*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 18, 2020, 08:24:41 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Recent

Author Topic: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread  (Read 1079677 times)

Offline FramFramson

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 9517
  • Emoticon Knight-Errant and Baron of Bad Posting
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #480 on: January 25, 2014, 06:54:06 PM »
I think that people here may over-estimate the nostalgia market.  ;)
It isn't nearly as good as it used to be.

I just want to say that yes, I caught this, and yes, you're a horrible man.  lol

Offline Vermis

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2433
    • Mini Sculpture
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #481 on: January 25, 2014, 07:20:43 PM »
I dunno about nostaglia. To pick up on the army I've still bought stuff for, Skaven: I got into Warhammer in 6th ed and the less said about those monkey-dog plastics of the time, the better. Most of the metals weren't great either and even the hallowed metals by Jes Goodwin, years earlier, while a bit of an improvement, didn't set my imagination on fire.
The current stuff by Seb Perbett, though - fantastic. A bit of a cartoony style, and AFAIK all digitally sculpted and designed, and I can see why people might not like it, but I think it suits the Skaven OTT, mad-scientist style pretty well. The only low points are the stormvermin (a bit meh compared to clanrats), night runners (still not updated from monkey-dogs), and the current, general sale rat ogres. (One of the first, fumbled attempts at CAD IIRC. Why they haven't been replaced by the starter set versions, I dunno.)

But with all that gushing...

I just buy second hand, nothing really from their shop aside from the occasional supply.

Yeah, that. Even the 20 for 20 basic troops that I wouldn't be too opposed to. It saves money for the stuff from the ebay pack-splitters and resellers who take a bit of a leaf out of GW's book.

And in response to Joroas from a few pages back: they can keep their game and it's rules; I just want their minis, at a decent price. :P
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 07:23:47 PM by Vermis »

Offline Cubs

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3702
  • "I simply cannot survive without beauty ..."
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #482 on: January 25, 2014, 08:07:25 PM »
I just want to say that yes, I caught this, and yes, you're a horrible man.  lol

'Sir John ejaculated explosively, sitting up in his chair.' ... 'The Black Gang'.

Paul Cubbin Miniature Painter

Offline Lawful Evil

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 396
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #483 on: January 29, 2014, 04:26:19 AM »
Didn't see this mentioned anywhere else, an even though it's just a rumour, it's a welcome one from my point of view:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/01/breaking-40k-starter-boxed-set-details.html

A new 40k starter box, said to feature Orks and BA.

All copied straight from the link:
*****
Launch Window - @September
Rules Summary: Updated Mini-rulebook contains FAQs, minor tweaks and clarifications, and much of Stronghold Assault rolled into a new shiny package.
Miniatures included: @70
Armies:
 Blood Angels (plastic quick assembly)
- Assault Marine Squad
- Tactical Marine Squad
- Death Company Squad
- Captain (kitted out for assault)
- Chaplain
- Sanguinary Priest (limited edition, similar to the Dark Vengeance mini was)

Orks (plastic quick assembly)
- 'Ardboys (full mob)
- Nobs (small squad)
- Warboss
- Big Mek
- Ork themed fortification

This was described as simply an updated Warhammer 40,000 Starter Set and specifically "NOT 7th Edition."

You will note that September falls right smack in the middle of the rumored release slots for Orks (a couple of months before), and Blood Angels (a couple of months after). 

On first glance the  "not 7th Edition" makes no sense until you go back and read this.  This could certainly be the start of GW rolling the "organic living ruleset" for 40K that does away with edition numbers and the sales dips they cause. Instead we would get updated core products such as rulebooks and starter sets from time to time to "bring them up to speed" with all the most current rules additions that have been rolled out in the intervening years.
*****
I'd buy two, I have Orks and Space Marines, I can use BA for them no problem.

Offline Cubs

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3702
  • "I simply cannot survive without beauty ..."
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #484 on: January 29, 2014, 01:23:53 PM »
Well, well, well.

Let's hope it's more than a rumour and heralds a sea-change in attitude.

Offline Dr.Falkenhayn

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1540
  • guckst du?
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #485 on: January 29, 2014, 01:36:43 PM »
Hooray even more Orks and Marines  ::)

Offline pixelgeek

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1544
    • Zac's Gaming Blog
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #486 on: January 29, 2014, 02:42:42 PM »
Well, well, well.

Let's hope it's more than a rumour and heralds a sea-change in attitude.

Problem is that in terms of a tabletop game they "jumped the shark" some time ago. They had a large-scale combat game that they could have expanded and made into a core game (Epic) but instead they have pushed the game into a rather odd situation where you have games with tables packed with utterly inappropriate numbers of large models. It sells them a lot of Baneblade kits but I don't know that it makes for a fun game.

Offline Too Bo Coo

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3718
  • The Adder Noir
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #487 on: January 29, 2014, 02:50:17 PM »
I can certainly understand that since 40k is more skirmish than grand scale game that the firearms have proportionally shorter ranges for closer combat.  But when I see a table of air power, heavy and super heavy tanks and egad a titan, I have to shake my head in confusion.  Yes, it looks great, but the rationalizations become too much for me.   At least in 15mm FoW the ranges make more sense, if not perfect.
"A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men."
-Willy Wonka

Offline pixelgeek

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1544
    • Zac's Gaming Blog
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #488 on: January 29, 2014, 05:25:58 PM »
But when I see a table of air power, heavy and super heavy tanks and egad a titan, I have to shake my head in confusion. 

