The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread

[Cubs]

So what we're saying is, AoS isn't actually bad as such, it's just very different. An acquired taste. Okay, it might be a financial and creative turkey numbers-wise, but clearly some people like it. That's cool.

Now I confess, the Warhammer world lost me a long time ago, so it's neither here nor there to me what they do with it from a gaming perspective. I wish they still made models I was tempted to buy, so I'm a tad disappointed by that. But from what I've read, the real bile is reserved for the fact that GW didn't just introduce a new game, or change the old game, they salted the bloody earth so old Warhammer had no chance to grow any more, certainly not under the GW banner.

For Oldhammerers this is largely irrelevant since they dwell in the Golden Age anyway and time shall not touch it (unlike us). But for those who defended GW for so long against the naysayers, those who gave of their time and (lots of) cash for their ever-more expensive stuff out of extreme brand loyalty ... in the blink of an eye they went from being immersed in their own very rewarding world, to being a complete irrelevance ... along with the Oldhammerers.

It's not like GW even mothballed the Warhammer world, or sold it to another company so they could nurture it, they literally destroyed it (bizarrely, just after they renamed all their stores 'Warhammer', which I can't fathom at all). Why not keep it ticking over in the form of PDFs and fan-supported stuff in the background? Why did they have to take the nuclear option and destroy something so iconic, something that better people had been creating since before they were born? It's like someone seeing a work of art they know they're not talented enough to improve on or even match, so instead of just maintaining it or leaving it for others to admire, they decide to destroy it in a fit of envy, hoping people will forget it.

[eilif]

Did I grow up? Well, if you ask my wife ..... but probably a little. Yet GW also grew down and became slightly puerile. The Oldhammer stuff remains as attractive to me as ever, because I enjoy what it is in itself, not just the memories it stirs in me.

I think the "we grew up but GW also grew down" idea really sums up my feelings on the GW design aesthetic. GW always had goofyness, but there was a slightly more grown up aspect to the fluff and the miniatures that is  gone.  GW has long since proved that you can get darker and more juvenile at the same time.

Looking back, there' really isn't a version of 40k rules that deeply appeals to me, but I find my self drawn most to the earlier miniatures. I've been collecting Squats even though by the time I joined 40k with the release of Even the plastic troopers that make up most of my IG army are pretty much the same design as metal Cadians and the tanks are virtually unchanged.

As for "Oldhammer" the rules don't appeal to me, but the aesthetic does.  My Kings of War army is mostly based around early 90's Warhammer and Battlemasters figures and Elbows' comparision between the two Chaos knights (I have several of the early styled examples in my force) perfectly illustrates the reason I find those figs to be preferrable, not to mention the cost difference.

I've really fallen for Kings of War.  Yes it's big, but coming from GW, that kind of ridiculously big game still appeals to me. Especially when KoW shows us that this kind of game can be fast-playing and reward tactics more than how much time you spent crafting your army list.

Yes, they are an AoS faction: "The Stormcast Eternals". Basically Terminator-sized Fantasy not-Space Marines who are Sigmar's chosen eternal/immortal champions that he sends out on missions to fight the forces of evil and retreive magical macguffins. (Sigmar is the the humans' god BTW).

The Lord Relictor model is akin to a space Marine Chaplain in some ways, and they guard the souls of fallen Stormcast Eternals to ensure that they can be born again and return to the fight. They also act as priests of Sigmar.


No crossover into 40k, even though they do look like they belong there better. Their passing similarity to Space Marines is why they earned their nickname "Sigmarines", so you're not alone in making that connection.

Thanks for clearing that up.  The Sigmarines really look like a bad mix of space marines and a desire to compete with Warmachine.

[Mason]

It's like someone seeing a work of art they know they're not talented enough to improve on or even match, so instead of just maintaining it or leaving it for others to admire, they decide to destroy it in a fit of envy, hoping people will forget it.

This sums it up my feelings on the Warhammer world nicely for me.

Why destroy something like a petulant child?

Oldhammer forever!
 



Whereas this sums up my thoughts on 40k pretty neatly...

Looking back, there' really isn't a version of 40k rules that deeply appeals to me, but I find my self drawn most to the earlier miniatures.

Even now, I still have no preferred 40k 'rule set', using a mix of Necromunda and common sense with a bit of 'winging it' thrown in for good measure.
It was the early miniatures and general 'feel' of the game that appealed most.

