ShumaGorath wrote:

Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much.

What does that even mean?

I'm not sure exactly but every other model (actually maybe almost all of them) in the entire PP line looks like something out of WoW to me.
Don't get me wrong, GW has it's share of bad sculpts but most of them are old or just plain bad whereas most the PP line seems too.. silly I suppose is the right word, for my taste.

Thinking about it, I suppose the big difference is that I feel PP is on my side. I want to have fun games, and they want me to have fun games too. The rules are reasonably well-balanced, with a few notorious outliers. Models such as Colossals could have been utter game-breakers, to the point where you'd need to get one of your own or be unable to fight them, but they're surprisingly well balanced. Regardless of what army you pick, you'll have a steady stream of new stuff to play with, but very little of that new stuff feels like it's been intentionally powered up to get you to buy the model.

I don't feel that GW is on my side. I feel that they're on a mission to get as much money out of me as possible, and the games are just a means to that end. Balance seems to have been thrown to the wind, the number of minis required has climbed and climbed between editions, and there's a rather obnoxious trend of different models fluctuating in terms of usefulness between editions, which feels like a ploy to make more money. I think what unsold me on 40K was a thread here with someone talking about how they'd have to convert 120 Orks to make them useful in the new rules. The same goes for stuff like "Buy our AA units (or allies with AA units) because we've just made the flying units really powerful.". And then you have stuff like the codex cycle where the low-selling armies dwell in limbo for years on end while there's a big flurry of releases for the new Space Marines.

Well, that is how GW used to be at one time. You got the feeling that it was run by hobbyists who had the same desires that you did. It's been many years now though since that has been the case, and sadly it seems to be an impossible to prevent change that happens within companies (not just within the wargaming industry, but generally) when they reach a certain size - they need people with management/money handling skills, and quite often those people have no interest at all in the subject material beyond the bottom line on a balance sheet. That effect is compounded by the switch to a public company, and I remember at the time that GW took that route a lot of the more dedicated fans covered their faces with their hands and groaned, because they knew what it would ultimately mean for the company.

For the time being I think PP is better in that regard - whether that continues though it remains to be seen, especially if they continue to grow. Or, heaven forbid, they become a publically owned company as well. And of course even smaller companies, and privately owned ones, can make gaffs at times and do things that are unpopular with the customer base.

 Pacific wrote:
For the time being I think PP is better in that regard - whether that continues though it remains to be seen, especially if they continue to grow. Or, heaven forbid, they become a publically owned company as well. And of course even smaller companies, and privately owned ones, can make gaffs at times and do things that are unpopular with the customer base.

Yeah, I got a feeling that PP might end up going the way GW have one day. Depending on who you ask they're already well on their way, so try to enjoy it now while you still can I guess.

At least they know how to make a good dragon.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much.

What does that even mean?

Yeah, I'm with you. Unless lack of gratuitous skulls is the American aesthetic, there's just not enough thematic distinction between the two companies' lines to say 'EVERYTHING PP IS BAAAAAAD'.

Yes, even though it's it's subjective, the statement is just too broad to be true for someone who posts on a miniatures gaming forum. It's like me saying that there is nothing in the continent of South America that I would like to eat; surely *something* exists.

 sourclams wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much.

What does that even mean?

Yeah, I'm with you. Unless lack of gratuitous skulls is the American aesthetic, there's just not enough thematic distinction between the two companies' lines to say 'EVERYTHING PP IS BAAAAAAD'.

Yes, even though it's it's subjective, the statement is just too broad to be true for someone who posts on a miniatures gaming forum. It's like me saying that there is nothing in the continent of South America that I would like to eat; surely *something* exists.

I haven't played Warmachine in several years; do the models still have the propensity for ridiculously out of scale shoulder adornment? I remember that Kador warcaster who had shoulderpads so big that an elephant could sneak up on either flank, and he'd not even know it.

Vlad still has the Shoulders of Hugeitude. Hyperion has also got such enormous pauldrons that it looks hunched over.

I can honestly understand the WoW comparisons looking at a few of the most egregiously shouldered models, but those are definitely the exception to the norm.

Yes, many of them still do, though to be fair that is not an "American aesthetic" as I believe the Japanese have the copyright on giant shoulderpads... I could be wrong on that front though

 Alfndrate wrote:
Yes, many of them still do,

The majority of PP models don't even have shoulder armor. There's almost no shoulder armor in the entire Trollblood, Circle, Legion (Kallus might be the only model), or Cygnaran factions. There's a single warcaster in Khador who is an egregious offender, and a faction of gothic-plated knights.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Even if I spent 1/10 of the money on PP that I spent on 40k, that money would be wasted because I have yet to see a single PP model that appeals to me aestheticaly. Simple.

Then you simply hate every model that isn't a Space Marine.

???

I don't like Space Marines models too much. I own Tyranids and CSM Nurgle, also Orks as a joke and pure fun, some loyalist Black Templars too but it's hard not to have them when every starter is full of them. Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much. I also hate GW but for other reasons. They have the taste for sf I give them that even though they rip it all of and twist to fit their universe.

Not sure what you wanted to achieve with that comment, I made mine just after googling the entire Legion of Everblight to see if there's anything to use for my Tyranids but no luck, even that flying snake that seemed to look ok as a miniature pic turned out to have that Warcraftish/ Starcraftish look I can't stand. In fact I didn't want to cut on anyone taste but if you throw Ultramarine Kid bs at me then let me tell you that those Warmachine models look sensless and ridiculous to me just like the happy coloured artwork

I'm not criticising WM rules btw, there is a good chance that they are better than GWs own but there is no contest in models department, WM is a cheap copy imo and lack the grimdark treatment that makes 40k worthwhile. All subjecively ofc, this is just what I think.

Its hard to base an assumption of a model range off of 1 factions models

btw, check Page 8 of the thread below then tell me you dont like any of the Legion models.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/453008.page

 sourclams wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Yes, many of them still do,

The majority of PP models don't even have shoulder armor. There's almost no shoulder armor in the entire Trollblood, Circle, Legion (Kallus might be the only model), or Cygnaran factions. There's a single warcaster in Khador who is an egregious offender, and a faction of gothic-plated knights.

Sorry, I have not stared at my WM collection in a while. I meant the offending models have not gotten better, and still have giant shoulder pads.

The large shoulders don't affect me at all, and there is some shoulder armor in the Trollbloods... my Champs, and Madraks have shoulder armor, but they don't have giant shoulderpads...

Saldiven wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much.

What does that even mean?

Yeah, I'm with you. Unless lack of gratuitous skulls is the American aesthetic, there's just not enough thematic distinction between the two companies' lines to say 'EVERYTHING PP IS BAAAAAAD'.

Yes, even though it's it's subjective, the statement is just too broad to be true for someone who posts on a miniatures gaming forum. It's like me saying that there is nothing in the continent of South America that I would like to eat; surely *something* exists.

I haven't played Warmachine in several years; do the models still have the propensity for ridiculously out of scale shoulder adornment? I remember that Kador warcaster who had shoulderpads so big that an elephant could sneak up on either flank, and he'd not even know it.

Yeah, that dude still looks awful. In general they've rescuplted almost everything from mark 1, and the shoulder pads have shrunk while the legs have grown. Vlads shoulders can't be removed though, they're "iconic".

 ShumaGorath wrote:


Yeah, that dude still looks awful. In general they've rescuplted almost everything from mark 1, and the shoulder pads have shrunk while the legs have grown. Vlads shoulders can't be removed though, they're "iconic".

Aren't eVlad's shoulder pads separate pieces? IE, if you could assemble him without them and he looks much better?

Example:


From this fellow's thread:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?108679-Khador-Black-Dragon-theme

Anyway, I always run into a case where I like some models from a faction, but none of the other ones. It's tough for me to find a faction that has all decent looking models that also performs decent on the table top.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

I don't like Space Marines models too much. I own Tyranids and CSM Nurgle, also Orks as a joke and pure fun, some loyalist Black Templars too but it's hard not to have them when every starter is full of them. Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much. I also hate GW but for other reasons. They have the taste for sf I give them that even though they rip it all of and twist to fit their universe.

Not sure what you wanted to achieve with that comment, I made mine just after googling the entire Legion of Everblight to see if there's anything to use for my Tyranids but no luck, even that flying snake that seemed to look ok as a miniature pic turned out to have that Warcraftish/ Starcraftish look I can't stand. In fact I didn't want to cut on anyone taste but if you throw Ultramarine Kid bs at me then let me tell you that those Warmachine models look sensless and ridiculous to me just like the happy coloured artwork

I'm not criticising WM rules btw, there is a good chance that they are better than GWs own but there is no contest in models department, WM is a cheap copy imo and lack the grimdark treatment that makes 40k worthwhile. All subjecively ofc, this is just what I think.

I would like to comment on your post Plumbumbarum. And dont worry, im not having a go.

Essentially you dislike the aesthetics. Fair enough. each to their own. I find that when someone says they dont play PP games, one of the most common reasons is they dont like "the look". And i wonder about that. A good mate of mine made the point to me once, and its something that has been reinforced the more i talk to more gamers - how much of a dislike of the "look" of PP games (or other companies, by the way) comes from an overexposure to, and an exclusive overexposure to GW games? My mate made the point that before he got into WM years ago, he couldnt stand the PP models. he thought there was something "wrong" with them. And the more he thought about it, the more he realised that it wasnt necessarily the look that was wrong, it was his perception that was simply skewed. When "the norm" is GW, with skulls and power armour (and big shoulders too!) it can be hard to accept different models on their own merit. Sometimes i think the best thing i've ever done as a gamer is to get out from under the exclusive GW umbrella. And we've both done it. we've both invested in alternative companies (mantic, wyrd, corvus beli, privateer press, anima tactics, bushido etc), alternative worlds and visions and to me, the GW "look" is no better, or worse than the PP one. actually, i find the GW look to be a bit "cartoony" these days too, but then i hold Corvus Beli minis to be the best in the industry.