In Epic the Basilisk has a minimum range that is wider than a standard 40K table  ;D

When it first came out I played a few Apocalypse games but we did it on an enormous table and we also didn't have anything larger than a Land Raider. Playing a standard 40K game with those large vehicles and air power seems to be asking a bit much of the system.

I have a Baneblade that I was planning to use in an AE-WWII game but it was going to be the focus of the scenario, not a heavy support item  :)

Offline Dolmot

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1394
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #489 on: January 29, 2014, 05:31:06 PM »
Hooray even more Orks and Marines  ::)

Well, did you expect cowboys and indians?

Considering it's a 40k box, those picks are just fine. There's always someone in any medium-sized group who can use a few marines and orks if the starting player doesn't. Personally, I'd like to see more IG as they're supposed to form the huge majority of imperial forces (which definitely isn't the case on tabletops). However, as marines have become a self-feeding loop, probably selling more alone than all FB and LotR together and boosting their best-selling video game franchise, the chances of avoiding them in a starter box are slim.

It just makes a lot of sense businesswise so I don't really expect them to make a starter box to please LAFfers.

Offline matthais-mouse

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 912
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #490 on: January 30, 2014, 02:11:21 PM »
As a starter set, I would have had Tau and imperial guard, just to confuse everyone  lol

As for the size of the new models and games, i think its awful, nice looking models but very unwieldy on the tabletop. they should have kept epic AND all of the other specialist games. They allowed much more characterization of ones forces.
.: Logan's band of survivors of the battle of Ursun's teeth :.

For blog posts with more info here.....
http://let-the-galaxy-burn-again.blogspot.co.uk/
And the vlogs here....
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzyMQNtc1ANwIbEN80M-gwA

Offline Dolmot

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1394
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #491 on: January 30, 2014, 04:29:58 PM »
So...there's a video review of the visual feast of super high-quality Citadel Miniatures in a stunning new extended pictorial style, in a fabulous new format that you will want to keep and collect. (And WD too.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cqFbTa5qOI

Offline Dr Mathias

  • LPL Champion (S6,S7) Bronze Medalist (S5)
  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3827
  • Purveyor of the one-and-only Miracle Elixir!
    • Dr. Mathias's Miniature Extravaganza
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #492 on: January 30, 2014, 05:05:54 PM »
So...there's a video review of the visual feast of super high-quality Citadel Miniatures in a stunning new extended pictorial style, in a fabulous new format that you will want to keep and collect. (And WD too.)

GW has certainly done a lot of odd things over the years, and most could be explained as having some sort of rationalized (albeit misguided or not popular) business decisions.

I just don't 'get' this new White Dwarf format stuff. Why?
a mixture of quick parts, sarcastic humour, reserve, and caprice.
Dr. Mathias's Miniature Extravaganza

Offline matthais-mouse

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 912
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #493 on: January 30, 2014, 05:14:39 PM »
GW has certainly done a lot of odd things over the years, and most could be explained as having some sort of rationalized (albeit misguided or not popular) business decisions.

I just don't 'get' this new White Dwarf format stuff. Why?

I have to admit as a decision I hate it. I stopped buying white dwarf when it become 5.50 the last format change, I was reluctant enough to buy it 4.50 even, but at 7 for a visions which is just a load of photos and 2.50 for a 35 page magazine of stuff i can read on their website they must be having a laugh. i want ARTICLES ON GAMING MODELLING AND PAINTING not what new over priced models they have out and a bunch of pretty pictures. But than there are people out there who will buy it religiously which means they dont care about the loss of other custom.

This is just my opinion though...

Offline Dolmot

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1394
Re: The LAF Games Workshop Discussion Thread
« Reply #494 on: January 30, 2014, 06:20:51 PM »
I just don't 'get' this new White Dwarf format stuff. Why?

The weekly vs. monthly format? The split to WD and Visions? The new content and layout?

WD appears mostly the same as before in content and page count, just spread over every week now. The most obvious ploy would be that it's 50+% more $ now if you maintain your previous rate of buying. Also, the new price is quite literally loose change so it's almost trivial to buy on a whim, just like a coffee or a soda.

However, another great conspiracy theory is that because it's weekly now and you can't subscribe to it, there's an incentive to visit a store often, and hopefully grab a few new releases too before the same money is spent on movies, fast food and playstation. I think the saturday release date conveniently coincides with new, shiny minis.

When it comes to Visions...I honestly don't know what's the deal. Something to subscribe to and browse in your Playboy mansion if you can't be arsed with regular gaming and impulse buying any more? Slightly more subtle visions for getting back into the hobby or starting a new project? Just an easy way to produce more content in a joint-language format, hoping that enough people will buy it in addition to WD? No idea. It looks very odd to me, based on that first peek.