[Major_Gilbear]

I've really fallen for Kings of War.  Yes it's big, but coming from GW, that kind of ridiculously big game still appeals to me. Especially when KoW shows us that this kind of game can be fast-playing and reward tactics more than how much time you spent crafting your army list.

I think that amongst people who actually play games on a somewhat regular basis, KoW has proven to be quite popular. Amongst people who mostly just build lists and argue over rules, not so much. Therefore your comment here does sound familiar.

I have actually been very tempted to do huge fantasy armies in 15mm using the KoW ruleset... It's abstract enough that not being able to sculpt a potion onto your hero's belt isn't an issue, and yet the big sweep of the game would best suit the masses of troops that 15mm lets you field. Plus unit basing really helps.

The Sigmarines really look like a bad mix of space marines and a desire to compete with Warmachine.

I have no doubt that such design similarities are hardly coincidental. Still, I don't blame them: other companies have copied them for years, so why not pinch a little bit of the WM aesthetic themselves?

[Dim_Reaper]

I hate to say this Rhoderic, but I have addressed a lot of this already. It's worth me reaffirming that I am not defending GW entirely. I'm not prepared to do that. There are a lot of very valid points here. I was reacting to what seemed to me as Old stuff is better, everything new sucks, which seems to be an undercurrent that I'm seeing. It's bollocks. So much of the older miniatures may look "nice", but they might be cast badly, or they may just look quaint today. Whereas sure, these new models can look over the top, but many of them do look nice also. Now, it is perfectly possible to look through GW's range and pick eyesores, especially the most recent models. But all of the WHFB 8th Edition contemporary models are still used for the game, and I'd assert that these are as good as anything that came before them in terms of functional miniatures. Some considerably more than that. For me, even though it is a bit over the top, I find the current Krell model as one of my favourite models of all time, and it offers potential for all the various desires espoused, unless you dislike massive axes. Not sure how you could, but...

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.

Again, I'll make the same point. It is not incumbent of GW to produce models with some clear areas just so people can do freehand if they want to. Just because a miniature doesn't necessarily allow for this doesn't make it bad. I accept, a lot of GW's Age of Sigmar range are exceptionally cluttered, making it very difficult to add flourish, but they're still what I would call pretty models.

Here are some Rackham models. These have barely any room for Freehand, they have already embossed shields. So are these bad models because they lack these features? If that's a yes, we are going to have to disagree strongly, because for me, Rackham were one of the greatest contributors of miniature sculpt quality this industry has ever seen.

Don't get me wrong, I do accept that many of these models are very "busy". I personally do not like the Chaos or Sigmarine range enough to buy into them. But a lot of my friends like the models, and there is a lot to like.

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.

Well I guess that's true, largely. I would assert it's not exclusive, and amidst the necessary corporate nonsense, there are certainly some gems. They've only got really bad for this very recently, a trend I hope they go back on, but I can't personally see it happening. I certainly agree that a lot of their new developments are uninspired. Not all, but certainly a lot of them. It's how I felt after the recent 40k Ork update, with that awful, awful, phoned in Codex and hugely uninspiring new range of miniatures that were very expensive for what they added to Orks, which is pretty much nothing. Again, do remember that I don't intend to fully defend GW. They are certainly at fault a lot of the time.

(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.)

Actually I disagree with your first point here. Needing to make money is not an excuse, justification or a "free win" card against criticism. Of course you can criticise a corporate company. The "they're a business" platitude barely handwaves any criticism, not that many GW White Knights have got that memo, but still.

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.

Sadly too many people in the industry are barely even aware that there's anything else. However, many of these alternatives have their own crosses to bear, and very few of them are accessible to new "Sick of GW" pilgrims.

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.

Good and bad can be timeless. They can also not be. I thought the Playstation game Driver had stunning visuals and gameplay. These days, all I can see are pixels. Context is key here. If you go into GW expecting high art principles, you are going to be disappointed. But the same is true of going to the Cinema and watching 300 in the hope of learning about the battle of Thermopylae. This goes back to my comment earlier. Not everybody expects high art principles in every situation, or even any. I know that Age of Sigmar miniatures are over-cluttered, but part of me likes that. It's a totally valid attitude to take.

Sure, there are valid criticisms to this, but don't dismiss people who like it. That's just infuriating.