Plumumbarum, i would ask you one thing. Where do you come from with regard to wargaming? Up until now, have you been as above - an exclusive GW customer. Or do you play other games? Im genuinely curious, and im not trying to bait, trap or trip you up. Also, regardless of the dislike of the models - go play the game.i would heartily recommend it. Also, strangely enough, the PP "look" grows on you. PP are infamous for lousy quality photographs. I'll give you 2 examples - epic krueger and epic kaya. look online and the models look boring and blase. look at them in the flesh and they feel a lot nicer, feel more dynamic and leap out at you more.

ALso, i would comment on grimdark. A bit is good, but recently (in the last few years) GW have been ramping up the skull count on literally everything. grimdark can be taken overboard. Also, i feel its nice to have an alternative "world view". please dont hold the iron kingdoms universe to be one of happy coloured artwork. it is quite a grim place. I'd recommend reading up on it - check to see if you can find the Iron Kingdom RPG pdf's online. they really bring the wrodl to life, in all its gritty realism. gritty is as good an alternative as grimdark, if you ask me. just like you can play strategy games and FPSs.

also, regarding the shoulderpads, the top heavy design makes sense when you realise these troops are designed to fight warjacks, which generally fight using overhanded blows. just like mantic dwarves have most of their armour on their heads and shoulders, the same principle applies to vlad and his iron fangs. and who needs peripheral vision! khador only goes forward!

___________________________________________________________________


On PP v GW, i think both companies take a different attitude. GW sell "the hobby". their attitude towards the game is its a social event, and its about 2 guys playing games in a basement. the rules are a bonus. dont like them? do your own. GW games are ones, which ultimately require a lot of self policing to regulate. PP focus is on the game. clear, consise, precisely worded and well balanced mechanics that dont punish you for fielding a certain type of army. Again, different people appreciate both companies for different reasons. neither is right nor wrong. As for me, as a fairly competitively minded individual, what PP offers, simply put, is what i want. other people have their own stance on it.

Regarding the post above mine - when I started looking into the models about 2 years ago I didn't see a model that really appealed to me. All I knew about wargaming at that point was GW. I stumbled across the game when in my local game shop and looked it up. Needless to say I wasn't interested - the models looked like gak and who would I play it with? My friends played LOTR or 40k and the gaming club at school only did 40k.

So when I moved countries, a guy I knew started Warmachine and told me to get it. The models do take some getting used to. But after a while, you begin to really really like them, which is how I've wound up with Circle Orboros. I find that GW's models are more based on fantasy archetypes whilst PP base theirs more on historical ones. It's clear to me that Eldar are elves, Orks are Orcs, Space Wolves are barbarians etc. With Privateer Press, it's clear that Khador are Russian, Cygnar American and Circle Celtic/Brythonic (if you don't like the term Celtic).

My mate made the point that before he got into WM years ago, he couldnt stand the PP models. he thought there was something "wrong" with them. And the more he thought about it, the more he realised that it wasnt necessarily the look that was wrong, it was his perception that was simply skewed. When "the norm" is GW, with skulls and power armour (and big shoulders too!) it can be hard to accept different models on their own merit. Sometimes i think the best thing i've ever done as a gamer is to get out from under the exclusive GW umbrella.

My general assumption is that old PP models were pretty bad. The first run of warjacks are terrible compared to the new sculpts, especially the first run of the first set. I find that players who dislike the visual style of Warmachine tend to be remembering the first run models which were objectively worse than GWs competition. Privateer has gotten demonstrably better in every area, from sculpting, to artistic design, to manufacturing. When you side by side the old and new models there is no comparison.

Artwork what?! PP Artwork is bloody great and consistently PROFESSIONAL! While GW's goes from brillant to cr@p.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

My mate made the point that before he got into WM years ago, he couldnt stand the PP models. he thought there was something "wrong" with them. And the more he thought about it, the more he realised that it wasnt necessarily the look that was wrong, it was his perception that was simply skewed. When "the norm" is GW, with skulls and power armour (and big shoulders too!) it can be hard to accept different models on their own merit. Sometimes i think the best thing i've ever done as a gamer is to get out from under the exclusive GW umbrella.

My general assumption is that old PP models were pretty bad. The first run of warjacks are terrible compared to the new sculpts, especially the first run of the first set. I find that players who dislike the visual style of Warmachine tend to be remembering the first run models which were objectively worse than GWs competition. Privateer has gotten demonstrably better in every area, from sculpting, to artistic design, to manufacturing. When you side by side the old and new models there is no comparison.

They've improved the sculpts of most of the early infantry certainly. I don't agree that the warjacks have improved in any meaningful way, although my only direct exposure is to Cygnar. Cygnar's light jacks in plastic are enormous now for no good reason and with no appreciable improvement in detail. Now my plastic Lancer is as big as my metal Ironclad, which is weak.

As far as the overall look of any line of models goes, while the craft of sculpting has objective qualities, there is no objectively good style of miniatures. "You don't dislike the models, your just a brainwashed fanboi" is not a constructive line of discussion, and really just feeds in to the condescension that tends to permeate these GW vs X threads.

Cygnar's light jacks in plastic are enormous now for no good reason and with no appreciable improvement in detail. Now my plastic Lancer is as big as my metal Ironclad, which is weak.

The ironclad also got a lot bigger in the transition to plastic. The scale of the game moved up a bit overall. I have to disagree with you on the detail bit, the plastic kits are dramatically more detailed than the first run metals.

This mini started me playing warmachine. A powerful female character that's not blown out of proportion. Awesome and realistic armor. I didn't even know that she had a robotic arm until much later, because it was so subtly done. GW doesn't and has never produced a female mini as nice as this.

That's actually a pretty sound point. PP is very generous to the female depictions (in terms of power, not proportions).

Many of the most competitive, and therefore hated, warcasters/warlocks in the setting are female.

Yeah, I play pDeneghra regularly and she's really, really hated. I've taken to playing her with no arc nodes and going for melee assassination with Dene herself. As well as the normal caster's you'd expect her to take down, I've bagged myself an eSkarre, Kromac, Vyros a couple of times, Xerxes and even eButcher once. People rarely ever saw it coming until I started getting a reputation for doing it.

Since then I've started playing eDeneghra as well as she's just mean. So very mean. And both Skarres. They're just hilarious.

Female warcasters = awesome. Even Zerkova now that she has an attachment worth taking.

 whitedragon wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:


Yeah, that dude still looks awful. In general they've rescuplted almost everything from mark 1, and the shoulder pads have shrunk while the legs have grown. Vlads shoulders can't be removed though, they're "iconic".

Aren't eVlad's shoulder pads separate pieces? IE, if you could assemble him without them and he looks much better?

Example:


From this fellow's thread:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?108679-Khador-Black-Dragon-theme

Anyway, I always run into a case where I like some models from a faction, but none of the other ones. It's tough for me to find a faction that has all decent looking models that also performs decent on the table top.

Holy... that looks almost real...

I'm going to chalk this up as:

GW:
-Better miniature range/variety with more unique flavors/armies
-Better setting/fluff for its products. You can enjoy 40k without playing the game, not really true with the PP products.

PP
-Cheaper (Can play an average-sized game for less then GW)
-Better with its consumer base and fanbase (i.e. no wars against fansites or the kind of mean spirited contempt you can get from GW)
-Less broken/random gameplay and rules

I'm going to put actual miniature quality down as equal for both, as Finecast has severe quality issues that lowers GW down. Yes, GW has fantastic mini ranges but you have to factor in the Finecast line as well.

 Harriticus wrote:
I'm going to chalk this up as:

GW:
-Better miniature range/variety with more unique flavors/armies
-Better setting/fluff for its products. You can enjoy 40k without playing the game, not really true with the PP products.

PP
-Cheaper (Can play an average-sized game for less then GW)
-Better with its consumer base and fanbase (i.e. no wars against fansites or the kind of mean spirited contempt you can get from GW)
-Less broken/random gameplay and rules

I'm going to put actual miniature quality down as equal for both, as Finecast has severe quality issues that lowers GW down. Yes, GW has fantastic mini ranges but you have to factor in the Finecast line as well.

PP fluff is AMAZING. Honestly, 40k fluff completely sucks compared to the ongoing and thus involving events of the Warmachine world.
Better range is super subjective. I actually find PP has better variety because Hordes is actually pretty different from Warmachine in terms of looks.

Like others here, my first real wargame exposure was with GW. When one of my buddies started getting WM, I decided to take a look. As we were in the field with only his Rulebook, and Khador book, I didn't really see much I liked. Once I hopped online, I did see the army that was "right" for me aesthetically: Mercenaries.

I will definitely agree with others that the look of PP is something that you have to get used to, or at least I can see many people having it "grow" on them. similar to how the Tyranids grew on me when I was still in 40k.

 Harriticus wrote:
I'm going to chalk this up as:

GW:
-Better setting/fluff for its products. You can enjoy 40k without playing the game, not really true with the PP products.

I don't think that's true with the release of the IKRPG. Doug Seacat is going totally nuts just cranking out the backstory for the IK setting.

Gamesworkshop has the Valkyrie, Vulture gunship and any of the Imperial Guard regiments(especially that of the Elysian Drop troops)

GW wins in model coolness

PresidentOfAsia wrote:
Gamesworkshop has the Valkyrie, Vulture gunship and any of the Imperial Guard regiments(especially that of the Elysian Drop troops)

GW wins in model coolness

Yep, two jets that would burn their own tails off and can't turn and some dudes wearing medieval cotton armor to go in them. Truly the definition of quality.

 Bat Manuel wrote:
This mini started me playing warmachine. A powerful female character that's not blown out of proportion. Awesome and realistic armor. I didn't even know that she had a robotic arm until much later, because it was so subtly done. GW doesn't and has never produced a female mini as nice as this.
<snip>

This brings up something that is a very clear plus for PP, a frankly admirable attribute: by any standard, they have made their game as gender inclusive as possible. I don't mean to sound political, I personally have found the lack of relatable female models in many games, where there is no reason not to include them, mind-boggling.

