the products happen to be wargaming miniatures and must therefore undergo a design process is more of an undesired but unavoidable factor in the business model, than a raison d'etre. The phrase "feed the machine!" really does reverberate in my mind.

Do I think of those Morghast Harbingers as "inspired"? Maaayybe, sorta kinda. They're not the first example I would use to illustrate perfunctoriness in GW miniatures design. Likewise the basic Sigmarine troopers. The Varanguard and the Knights of Ruin are better examples. Even better, come to think of it, are the Fyreslayers. They're Dwarf Slayers, but... bigger. That's it. Just bigger. Because in the Age of Sigmar, people and things have grown bigger. Ka-ching!

(And yeah, it's unfair to criticise a company for wanting to make money. But it's also unfair to criticise hobbyists for having some different imperative than conveniently being the magic ingredient in some company's money-making business model.)

Don't you think it'd be a bigger betrayal to knock their current aesthetic back now, than return to a time of GW's production, that I hasten to add, although somewhat regrettably, most people are too young to know about?

I don't strictly disagree with this, but it reaffirms to me what I view as the tragedy of GW. Muscles must continue to bulge because that's where GW lives now. Skulls, spikes, chains and scrolls must continue to be relentlessly prevalent because that's what GW allowed itself to become, and the dial apparently only turns in one direction. I lament it.

That's what worries me about some of this argument. It straddles the line of nostalgia jingoism. Of everything being better back in the day of simpler times, of less corporate attitudes. Because I've hit 30, and I feel the same about my first experiences of the miniatures, from the early-mid 90s, and thus I have a great deal of suspicion of the whole deal. Because it can't just be a wholesale deterioration. It simply can't. I criticise GW more than most, but I don't think it's all been downhill from 2nd Edition 40k and 5th Edition Fantasy. They were both incredibly flawed. There's been ups and downs since, and the corporate attitude has grown, but so too has industry knowledge, and production abilities.

Personally I'm not seeing any nostalgia jingoism, and I'm the same age group as you. The hobby wasn't better in the past -  to me, it's better today than ever before. But GW was better in the past, in most ways save a few, such as technical expertise in plastic miniatures production (just the technical expertise, mind, not the aesthetic design). Fortunately there's so much more to the hobby than that one company, and in the past 10-15 years the non-GW sector of the hobby has blossomed all the while, sadly, GW has begun to sour (not counting the Oldhammer trend, which is cold comfort for contemporary GW). I'm largely happy with the state of the hobby today, but I do lament the souring of GW and I express that sentiment in this thread.


TLDR: The qualities that make a miniature "good" or "bad" are timeless; GW miniatures strike me as perfunctory in their over-the-top aesthetic, as if the design process itself is just something the company would like to automate with some self-ante-upping formula so as to get that "annoying" part of product development out of the way; The miniature wargaming hobby is going to great new places but GW is not.

Is that too long of a TLDR?

[grant]

Nailed it! Thank you!