Also, sure, a few companies are taking miniature production into new arenas, but there are a lot of stinkers in this industry that don't get criticism for it, mostly because they're not GW. Sure, they don't have GW's price tag, but there's still work to be done across the industry. Not everyone is on the same page though, and that's why I like that this industry caters for everyone: the people who like models cheap, the people who like models that are like a crazed CG-fest blockbuster, and those who want something more refined and are willing to pay for it. This industry as a whole caters for all sorts, and what is wrong with that?

Nothing.

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.

So Ray has railed against misinformation and not fixed the problem by reducing it.

Ray is actually wrong about much of the details. There is no limit up or down on the models you use. The rules say you can use your collection. There is no imperative for your opponent to match you in number of warscolls. In fact, they could deploy one, and you could put your entire model collection on the table, and the only proviso stopping you is whether or not they fit, and if they don't, they can be put in reserve.

There is some confusion over the models listed, technically, Modhail is right, it's one warscroll, made up of multiple units. It's a formation of warscrolls, and there is little clarification over whether it's simply a warscroll compilation, or a warscroll in its own right. This ruleset is very good at shrugging its shoulders with regards to any conception of balance, fairness, or understanding.

This game relies far too much on the gaming group that plays it. In ideal terms, Ray is sort of right, but the fact is, this is a bit like those folks over at the Conclave who go on about how Inquisitor is supposed to be played. All flawed games have a fanbase who enforce how it is supposed to be played, and by that they mean, if people don't the flawed and broken ruleset falls under its own weight.

So indeed, there is much ignorance about how Age of Sigmar is played, and that's just the people who play it!

[beefcake]

Krell is the last mini I bought from GW (excluding Space Hulk). It was finecast and had a problem with bubbles, which didn't really bother me as it just added to the undeadness of it.

[Rhoderic]

There are elements of the Rackham aesthetic that aren't my cup of tea, but those top three figures are quite to my liking, actually. I was talking earlier about "OTT done right" and those figures are along that general line. I did mention that many of the boutique games are good examples of OTT done right. Confrontation (or whatever the Rackham fantasy game was called) is pretty much the progenitor of the boutique game subgenre (although, like Infinity and Malifaux, it may have kind of outgrown the "boutique" status toward the end, but obviously that didn't affect the aesthetic). Incidentally, I think there is sufficient capacity for some moderate amount of freehand painting on those three figures. Maybe a starfield and/or a crenellated border on each of the loincloths, or a bit of subtle scrollwork in a lighter/darker silver colour on some of the larger armour plates, or a small symbol on each of the forehead protector / helmet crest things. When I say "sufficient capacity", I don't only mean it in the sense of literally having enough surface area for it, but also in the sense that they can "absorb" some additional flourishes in painting without becoming "over-saturated" with clutter.

In respect to the final Rackham figure, I'm neutral. I bear it no ill will. As for the Krell figure, let's say I like 90% of it on the premise that it's supposed to be a very special, very iconic, very "heroic" character. I might feel the urge to remove the detail on the axe haft (that's part of the 10% I don't like) and compensate with a nice Gary Chalk-esque freehand design on the cloak - it practically begs for it!

As for "old stuff is better, everything new sucks", that's certainly not my standpoint. GW does get much more wrong than it gets right these days IMO, but fortunately that's just GW. There is a lot of new good stuff coming from elsewhere. I'm really looking forward to the Westfalia Miniatures fantasy range, for instance. The samples I have are exquisite. They are more "middle of the road" in the sense of not being OTT (and not trying to be OTT), but they are simply excellent craftsmanship. They would have been excellent craftsmanship 30 years ago, and I have no doubt they will continue to be excellent craftsmanship 30 years from now.

[Ray Rivers]

Ray is sort of right

Thank you... 

Generally, what I have found is that folks who want AoS to be some sort of "new warhammer" don't like the rules, because they want to put a square peg (large army) into a round hole (a skirmish game). So while, yes, you can use the games for large battles, they really aren't appropriate unless there is some "greater good" such as an objective (other than to destroy the other army). That is why this group complain about the simplicity of the rules, the lack of a points system, the seeming ability to match a single unit against a entire army if you choose, etc. Unfortunately, AoS is a scenario/narrative driven skirmish game and the folks who want it to be anything other than that will find only disappointment. Like many of the people posting here...