The breadth of options in WM/Hordes is, to the best of my knowledge, unparalleled. Think, you can play everything from a young girl (Kaya of Circle), to an old crone (The Old Witch of Khador), with everything in-between. The only faction I can think of that doesn't have multiple female warcasters/warlocks to chose from would be... Skorne? I think they only have 2 versions of Makeda, and... Rhule? Which, in fairness, is a sub-faction of a faction (and only has 3 casters at all). To be doubly fair, while Skorne are almost all male casters, Legion is almost all females. To top that off there are a huge number of named female characters below the 'caster level.

Compare this to 40k and... it's like someone at GW headquarters put up a sign outside the door labeled "He-Man Woman Haters Club". The flagship armies are explicitly all male (all variations of Space Marine), with the most prominent female characters either being aliens or religious fanatics (Hmmm.... paging Dr. Freud...). This is not even to mention the occasional recent deviations into downright misogyny, about which the less said, the better.

GW has the addmitedly tough obstacle of required customization in its model lines. It's hard to make a pack of IG with arms and weapons for male and female models equally. Eldar and Dark eldar get around it by having female only units or by having mixed gender units where the only different is the boob plate on the torso. That doesn't really fly with human models.

 Buzzsaw wrote:


The breadth of options in WM/Hordes is, to the best of my knowledge, unparalleled. Think, you can play everything from a young girl (Kaya of Circle), to an old crone (The Old Witch of Khador), with everything in-between. The only faction I can think of that doesn't have multiple female warcasters/warlocks to chose from would be... Skorne? I think they only have 2 versions of Makeda, and... Rhule? Which, in fairness, is a sub-faction of a faction (and only has 3 casters at all). To be doubly fair, while Skorne are almost all male casters, Legion is almost all females. To top that off there are a huge number of named female characters below the 'caster level.

The best game that I can think of off the top of my head for having female leadership type models, is Malifaux. There is a pretty even mix of male/female leaders, and really none of them are women with "anime" proportions. They all have legitimate, human female proportions and for the most part the whole line of female sculpts is quite amazing.


But yeah, I can see how GW has issues with this. Their solution on the human front is to disinclude them entirely (SM and CSM), give some plot armor excuse (IG/Tau), or have a few codex units, and sculpts (eldar and DE). That leaves the "nuns with guns" as really the last true outlet for having any female models in the game, and they seem to be content with throwing that away.

PresidentOfAsia wrote:Gamesworkshop has the Valkyrie, Vulture gunship and any of the Imperial Guard regiments(especially that of the Elysian Drop troops)

GW wins in model coolness

I think he just won the argument

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:


The breadth of options in WM/Hordes is, to the best of my knowledge, unparalleled. Think, you can play everything from a young girl (Kaya of Circle), to an old crone (The Old Witch of Khador), with everything in-between. The only faction I can think of that doesn't have multiple female warcasters/warlocks to chose from would be... Skorne? I think they only have 2 versions of Makeda, and... Rhule? Which, in fairness, is a sub-faction of a faction (and only has 3 casters at all). To be doubly fair, while Skorne are almost all male casters, Legion is almost all females. To top that off there are a huge number of named female characters below the 'caster level.

The best game that I can think of off the top of my head for having female leadership type models, is Malifaux. There is a pretty even mix of male/female leaders, and really none of them are women with "anime" proportions. They all have legitimate, human female proportions and for the most part the whole line of female sculpts is quite amazing.

Lady Justice and Lilith are pretty "anime." Good models though.

Another good argument for PP is that there are a higher percentage of female players.

Its probably always hard to sculpt the female anatomy on a model realistically. There are moulding concerns plus the fact that it's mostly nerdy men making the models

 Bat Manuel wrote:
This mini started me playing warmachine. A powerful female character that's not blown out of proportion. Awesome and realistic armor. I didn't even know that she had a robotic arm until much later, because it was so subtly done. GW doesn't and has never produced a female mini as nice as this.
]

Sorry, the Epic Haley fig isn't anymore impressive than the Saint Celestine from SoB. But that is not that high a bar to pass. I'm personally not impressed with most of GW or PP female character figures. It is especially sad for PP because I have been a huge fan of Matt Wilson's art since his days at AEG and Legend of the Five Rings. I felt that none of the sculptors at PP did any justice to Wilson's art for female figs. All the main females have horrible faces.

There are far more impressive lines with female figs. Malifaux and Infinity spring to mind right away. McVey's line as well. Though in PP's defense, they are improving and they have some nice non-character females.

Though I will agree with Buzzsaw. GW is unfortunately very male centric in it's fiction. How many major female characters are there that aren't fem fatals?

In PP fiction they are main characters driving the world. In GW fiction, they are skinned and worn as hats by Grey Knights

Sorry, the Epic Haley fig isn't anymore impressive than the Saint Celestine from SoB.

Y'know, except for Celestines flat, two dimensional pose and manface.

PP players always tell me "Warmachine only takes between 5-15 models, and you've got an army!". But I don't want to play with 5-15 models, I want to play with 100-200 models.

Simple with me.

and 80 bucks for a starter pack (three models) is just piracy.

Well, if you think of it this way:

You're getting one model and 2 Dreadnoughts.

20 pounds (SM dreadnought) + 20 pounds (SM dreadnought) + 12 pounds (plastic Chaos Aspiring Champion) = 52 pounds = NZ$102.235. Ok, you're not getting all the upgrades and stuff you get in the Dreadnought kit, but that's something to consider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus you get everything you need to start playing (quickstart rules and model profiles). Does GW do that with their paint sets or their battleforces?

 Poppabear wrote:
PP players always tell me "Warmachine only takes between 5-15 models, and you've got an army!". But I don't want to play with 5-15 models, I want to play with 100-200 models.

Simple with me.

and 80 bucks for a starter pack (three models) is just piracy.

Then you should be playing Epic..

Or failing that, Warpath or Kings of War.. Especially in your RoW, you could use the money saved to buy something nice for yourself.. like a new car

Warpath isn't a great game. They made it too much like KoW, which a good game on its own, doesn't have the mechanics that lend to sci-fi. Sci-fi is much more special weapon focused and less grunt focused. I think KoW is a fantastic game that is quick to play and loads of fun, but transferring that game to sci-fi doesn't quite work. Do some rules modifications and you potentially have a great game to broadcast alongside the already great KoW.

There's a 2nd edition out imminently that addresses your concerns.

How about RPG's?

For a company that had its roots in roleplaying games their reboot of the Iron Kingdoms RPG is rather weak. The big book is good fun, if you like fluff and basic rules, because it provides little else, other than telling you to buy-buy-buy NQ magazine for stuff like scenarios and enemies for encounters, which the big book either doesn't have in case of scenarios, or just a few pages of baddies. Compare this to Dark Heresy, as done by the now dead and gone Black Industries.. It has everything to run games from the get-go!

 BrookM wrote:
How about RPG's?

For a company that had its roots in roleplaying games their reboot of the Iron Kingdoms RPG is rather weak. The big book is good fun, if you like fluff and basic rules, because it provides little else, other than telling you to buy-buy-buy NQ magazine for stuff like scenarios and enemies for encounters, which the big book either doesn't have in case of scenarios, or just a few pages of baddies. Compare this to Dark Heresy, as done by the now dead and gone Black Industries.. It has everything to run games from the get-go!

The 40K RPG's are actively published by Fantasy Flight, and Rogue Trader is probably one of my favourite games ever, due in no small part to how their sourcebooks give the universe that sense of mystery, bigness and awesome back that I remember from second edition. Though I'm not sure if you can count that as a plus for GW, since I don't know how much input they still have into the FFG writing, if any.

Also, I can't speak for Dark Heresy, but Rogue Trader had a total of one short intro adventure in the corebook, and to get other pre-made ones, you needed to buy pricey hardback books (rather than a magazine). The rest was, well, rules and fluff.

It's not really fair to compare a line of RPGs that came out all of a few weeks ago with one that's been out for years.

Gentlemen, I am comparing starter books: IKRPG and Dark Heresy, not comparing ranges of sourcebooks and whatnots. I should've probably been clearer in this. Dark Heresy had quite a bestiary and quite a starting adventure in the main book, the IKRPG book doesn't.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Sorry, the Epic Haley fig isn't anymore impressive than the Saint Celestine from SoB.

Y'know, except for Celestines flat, two dimensional pose and manface.

No, quality of the face is the same on both. I have seen very impressive paint jobs on the Celestine that improved it over GW's original, but I haven't seen any that really improved the Epic Haley.

But I already stated that neither fig was that impressive.

If you want to put out a comparison, I personally think the best non-tart female figs put out by either company are Nicia and the Kayazy Eliminators.




Now my favorite fig overall is the Dark Eldar Lhamean, but she falls more under Fem'Fatal catagory.



@BrookM
I wouldn't really compare RPGs. GW abandoned Dark Heresy after the first printing and really being supported by a third party now. GW has a lot of input on the Dark Heresy series and is one of the reasons why material can be slow coming out from FFG at times.
GW did put out one of the best RPGs with the original WHFRPG. The Enemy Within campaign is really one of the best series out there. But again, GW abandoned that line because it didn't help sell miniatures.

 BrookM wrote:
How about RPG's?

For a company that had its roots in roleplaying games their reboot of the Iron Kingdoms RPG is rather weak. The big book is good fun, if you like fluff and basic rules, because it provides little else, other than telling you to buy-buy-buy NQ magazine for stuff like scenarios and enemies for encounters, which the big book either doesn't have in case of scenarios, or just a few pages of baddies. Compare this to Dark Heresy, as done by the now dead and gone Black Industries.. It has everything to run games from the get-go!

For some like me, no scenarios and light on enemies is a big plus. I don't need my hand held to RPG. Now a 1 on 1 tactial game, that needs a soild rule set. One where the people playing don't need to guess what the rule means.

No, quality of the face is the same on both.

Nope.jpeg

Noir wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
How about RPG's?

For a company that had its roots in roleplaying games their reboot of the Iron Kingdoms RPG is rather weak. The big book is good fun, if you like fluff and basic rules, because it provides little else, other than telling you to buy-buy-buy NQ magazine for stuff like scenarios and enemies for encounters, which the big book either doesn't have in case of scenarios, or just a few pages of baddies. Compare this to Dark Heresy, as done by the now dead and gone Black Industries.. It has everything to run games from the get-go!

For some like me, no scenarios and light on enemies is a big plus. I don't need my hand held to RPG. Now a 1 on 1 tactial game, that needs a soild rule set. One where the people playing don't need to guess what the rule means.

There are a good amount of the IKRPG stuff on PP website for free as PDF download too.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

No, quality of the face is the same on both.

Nope.jpeg

Nicely summing up your overall contribution to this thread.

 Alfndrate wrote:


Were you in the middle of your attack when Dice Down was called?

I was not, I had just finished my attacks with Behemoth and was about to declare them with my Destroyer when it was called :(
Had LOS, aiming bonus, 2 focus...it was going to be sweet victory.

Sadly it wasn't Deathclock because I probably would have won with how long he was taking.

 plastictrees wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

No, quality of the face is the same on both.

Nope.jpeg

Nicely summing up your overall contribution to this thread.

I meet the quality of the posts I respond to. When they use golden demon winning paintjobs as a reason why the sculpt on something isn't demonstrably worse than the competition it doesn't deserve a very lengthy response.

 Bat Manuel wrote:
realistic armor

Ah ah ah, seriously, good joke, good joke.

Don't really like the PP models I've seen so far, that Vlade guy has slowed pauldrons, even compared to Space Marines, gotta say Victoria's alright tho, checking on the PP site leaves me unimpressed, to be honest, don't hate the models, but don't really do anything to me.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

No, quality of the face is the same on both.

Nope.jpeg

Nicely summing up your overall contribution to this thread.

I meet the quality of the posts I respond to. When they use golden demon winning paintjobs as a reason why the sculpt on something isn't demonstrably worse than the competition it doesn't deserve a very lengthy response.

Yes because you can't prove me wrong, so you resort to mockery. Trait of a lost argument. Bravo.

Surely you can show a clearer picture to prove me wrong. I have seen both figs in the pewter and made my decision on them being in front of me. Neither fig is that impressive and both have similar quality faces.

As I said both companies have a steady ratio of hit and miss figs... as for girls sculpts PP has a little edge there but not by much, at least they have plenty of girls on their factions that dont look like drags... but neither both companies come close to the sexyness girls of Hasslefree, freebooter and infinity chicks... speaking of freebooters some of the gals on PP are sculpted by them.

And because a thread without pics means nothing check these out...

pp






gw






PP does have more females on their ranges than GW...

 NAVARRO wrote:
As I said both companies have a steady ratio of hit and miss figs... as for girls sculpts PP has a little edge there but not by much, at least they have plenty of girls on their factions that dont look like drags... but neither both companies come close to the sexyness girls of Hasslefree, freebooter and infinity chicks... speaking of freebooters some of the gals on PP are sculpted by them.

And because a thread without pics means nothing check these out...

Lots of awesomness

Navarro, don't disagree with you and wasn't saying that there weren't any good female figures in PP line, let alone no good paint-jobs. But to get dismissive that painting can't contribute to decision is wrong. There are plenty of figs from both lines they looked average, but were improved by a paint job outside the studio. It's almost a given that GW stuido paint jobs don't help sell a fig and even hurt them in more recent cases (plastic Savage Orcs for starters). ShumaGorath can't seem to accept that that a PP fig is average and on par with a GW fig.

A big plus to PP though, they do contract work with the sculptors of those other lines you mention

Heck it was the Hordes Drinking Druid GenCon exclusive that convinced me to back Patrick Keith's Kickstarter

GW unfortunately does not outsource their sculpting to those guys. They have Juan Diaz, but sadly GW doesn't hand many of their female figs over to him. Jes Goodwin complained he makes all his females too sexy

silent25 wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

No, quality of the face is the same on both.

Nope.jpeg

Nicely summing up your overall contribution to this thread.

I meet the quality of the posts I respond to. When they use golden demon winning paintjobs as a reason why the sculpt on something isn't demonstrably worse than the competition it doesn't deserve a very lengthy response.

Yes because you can't prove me wrong, so you resort to mockery. Trait of a lost argument. Bravo.

Surely you can show a clearer picture to prove me wrong. I have seen both figs in the pewter and made my decision on them being in front of me. Neither fig is that impressive and both have similar quality faces.

You want me to prove you wrong in a purely subjective argument? That involves either coercion or duress, I don't feel like driving today. I can't "lose" this argument, and you're arguing bs. Paintjobs can't improve the sculpt on a model anymore than they can improve the sound from a radio. The totality of the presence of a thing is the sum of it's existence, it's individual traits don't improve upon another, that's not how it works. If the paintjob improved the sculpt that would mean the sculpt would be better, and by that logic would improve the paintjob. If the paintjob was then better it would improve the sculpt. That's a fundamentally broken way to look at the world, and one that you were exhibiting when I thought you were nkelsch.

Hummm, no I disagree.

Any surface can be changed with the very old painters technique (Trompe-l'œil) to create a optimal illusion of something.

If a 2d brick wall can gain dimensions imagine a 3d miniature... heck even photograph fiddling can change miniatures appearance.

As for Jes goodwin comments.... errr he should try that then because so far GW has only rare few examples.

Any surface can be changed with the very old painters technique (Trompe-l'œil) to create a optimal illusion of something.

No one is using Trompe-l'œil on their Celestine model.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Any surface can be changed with the very old painters technique (Trompe-l'œil) to create a optimal illusion of something.

No one is using Trompe-l'œil on their Celestine model.

No, but you are using these arguments...

Paintjobs can't improve the sculpt on a model

Which I disagree.

silent25 wrote:...
There are far more impressive lines with female figs. Malifaux and Infinity spring to mind right away. McVey's line as well. Though in PP's defense, they are improving and they have some nice non-character females.

Though I will agree with Buzzsaw. GW is unfortunately very male centric in it's fiction. How many major female characters are there that aren't fem fatals?

In PP fiction they are main characters driving the world. In GW fiction, they are skinned and worn as hats by Grey Knights

NAVARRO wrote:As I said both companies have a steady ratio of hit and miss figs... as for girls sculpts PP has a little edge there but not by much, at least they have plenty of girls on their factions that dont look like drags... but neither both companies come close to the sexyness girls of Hasslefree, freebooter and infinity chicks... speaking of freebooters some of the gals on PP are sculpted by them.

PP does have more females on their ranges than GW...

There are two sort-of related issues here: first, the quality of the sculpts in the lines, and second, the existence, or, perhaps better, the impact of females in their respective settings.

The quality of the sculpts is very variable on a per figure level, and, as has been pointed out, neither GW nor PP are at the highest end of producing sculpts for such things. Between Reaper, Kingdom Death, Bombshell, and other smaller makers there is an explosion of figures out there, many of higher quality then GW (although as noted, recent PP sculpts are showing marked improvement).

The second point is more the thrust of what I think is most important. Anyone can (in an informal setting) substitute a Raging Heroes Commissar for a stock, or a sci-fi armored trooper woman for an inquisitor lord, or a steampunk figure for a warcaster. But in PP's games, you don't need to. You don't have to invent female characters or indulge in long, convoluted explanations for why a woman appears in a particular army, because it's simply presupposed that there will be women in any given army. As Silent points out, in PP's Iron Kingdoms setting, women are driving the setting forward alongside the men (and genderless abominations, etc), their impact on the story subject only to the usual restrictions of the genre.

The difference there is that when you do that with most GW armies, you're ignoring the background and story; inserting a woman into a setting where the authors have consciously and deliberately excluded women.

silent25 wrote:Navarro, don't disagree with you and wasn't saying that there weren't any good female figures in PP line, let alone no good paint-jobs. But to get dismissive that painting can't contribute to decision is wrong. There are plenty of figs from both lines they looked average, but were improved by a paint job outside the studio. It's almost a given that GW stuido paint jobs don't help sell a fig and even hurt them in more recent cases (plastic Savage Orcs for starters). ShumaGorath can't seem to accept that that a PP fig is average and on par with a GW fig.

I honestly don't understand what you are saying here. As I interpret it, you're saying that seeing a model with a good studio paint job makes the figure a better model then one that is shown with a poor paint job... which I don't understand, as you won't end up buying a figure that's painted, but one that is bare metal/resin/etc.

To be honest, it would seem rather the opposite: a figure, such as, for the sake of argument, Celestine, that has a large expanse of flat cloak, provides a canvas for an expert painter to show off their freehand skills. For a painter of my skill, however, it's a negative, as large, blank stretches of fabric are one of the most boring and most difficult things to make look good at my skill level.

Put another way, a model with an amazing paint job is a singular work of art. It does not seem to me to translate to making the medium on which it is placed any better then a gorgeous painting on one canvas makes an identical but blank canvas better.

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

Actually everyone that paints a mini is doing it to a certain degree... If you paint cloth with texture, freehands to simulate volumes, highlights,shadows on just parts of the mini etc etc you are doing it...As for the rest of your so polite speech Background noise.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

Actually everyone that paints a mini is doing it to a certain degree... If you paint cloth with texture, freehands to simulate volumes, highlights,shadows on just parts of the mini etc etc you are doing it...As for the rest of your so polite speech Background noise.

Which doesn't have gak to do with the sculpt itself. You can paint a nice, 3d looking, picture on a piece of canvas. It doesn't make the canvas a different shape.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

Actually everyone that paints a mini is doing it to a certain degree... If you paint cloth with texture, freehands to simulate volumes, highlights,shadows on just parts of the mini etc etc you are doing it...As for the rest of your so polite speech Background noise.

Which doesn't have gak to do with the sculpt itself. You can paint a nice, 3d looking, picture on a piece of canvas. It doesn't make the canvas a different shape.

But your perception of the shape itself differs... and thats the point. But do you want to be picky? You can add textures to your paints on a canvas and on a mini, pigments etc... so yes it changes the final shape...