Lots of folks have read the free 4 page rules and yes you can interpret them anyway you want, however, you do so without context, and context makes all the difference:

From the book "Age of Sigmar" concerning the rules, page 120:

This volume provides you with the core rules with which to play your Warhammer: Age of Sigmar games. With these rules you can pit any army against any other in whatever scenario you choose.... These pages intertwine exciting narrative with battleplans and Time of War rules which allow you to lead your armies through every vicious clash and bloody slaughter first-hand.

It then goes on to explain that Battleplans are instructions on "how you play the game", (i.e., scenarios), and goes on to say, page 121:

... For example, a battleplan may present a heroic breakthrough, where one army punches straight through the lines of another reach a vital objective.

It also explains that you can do this with what-ever Armies you want, but basically says, read the battleplan (scenario) and use the rules. 

There are plenty of BatReps posted by folks who play AoS as it should be played, that is, as a skirmish game. If you read these BatReps you will see that there is always an objective, always narrative... because it is an objective based skirmish game. That is why you find scenarios to play in the basic starter box, the books and battletomes.

The game is meant to be balanced via the scenarios and I would imagine anyone who gets a good grip on how the scenarios play out will be easily able to adjust what ever is necessary to bring an interesting and fun experience to the table top. And that is why folks like Joe Noobstomper, who already slashed and burned his way through Warhammer, probably won't find anyone to play with him.

[Rhoderic]

Well, I've been reading that 1d4chan article on Mat(t?) Ward and have a newfound appreciation for the past 10+ years I've spent away from the GW side of the hobby. Frankly, GW and the "GW hobby community" deserve each other...

[Dim_Reaper]

What you reference Ray, isn't strictly context. Because the context is whatever the player wants, and it kind of has to be, because the responsibility of sorting everything out is down to them, such as outsourcing these mystical battleplans. I.e. scenarios that any other rulebook with a fucking points system has as well.

Age of Sigmar is narrative driven in the same way as any other Game. You figure out why you're playing it. GW offers no help with this, no options, no modifiers to scenarios, they just throw out a few scenarios that may have a "story" behind them, but they add nothing to the game that is played, and they're mostly similar to scenarios in previous rulesets that weren't "narrative driven". Nor, indeed, is 40k a "narrative wargame", and certainly no more so than a game of snakes and ladders.

Also, I hated WHFB. So you can keep trying to put out that broken record (which hasn't addressed a single point in this entire thread) if you like, but it has sod all to do with anything I've said. I just expected a complete game, and got an incomplete shrug. Fun it may be? Good it isn't. But nor was WHFB, so it wasn't so much an improvement as a minor step to the left.

Well, I've been reading that 1d4chan article on Mat(t?) Ward and have a newfound appreciation for the past 10+ years I've spent away from the GW side of the hobby. Frankly, GW and the "GW hobby community" deserve each other...

I agree. But their grievances are justified.

[grant]

I actually agree with the ragers as well. Dont piss all over the fluff smash it up and then re-write a crappier version, compliment it.

The fluff was one of the last shining gems in the GW crown. Until it seems it too was smeared in feces and thrown against the wall of the minimum wage rules writing cubicle.

 

[Vermis]

The chapter-specific shoulder pads are out already, and they ain't forgeworld!

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Knight-Excelsior-Upgrades
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Celestial-Warbringers-Upgrades

I have to admit, though, those excelsior shields would fit better with my elfy-robot thoughts than the standard HAMMERHAMMERHAMMER theme. I wonder if bits sellers can get the sets?

[Elbows]

I heavily expect you'll see a ton of those bits end up on space marines, particularly the shoulder paldrons.

[Rhoderic]

The chapter-specific shoulder pads are out already, and they ain't forgeworld!

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Knight-Excelsior-Upgrades
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Celestial-Warbringers-Upgrades

I have to admit, though, those excelsior shields would fit better with my elfy-robot thoughts than the standard HAMMERHAMMERHAMMER theme. I wonder if bits sellers can get the sets?

The sunburst eclipse is much cooler than the electric hammer (and somewhat cooler than the twin-tailed comet), I agree. More "celestial mystery", less "ka-thunk!"

[horridperson]

@scurv

I liked your comment on the implications of computer modelling in sculpting.  While it opens possibilities for greater detail there is certainly something missing.  Traditional sculptors knew how to say more with less.  For the purposes of economy we could consider gesture drawings which in a few lines capture the essence of a pose. Gew-gaws don't complete sculpts or bring anything to the model.  They are a crutch to fill empty spaces or models that just weren't that interesting to begin with.