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

Actually everyone that paints a mini is doing it to a certain degree... If you paint cloth with texture, freehands to simulate volumes, highlights,shadows on just parts of the mini etc etc you are doing it...As for the rest of your so polite speech Background noise.

Which doesn't have gak to do with the sculpt itself. You can paint a nice, 3d looking, picture on a piece of canvas. It doesn't make the canvas a different shape.

But your perception of the shape itself differs... and thats the point. But do you want to be picky? You can add textures to your paints on a canvas and on a mini, pigments etc... so yes it changes the final shape...

It doesn't change the final shape, because the final shape is exactly the same. You can obscure bad parts of sculpts with good painting (the fact that people have done good looking Mantic skeletons attests to this), but when you ignore the paint and look at just the sculpt, a terrible sculpt is still there.

What you are doing is altering peoples perception of the sculpt - not improving the sculpt itself. And if someone looks past your painting, they'll see the flawed model. As for changing the final shape... what? No.

Example... a tank totally flat... you use masks to actually chip paint and some heavy mud migs pastes etc... is the final shape the same? But thats being picky... normal painting can create illusions and the thing is your perception of a sculpt does change and thats the point....

Someone talked canvas... when you look at a painted canvas do you for a second think on the canvas itself? Never right? thats the same thing with minis painted by experts.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

Actually everyone that paints a mini is doing it to a certain degree... If you paint cloth with texture, freehands to simulate volumes, highlights,shadows on just parts of the mini etc etc you are doing it...As for the rest of your so polite speech Background noise.

Which doesn't have gak to do with the sculpt itself. You can paint a nice, 3d looking, picture on a piece of canvas. It doesn't make the canvas a different shape.

But your perception of the shape itself differs... and thats the point. But do you want to be picky? You can add textures to your paints on a canvas and on a mini, pigments etc... so yes it changes the final shape...

I'm gonna repost something I said to silent, since apparently no one ever read it.

Paintjobs can't improve the sculpt on a model anymore than they can improve the sound from a radio. The totality of the presence of a thing is the sum of it's existence, it's individual traits don't improve upon another, that's not how it works.

And I could quote the rest of the posts after that... great thing hey?

And to end this line of arguments because they are a bit off topic...

Here's a simple flat canvas.... and how diferent techs DO change not only the appearance but also the final shape....

http://ultrawerke.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/rust-painting-tutorial-with-pigments.html

And I'm not even adding that these minis are presented to you in 2d in your PC screen so even a greater deal of manipulation can be used. But I will stop here.

Obviously for the most part paint is not a magic morph water but it changes your final perception of something and it can enhance or not your idea of the sculpt, canvas, brick wall etc Thats what paintings DO!

 NAVARRO wrote:
And I could quote the rest of the posts after that... great thing hey?

You probably should. Read them afterwords, you'll finally be caught up on this thread. You must not be, otherwise you wouldn't use my own argument to do something other than agree with me.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, This is something i keep seeing at my FLGS and sometimes here on the site:

Privateer Press vs. Games Workshop.

That is all.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

There are two sort-of related issues here: first, the quality of the sculpts in the lines, and second, the existence, or, perhaps better, the impact of females in their respective settings.

The quality of the sculpts is very variable on a per figure level, and, as has been pointed out, neither GW nor PP are at the highest end of producing sculpts for such things. Between Reaper, Kingdom Death, Bombshell, and other smaller makers there is an explosion of figures out there, many of higher quality then GW (although as noted, recent PP sculpts are showing marked improvement).

This whole argument was in response to ShumaGorath saying that the Celestine has a mannish face. Which it doesn't. Point I'm try to make that there are paint jobs out there that are better than the official GW which shows it has a decent face. If it is such a horrible fig as he insists, then why do so many professional painters use this particular fig and show it in a positive light? He continues to insist it is a bad fig. I say it is on par with the Epic Haley and both are only average.

To say the paint job does not factor into figure quality is wrong. A bad paint job can obscure and hide details, or worse leave a figure looking bland. There are plenty of times I did not see certain small details on a fig till after the paint went down. If painting didn't matter all the miniature sellers would only show unpainted resin/plastic/metal and not bother hiring skilled painters to show their figs in the best light. Yes a great paint job can only help a bad fig so much, but a bad paint job can ruin the best figs and given we base our initial opinions of figs on the official paint jobs companies release. I say it is valid. I have seen way too many figs dismissed because of the "official" paint job, only to turn out it is a great fig after some other painters get their hands on it.

I think GW does itself a disservice with the minimal paint by the number approach they have adopted recently. Though I'm more disturbed with the 3D paints Wyrd and Spartan have started doing. It's one thing to realize that a great looking fig was done by someone of far higher skill than you, it is another to realize that the great looking paint job you see doesn't actually exist.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

The second point is more the thrust of what I think is most important. Anyone can (in an informal setting) substitute a Raging Heroes Commissar for a stock, or a sci-fi armored trooper woman for an inquisitor lord, or a steampunk figure for a warcaster. But in PP's games, you don't need to. You don't have to invent female characters or indulge in long, convoluted explanations for why a woman appears in a particular army, because it's simply presupposed that there will be women in any given army. As Silent points out, in PP's Iron Kingdoms setting, women are driving the setting forward alongside the men (and genderless abominations, etc), their impact on the story subject only to the usual restrictions of the genre.

The difference there is that when you do that with most GW armies, you're ignoring the background and story; inserting a woman into a setting where the authors have consciously and deliberately excluded women.

I think you are mixing a previous argument I had with figure substitutions in general. The argument had come forward that PP has put out better female models (the Epic Haley was used as an example, which I think is a poor figure to base the argument around). Navarro and I were arguing both companies put out good female figs, but both have put out poor female figs too.

But don't dismiss players that put in different figures to create personal/unique narratives. The GW armybooks has little fluff notes and history of other characters that they don't make figures/rules for and have encouraged players to take these stories as inspiration for unique armies. But that goes back to the whole conversions/alternate figure argument. I feel it is a part of the hobby that PP discourages in the name of gameplay. I think that is a detriment to the hobby, other feel it strengthens the game. If gameplay is your main concern, then obviously you don't want to have such things in a WMH game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
And I could quote the rest of the posts after that... great thing hey?

You probably should. Read them afterwords, you'll finally be caught up on this thread. You must not be, otherwise you wouldn't use my own argument to do something other than agree with me.

Says the man who spent two pages arguing with me because he thought I was someone else

This whole argument was in response to ShumaGorath saying that the Celestine has a mannish face.

I think my biggest issue with the sculpt is that each eyesocket is larger than her mouth. They're also set a bit too high due to their size, which makes her scalp and forehead disproportionately small. They also seep into the side of her head (again due to their size). They're creepy big. That doesn't really make her face mannish (that's more due to the nose and lack of definition in depth), but they're what kill the model for me.

 sourclams wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much.

What does that even mean?

Yeah, I'm with you. Unless lack of gratuitous skulls is the American aesthetic, there's just not enough thematic distinction between the two companies' lines to say 'EVERYTHING PP IS BAAAAAAD'.

Yes, even though it's it's subjective, the statement is just too broad to be true for someone who posts on a miniatures gaming forum. It's like me saying that there is nothing in the continent of South America that I would like to eat; surely *something* exists.

To answer both of you, I meant that nice roundness, that modern correct sf style, shouldn't have thrown entire USA in there instead of just Starcraft I guess. I used a wrong word maybe but it's something I see a lot in US movies, games, artwork etc nowadays, not that easy for me to name it btw. Also the comparision of 40k with Warmachine reminds me of the one of 40k with Starcraft, that's mainly why I made the generalisation -I guess I see it as an American too nice interpretation of "rule of cool", one that does not appeal to me.

Anyway bad wording, Warcraftish/ Starcraftish is better (still oversimplification though obviously)

Deadnight wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

I don't like Space Marines models too much. I own Tyranids and CSM Nurgle, also Orks as a joke and pure fun, some loyalist Black Templars too but it's hard not to have them when every starter is full of them. Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much. I also hate GW but for other reasons. They have the taste for sf I give them that even though they rip it all of and twist to fit their universe.

Not sure what you wanted to achieve with that comment, I made mine just after googling the entire Legion of Everblight to see if there's anything to use for my Tyranids but no luck, even that flying snake that seemed to look ok as a miniature pic turned out to have that Warcraftish/ Starcraftish look I can't stand. In fact I didn't want to cut on anyone taste but if you throw Ultramarine Kid bs at me then let me tell you that those Warmachine models look sensless and ridiculous to me just like the happy coloured artwork

I'm not criticising WM rules btw, there is a good chance that they are better than GWs own but there is no contest in models department, WM is a cheap copy imo and lack the grimdark treatment that makes 40k worthwhile. All subjecively ofc, this is just what I think.

I would like to comment on your post Plumbumbarum. And dont worry, im not having a go.

Sure my post was crossing the line of cuting on PP fans tastes, I shouldn't be suprised even if you actualy did have a go at me. Great of you and others to stay nice/ cultural btw.

Also that's much off topic but it's really hard to criticise something you dislike strongly without insulting peoples tastes. Today I had this conversation about a much known celebrity guy who I considered a complete tool, a sleazy and narcistic boor without a backbone who is considered a great laid back guy by my friends. It ended bad with them all feeling accused of being sleazy themselves and unable to recognise good culture etc. Maybe I'm just too wordy.

Deadnight wrote:
Essentially you dislike the aesthetics. Fair enough. each to their own. I find that when someone says they dont play PP games, one of the most common reasons is they dont like "the look". And i wonder about that. A good mate of mine made the point to me once, and its something that has been reinforced the more i talk to more gamers - how much of a dislike of the "look" of PP games (or other companies, by the way) comes from an overexposure to, and an exclusive overexposure to GW games? My mate made the point that before he got into WM years ago, he couldnt stand the PP models. he thought there was something "wrong" with them. And the more he thought about it, the more he realised that it wasnt necessarily the look that was wrong, it was his perception that was simply skewed. When "the norm" is GW, with skulls and power armour (and big shoulders too!) it can be hard to accept different models on their own merit. Sometimes i think the best thing i've ever done as a gamer is to get out from under the exclusive GW umbrella. And we've both done it. we've both invested in alternative companies (mantic, wyrd, corvus beli, privateer press, anima tactics, bushido etc), alternative worlds and visions and to me, the GW "look" is no better, or worse than the PP one. actually, i find the GW look to be a bit "cartoony" these days too, but then i hold Corvus Beli minis to be the best in the industry.

Not in my case for sure, I know my taste. I'll give you example from video games - I love Dead Space, I dislike Mass Effect. It's not only about models, it's about the mood, artwork etc - 40k sucks me in within seconds, WM artwork, mood or models don't.

Deadnight wrote:
Plumumbarum, i would ask you one thing. Where do you come from with regard to wargaming? Up until now, have you been as above - an exclusive GW customer. Or do you play other games? Im genuinely curious, and im not trying to bait, trap or trip you up. Also, regardless of the dislike of the models - go play the game.i would heartily recommend it. Also, strangely enough, the PP "look" grows on you. PP are infamous for lousy quality photographs. I'll give you 2 examples - epic krueger and epic kaya. look online and the models look boring and blase. look at them in the flesh and they feel a lot nicer, feel more dynamic and leap out at you more.

I play only 40k TT but have played numerous P&P RPGs for years, also boardgames, video games, ccgs,the old nerd some might say and I can instantly say what I like and what I don't. I'm not denying the fact that WM world could grow on me, but it would never grow enough on me to buy miniatures. It's similar to how I can try Starcraft and maybe even like the game itself but I can say now I won't be researching it further and the artwork and style is off putting to me. 40k is the only universe and game combined that can make me spend such a money on it, you would need a very close copy with some really big adventage (like rules that are actualy good ) to make me switch.

I admit the shark guy from Legion of Everblight is almost apealing, still not there for me though and still way behind a Carnifex, or Tyrant, or any modern Tyranid model basicaly.

Deadnight wrote:
ALso, i would comment on grimdark. A bit is good, but recently (in the last few years) GW have been ramping up the skull count on literally everything. grimdark can be taken overboard. Also, i feel its nice to have an alternative "world view". please dont hold the iron kingdoms universe to be one of happy coloured artwork. it is quite a grim place. I'd recommend reading up on it - check to see if you can find the Iron Kingdom RPG pdf's online. they really bring the wrodl to life, in all its gritty realism. gritty is as good an alternative as grimdark, if you ask me. just like you can play strategy games and FPSs.

There is another thing, if I was done with 40k, I would probably never go through a hassle of researching a new vast fluff of a wargame. 40k already occupies too much place in my head. I can read a novel but that's it really, I'm out tbh as far as new universes go unless it's something that makes darkest 40k and cthulhu mythos seem likea fairy tale. That said I'm not suggesting you're not right or that it's not a good alternative in general, it's just not for me.

Deadnight wrote:
also, regarding the shoulderpads, the top heavy design makes sense when you realise these troops are designed to fight warjacks, which generally fight using overhanded blows. just like mantic dwarves have most of their armour on their heads and shoulders, the same principle applies to vlad and his iron fangs. and who needs peripheral vision! khador only goes forward!

I don't have the issue with shoulder pads, 40k had them as well.

To sum it up, it's not my thing. Also here's my earlier post where I mention "bad parody of 40k" element to PP models and although badly worded, I feel something like that from their models. It's like they were on the early stage of combining all those motives together and the effect is, I don't know, incoherent I guess. Maybe that's about trying to look like 40k and the same time differentiate from 40k.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Gnawer wrote:
Tactical flexibility is also not great.

That's what I would say about 40k. Tactical flexibility should be their priority and with 100+ pages of rules, possibilities should be plenty and a game should be a tacitian wet dream. It's not, it's mediocore ruleset especialy looking at prices.

40k is also going downhill imo, as highlighted by cheesy necrons and It seems to be leaving grimdark for fantasy/ herohammer and caters to kids more than ever, GW seems unaware of the fact that it's gritty, grimdark that is the greatest feat of their game. Rules of 6th are not exactly promising either, if the trends continue, I'm out just am waiting to see if maybe they change direction. For the moment I'm only buying used stuff, some of their paints, bought a starter lately but that's it, it will take a few good codices or faqs to make me buy from them again.

Btw there was dark age of comic books mentioned, yes exactly dark is better and the new tone of those stories was catering to adults where the previous ones were purely for kids. Blood, slaughter, hopelessness, facism, coruption, fanatism, untold billions dying, terror, all great and makes 40k stand above the rest for me. Mixing that with awesome things stolen from everywhere around, through blatant IP theft and OTT grimdark treatment GW created something great, imo. That instead of going further in that direction they ruin it is another topic, for me it's still acceptable but their fear of bleeding some money for the sake of awesome is going to bury the game sooner or later.

That said, as much as I hate GW, for me it's 40k or nothing. It's exactly what I want, fluff, scale or game type wise. If Gw pisses me off too much, I'll be done with wargaming and just stick to PC games. Or maybe I'll just write my own rules for home play, or settle with a set of rules codieces and organise a game from time to time.

As for Warmachine, the models, fluff and the mood instantly put me off. I'm not competing for player base or some other crap, this is purely my impression. The artwork has those American style curves, that nice roundness and happy colors that I can't stand, also it looks like a bad parody of 40k imo. Some of my friends like that "modern American comic book" look but I hate it, I can't look at Starcraft artwork for example without seeing that cheap "coolness" or sth, I don't even know how to call it. The final straw is the lack of grimdark. My opinion and my taste obviously, I have nothing against the players or the game, if 40k runs out of players that will be GW fault not people playing other games or switching because they can't put up with the crap anymore.

TLDR: Grimdark FTW

Again, I don't want to invalidate things you enjoy people, I know a guy that laughs each time he sees anything 40k so that goes both ways I guess, taste and all. What I wanted to point out is that 40k is very much suited to me and for me PP as a competition might as well not exist. Good they are around for the sake of dragging GW down to earth but that's it, no way I switch.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

This whole argument was in response to ShumaGorath saying that the Celestine has a mannish face.

I think my biggest issue with the sculpt is that each eyesocket is larger than her mouth. They're also set a bit too high due to their size, which makes her scalp and forehead disproportionately small. They also seep into the side of her head (again due to their size). They're creepy big. That doesn't really make her face mannish (that's more due to the nose and lack of definition in depth), but they're what kill the model for me.

Agree the eyes are large than normal, though that is not uncommon in some figs. Freebooter figs all have these wide eyes, but obviously done better. Still don't think the face is mannish due to nose and depth. But again, wasn't arguing the was a great fig. Just average.

You want mannish, the High Elf Mage, now that is mannish:

 BrookM wrote:
Gentlemen, I am comparing starter books: IKRPG and Dark Heresy, not comparing ranges of sourcebooks and whatnots. I should've probably been clearer in this. Dark Heresy had quite a bestiary and quite a starting adventure in the main book, the IKRPG book doesn't.

Just to pick up on this, there's an intro IKRPG adventure free on the PP website: http://files.privateerpress.com/ironkingdoms/documents/adventures/IKRPG_Scenario_Fools_Rush_In.pdf

There's also an expanded bestiary here as well.

Everytime I consider PP I go to the page and start looking at the models and very, very few do anything for me. And because I have no interest in the aesthetics I doubt I'll ever have much interest in the game itself.

If an aesthetic is cool I'll pick up a few miniatures and then might play the game. Dystopian Wars is a good example of this. So is Dropzone Commander, the new Sedition Wars stuff, and the new Dream-Forge stuff. But I can't enjoy the look I'm not going to go thru the effort to paint them at this point which takes some of the fun out.

That said I can see why it appeals to some and good on them. I'm glad there are enough games out there for everyone.

 Spyder68 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Even if I spent 1/10 of the money on PP that I spent on 40k, that money would be wasted because I have yet to see a single PP model that appeals to me aestheticaly. Simple.

Then you simply hate every model that isn't a Space Marine.

???

I don't like Space Marines models too much. I own Tyranids and CSM Nurgle, also Orks as a joke and pure fun, some loyalist Black Templars too but it's hard not to have them when every starter is full of them. Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much. I also hate GW but for other reasons. They have the taste for sf I give them that even though they rip it all of and twist to fit their universe.

Not sure what you wanted to achieve with that comment, I made mine just after googling the entire Legion of Everblight to see if there's anything to use for my Tyranids but no luck, even that flying snake that seemed to look ok as a miniature pic turned out to have that Warcraftish/ Starcraftish look I can't stand. In fact I didn't want to cut on anyone taste but if you throw Ultramarine Kid bs at me then let me tell you that those Warmachine models look sensless and ridiculous to me just like the happy coloured artwork

I'm not criticising WM rules btw, there is a good chance that they are better than GWs own but there is no contest in models department, WM is a cheap copy imo and lack the grimdark treatment that makes 40k worthwhile. All subjecively ofc, this is just what I think.

Its hard to base an assumption of a model range off of 1 factions models

btw, check Page 8 of the thread below then tell me you dont like any of the Legion models.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/453008.page

I don't, tbh. The big winged wolfish guy is not ultra bad but there still is something wrong with him, he just doesn't fit together to me. It looks like many awesome ideas glued together to make a creature that just doesn't make much sense (in a bad way).

The one from opening post there is the closest to what I'd consider a good model

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=53918

I still don't like the overall style but the idea is neat - a walking shark guy. I could picture it converted into a 40k daemon.

I don't, tbh. The big winged wolfish guy is not ultra bad but there still is something wrong with him, he just doesn't fit together to me. It looks like many awesome ideas glued together to make a creature that just doesn't make much sense (in a bad way).

That is my exact sentiment towards about half of all GW models, especially the majority of imperial vehicles. It's like they just throw gak into their designs without even a minimal level of design logic. Turrets with hatches that can't be used by the occupants, flyers that could never fly and would destroy themselves in the attempt, marines that can't turn their waists or use the giant iron sites on their guns, tau vehicles with jet intakes two feet from the exit hatch, A robot with a man piloting it in a little rollercoaster seat who is in terminator armor but still doesn't have a helmet, Carnifexes with no possible posing to prevent them from having their center of mass in front of the feet, etc.

In the end this is all just personal preference, but GW is not the company to be a fan of when you want consistent design logic.

But you can generally wave things away with 40k models because it's sci-fi. Can't do that as easily with steam punk

 Hulksmash wrote:
But you can generally wave things away with 40k models because it's sci-fi. Can't do that as easily with steam punk

I'm not sure why you would wave away scopes on flamers and tanks that couldn't drive over curbs in a sci fi setting, but you're not allowed to in a setting where the primary driving force for technology is actually magic. One of those is a bit more of a handwave than the other and one setting is demonstrably worse despite having less of an excuse.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't, tbh. The big winged wolfish guy is not ultra bad but there still is something wrong with him, he just doesn't fit together to me. It looks like many awesome ideas glued together to make a creature that just doesn't make much sense (in a bad way).

That is my exact sentiment towards about half of all GW models, especially the majority of imperial vehicles. It's like they just throw gak into their designs without even a minimal level of design logic. Turrets with hatches that can't be used by the occupants, flyers that could never fly and would destroy themselves in the attempt, marines that can't turn their waists or use the giant iron sites on their guns, tau vehicles with jet intakes two feet from the exit hatch, A robot with a man piloting it in a little rollercoaster seat who is in terminator armor but still doesn't have a helmet, Carnifexes with no possible posing to prevent them from having their center of mass in front of the feet, etc.

In the end this is all just personal preference, but GW is not the company to be a fan of when you want consistent design logic.

I didn't mean practical or realistic. Vendetta is great, Imperial tanks are great, Carnifex is great etc, in 40k rule of cool>all and I'm fine with it. The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic. It is just not cool, makes no impression on me and is rather like a few different cool creatures badly merged into one. It is the inside logic of cool that is broken there, creating the uninspiring and characterless monster which is something that's hard to say about Carnifex.

btw I love many sensless creatures like for example the entire Lovecraftian pack of outworld horrors, they wouldn't make a lot of sense if confronted with science but they look menacing, evil and outworld.

I won't defend Tau though, they don't fit the mood with Crisis Suits and should be devoured or chopped to death asap imo

Vendetta is great,

The vendetta is one of the worst aircraft designs I had seen in my life up until when the stormraven came out.

Imperial tanks are great

In that way that the room is a great movie because of it's flaws, not despite them.

Carnifex is great etc

They take a lot of work to make look not dumb. It's doable, but it's hard.

in 40k rule of cool>all and I'm fine with it. The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic.

So your argument boils down to "I forgive the flaws of the things that I like because I like them, but the flaws in things I don't like are unforgiveable because I don't already like them."

That's kinda what it seemed from the beginning to be honest, it's just nice that you up and admit it.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
That is my exact sentiment towards about half of all GW models, especially the majority of imperial vehicles. It's like they just throw gak into their designs without even a minimal level of design logic. Turrets with hatches that can't be used by the occupants,

You seriously can't level that complaint at GW without levelling it at PP as well. Like the shoulder guns on the Stormwall. Want to complain about the turret of a Leman Russ not being able to fit the breach? Those shoulder guns are just as ridiculous. How about the shoulder guns on the Behemoth?Or the Destroyers arm mounted gun? Cannons that big can't just have a clip thrown on a barrel and call it a day. Those are on the same level as the Leman Russ turret in terms of stupid design.

 -Loki- wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
That is my exact sentiment towards about half of all GW models, especially the majority of imperial vehicles. It's like they just throw gak into their designs without even a minimal level of design logic. Turrets with hatches that can't be used by the occupants,

You seriously can't level that complaint at GW without levelling it at PP as well. Like the shoulder guns on the Stormwall. Want to complain about the turret of a Leman Russ not being able to fit the breach? Those shoulder guns are just as ridiculous. How about the shoulder guns on the Behemoth?Or the Destroyers arm mounted gun? Cannons that big can't just have a clip thrown on a barrel and call it a day. Those are on the same level as the Leman Russ turret in terms of stupid design.

Which is why I wasn't the first to bring it up in the thread. PP has chosen a cartoony aesthetic with it's models. It's a low fantasy steampunk setting. This is a conscious choice they've made. It has much more in common with warhammer fantasy than it does 40k. 40k has the pretense of being a "visually" realistic and gritty science fiction setting where cartoony proportions and a lack of design logic is much less forgiveable. Rule of cool is neat and all, but leman russ turrets and the placement of carnifex legs isn't cool, It's dumb, and it's not paid forward by their chosen artistic style.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic.

It's not a werewolf, it's a dragonspawn.

It does not need to breed, it is spawned. It does not need to evolve, evolution happens like Tyranids, the next batch has improvements. As for senseless, I can't remember how they explain it, but they see without using eyes.

Mattman154 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic.

It's not a werewolf, it's a dragonspawn.

It does not need to breed, it is spawned. It does not need to evolve, evolution happens like Tyranids, the next batch has improvements. As for senseless, I can't remember how they explain it, but they see without using eyes.

It sees via it's magical dragonblight, which is an aura that it creates all around itself. Dragonblight is the settings "The warp" when it comes to mutation and evil magic.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't, tbh. The big winged wolfish guy is not ultra bad but there still is something wrong with him, he just doesn't fit together to me. It looks like many awesome ideas glued together to make a creature that just doesn't make much sense (in a bad way).

That is my exact sentiment towards about half of all GW models, especially the majority of imperial vehicles. It's like they just throw gak into their designs without even a minimal level of design logic. Turrets with hatches that can't be used by the occupants, flyers that could never fly and would destroy themselves in the attempt, marines that can't turn their waists or use the giant iron sites on their guns, tau vehicles with jet intakes two feet from the exit hatch, A robot with a man piloting it in a little rollercoaster seat who is in terminator armor but still doesn't have a helmet, Carnifexes with no possible posing to prevent them from having their center of mass in front of the feet, etc.

In the end this is all just personal preference, but GW is not the company to be a fan of when you want consistent design logic.

I didn't mean practical or realistic. Vendetta is great, Imperial tanks are great, Carnifex is great etc, in 40k rule of cool>all and I'm fine with it. The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic. It is just not cool, makes no impression on me and is rather like a few different cool creatures badly merged into one. It is the inside logic of cool that is broken there, creating the uninspiring and characterless monster which is something that's hard to say about Carnifex.

btw I love many sensless creatures like for example the entire Lovecraftian pack of outworld horrors, they wouldn't make a lot of sense if confronted with science but they look menacing, evil and outworld.

I won't defend Tau though, they don't fit the mood with Crisis Suits and should be devoured or chopped to death asap imo

Can you explain how a Vendetta, Leman Russ, and Carnifex are great? I own all three of these models, and my Russ looks bulky and and like a juice box with an extra large straw. My Carnifex model was converted so it was standing up taller, because I'm not intimidated by anything hunched over, and this includes old people, and bell ringers in France... I'm glad you are giving enough effort to tell people why you dislike a model without knowing anything about the aesthetic of the range. Your "shark guy" that you would convert into a 40k daemon is from the same army. Both are eyeless beasts, so saying you like the Carnivean but not the Archangel doesn't make sense. Both of them take advantage of the same artistic styles, and in the game world are created the exact same way.

Please explain how his arms would not be able to move? His wings are far enough on the back to not interfere with the movement of its arms. The uninspiring and characterless model, do you see how imposing that thing is? The height of the model, the command of it as it perches on the small mountain? Give me a stock carnifex that has even an ounce of the same character and I'll stop right now and start playing games workshop games again.

I realize that not everyone has the same tastes in models, but to say that the archangel is characterless is ignoring the talent that went into sculpting it. It's certainly no Razorboar or that Sister model with a case of man face.

New tangent

PP has better cosplayers!






PS- If any of you are in these pics, they all look pretty well done.

 Bat Manuel wrote:
New tangent

PP has better cosplayers!






PS- If any of you are in these pics, they all look pretty well done.

I fixed your image tags, though the flickr one still doesn't work D:

 Bat Manuel wrote:
New tangent

PP has better cosplayers!

PS- If any of you are in these pics, they all look pretty well done.

Oh it is on!




Would show more, but images are too large.

To be fair:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Vendetta is great,

The vendetta is one of the worst aircraft designs I had seen in my life up until when the stormraven came out.

Imperial tanks are great

In that way that the room is a great movie because of it's flaws, not despite them.

Carnifex is great etc

They take a lot of work to make look not dumb. It's doable, but it's hard.

I love Imperial tanks and all the mixing of WW I/ WW II designs with sf weaponry, see nothing dumb in Carnifex (like more dumb than pulp fantasy/sf in general) and Vendetta in my book beats even the dropship from Aliens design - wise. Also I don't consider searching for design logic in 40k a worthy endavour, it's so obviously OTT that Carnifex unable to walk without failing is the least of the problems if you try to go reasonable with the setting. In fact pissing all over physics and explainable is part of what makes 40k great, imo.

I'm fine with you not liking them though, to each their own.

Have to agree about Stormraven, I'm not nitpicking about the shape or question of being flyable though but only about the front - if it is modded to resemble the one of Thunderhawk, I'm fine with it as a flying brick.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

in 40k rule of cool>all and I'm fine with it. The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic.

So your argument boils down to "I forgive the flaws of the things that I like because I like them, but the flaws in things I don't like are unforgiveable because I don't already like them."

That's kinda what it seemed from the beginning to be honest, it's just nice that you up and admit it.

Yep it's the matter of my subjective taste, this is what I claimed from the beggining. 40k things ussualy fit my taste, WM things don't - simple. I was asked about a particular model/ models and tried to describe my impression, I'm not saying it's the ultimate one or that my taste is better or sth.

Mattman154 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic.

It's not a werewolf, it's a dragonspawn.

It does not need to breed, it is spawned. It does not need to evolve, evolution happens like Tyranids, the next batch has improvements. As for senseless, I can't remember how they explain it, but they see without using eyes.

Ok I know it's not werewolf, I used the word to identify it because I don't know the fluff behind it and wasn't sure about its name. Anyway I didn't mean sensless like can't exist or can't be explained, I meant those muscular arms, dragon wings and wolf nose just don't fit together aestheticaly, for me.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Can you explain how a Vendetta, Leman Russ, and Carnifex are great? I own all three of these models, and my Russ looks bulky and and like a juice box with an extra large straw. My Carnifex model was converted so it was standing up taller, because I'm not intimidated by anything hunched over, and this includes old people, and bell ringers in France...

Hunched over is what differentiates the model with your usual Alien queen ripoff and it adds to the creature odness and offworldness, it's part of what makes it great for me. Leman Russ is little boxy but I love it too unless it's the one with a short barrel. Vendetta/ Valkyrie is the flier properly fit to the Imperium aesthetics and mood, not to mention great on it's own, looks heavy, rough, agressive, don't know I'm not really good at explaining such things.

Anyway I don't analyse it too much. I like this dislike that, taste you know - hearing new song that I like doesn't result in me instantly trying to explain why I enjoy it. Dark, totalitarian, deadly, menacing, sick to name a few just ussualy work for me so I like 40k.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'm glad you are giving enough effort to tell people why you dislike a model without knowing anything about the aesthetic of the range. Your "shark guy" that you would convert into a 40k daemon is from the same army. Both are eyeless beasts, so saying you like the Carnivean but not the Archangel doesn't make sense. Both of them take advantage of the same artistic styles, and in the game world are created the exact same way.

Yes it does. From the same army in 40k there are models I like and models I can barely stand. I know that both the shark and the other guy are from the same army and I checked a majority of them I think when searching for something that I could use in 40k. The shark looks vicious and crazy, the Archangel looks silly (for me), those two are like examples of good and bad usage of animalistic theme for models, imo.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Please explain how his arms would not be able to move? His wings are far enough on the back to not interfere with the movement of its arms.

You read that wrong, I didn't claim his arms wouldn't move. Might have been my fault with the way I write, sorry if that was confusing.

 Alfndrate wrote:
The uninspiring and characterless model, do you see how imposing that thing is? The height of the model, the command of it as it perches on the small mountain? Give me a stock carnifex that has even an ounce of the same character and I'll stop right now and start playing games workshop games again.I realize that not everyone has the same tastes in models, but to say that the archangel is characterless is ignoring the talent that went into sculpting it. It's certainly no Razorboar or that Sister model with a case of man face.

It's exactly what I think, that the sculptor made a characterless creature, it doesn't look menacing, doesn't amaze me, no positive impression of any kind and there is no mountain in the world to put underneath it that could change my mind, at least unless we were talking about the mountain itself. I'm not saying that the sculptor is talentless but for me the Carnifex sculptor did a much better job, in the end I'm not insulting a PP guy or sth just don't like his model.

I won't give you "stock carnifex that has even an ounce of the same (Archangel's) character" because you already consider Fex worse than the Archangel. We're talking about taste here, I'm not trying to change yours just trying to explain mine and for me a basic out of a box Carnifex have tons more of a character than the Archangel.

See the problem here is that when you look at these and think, " Yeah, I kinda like that." You're staring at dudes! There aren't a lot of 40k female cosplayers and the ones that are.... are usually armored from chin to toes....kinda ruins half the fun of costly

silent25 wrote:

 Bat Manuel wrote:
New tangent

PP has better cosplayers!

PS- If any of you are in these pics, they all look pretty well done.

Oh it is on!




Would show more, but images are too large.

you're not really explaining it. Unless you've been in 40k for a month or so, anyone should be able to explain why they do or do not like something.

I can tell you that I like Giger's Alien aesthetic, but the Carnifex has issues moving. It has to use it's Scything Talons or Crushing Claws as support, and then it must use its support limbs to attack.

You're not really explaining why you like what you like, and when you're talking about artistic styles, you have to be able to explain that.

I personally feel that GW is retreading the same path so heavily that all of the new models for its established ranges are entering the realm of self parody. The last two 40k releases that had mostly postive new sculpts were Necrons and Dark Eldar.

Most space marine re-releases are just the same old retreads with more purity seals, imperial icons and miscelaneous bling added to the sprues. The latest wholly new space marine models have been very hit or miss. IMHO, scout landspeeders and scout bikes (not that new) are pretty good. The Ironclad is a downgrade from the normal dreadnought. The veteran dreadnought is merely passable and the chibi-hawk and the storm talon both leave a lot to be desired when built in stock configuration.

Then we get to the Chaos re-release. The studio doesn't seem to have any vision. The helldrake suffers from being overdetailed for the sake of having details - IMHO, the model would look 10x better without the extra crap on the wing panels. The Forgefiend looks like the old metal Juggernaut's biggersized special needs brother... and don't even get me started on the Mutilators... where they took a terrible concept and expanded it to its terrible conclusion.



The static worldview of GW's products really does their designers a disservice as it stifles innovation in the product design cycle, and IMHO, they've pretty much mined the existing material dry.

The chaos models release really... really... turned me off. When PP releases a model that is 'off', like the Sons of Bragg or the new Pyre Troll as examples, I can go 'I see how this could have been really cool, but the execution was just off'. In other words, I can understand the vision.

With the Chaos models specifically, I have no idea what the vision is. The Helldrake; when exactly did flying dragon robots become a common weapon in Horus' traitor arsenal? Why are there flying dragon monsters... period? The execution is brilliant but it's like professional detailing on a Buick LeSabre. Same with the Mutilators, and the mutant Battle Rhino with Plazma Handz! (tm). Everything is getting more warpy and skullz-ey? Is that the point here?

 Alfndrate wrote:
you're not really explaining it. Unless you've been in 40k for a month or so, anyone should be able to explain why they do or do not like something.

Please point me to the what is not explained (or if it's everything, point me to what is the least explained). I don't feel like touching it all again.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I can tell you that I like Giger's Alien aesthetic, but the Carnifex has issues moving. It has to use it's Scything Talons or Crushing Claws as support, and then it must use its support limbs to attack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75I86Jb621Y looks convincing enough for me.

Anyway add another torso to him and the 5 meters long horn, I might still like it. Looking at William Blake's pictures people see a lot of anatomical errors, I don't. I see the countnance, the meaning, the depth. Don't now why maybe it's amaeurish or sth, don't really care. Also 40k is the last place to nitpick on anatomy imo especialy if the topic is an alien beast that is hardly explained, also there are orks talking like footbal hooligans who have engineering written in genome and are really fungus, I mean wtf. The universe is grimdark serious and its own parody the same time, also go to the rules everyone has 1/6 of a chance to survive direct Lascanon hit. I don't care whether the tank could work, where is the crew, where do they keep ammo etc, wrong place for such questions. Looks like a tank and awesome for me so I'm fine with it.

 Alfndrate wrote:
You're not really explaining why you like what you like, and when you're talking about artistic styles, you have to be able to explain that.

Two questions

Do you know any foreign language?

Now, go discuss art in that language. How was it?

My dictionary is lacking. Also at times especialy when drunk, hangovered or sleep deprived I'm not even certain whether I'm readable or not.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
you're not really explaining it. Unless you've been in 40k for a month or so, anyone should be able to explain why they do or do not like something.

Please point me to the what is not explained (or if it's everything, point me to what is the least explained). I don't feel like touching it all again.

and

Looks like a tank and awesome for me so I'm fine with it.

You say things like that, you say the tank is awesome. Why do you find it awesome? I find the Archangel awesome (a model for an army I dislike because I don't like the mutated aspect and "we're dark evil like elves", but the Archangel is my favorite model in the range because it's awesome. Why is it awesome? The height of the model and the length of the wings accurately portray the scope of a Gargantuan. The reptilian features are very distinctly draconic (having aspects of dragons), and it properly shows just how large dragons are in the Iron Kingdoms world, and represents an imposing figure on the battlefield.

I understand that English isn't your first language, but you should still be able to to say, "I like the Leman Russ model because it gives this feeling of being the armored behemoth that it is supposed to be on the battlefield, I like the design of the treads...

Maybe you said this, but as it stands, I'm done arguing this. I was looking for clarification and felt I was getting vague answers this entire time.

Anyway add another torso to him and the 5 meters long horn, I might still like it. Looking at William Blake's pictures people see a lot of anatomical errors, I don't. I see the countnance, the meaning, the depth. Don't now why maybe it's amaeurish or sth, don't really care. Also 40k is the last place to nitpick on anatomy imo especialy if the topic is an alien beast that is hardly explained, also there are orks talking like footbal hooligans who have engineering written in genome and are really fungus, I mean wtf. The universe is grimdark serious and its own parody the same time, also go to the rules everyone has 1/6 of a chance to survive direct Lascanon hit. I don't care whether the tank could work, where is the crew, where do they keep ammo etc, wrong place for such questions. Looks like a tank and awesome for me so I'm fine with it.

That's intellectually lazy and leads to the designers of this game making gak models because they get a free pass. If something looks bad because of history (like the dreadnaught or leman russ) that is one thing. If the proportions are bad because the entire line has always had bad proportions and it's impractical for them to update 100% of their lines to realistic proportions that's one thing. Saying "It doesn't matter because things are already goofy" isn't a good excuse. This community is already permissive enough and GW already rapes his customers for every last penny while delivering bad games because of it. When people don't even expect quality from their art of models that's pretty telling of the way the 40k community wants to be treated.

Two questions

Do you know any foreign language?

Now, go discuss art in that language. How was it?

My dictionary is lacking. Also at times especialy when drunk, hangovered or sleep deprived I'm not even certain whether I'm readable or not.

Than you should probably take better care to point out that your terminology is questionable because it's unfamiliar. What you've been doing is expressing opinions, implying their dominant, but refusing to back them up. You can't say "I'm right", which you have been doing, and without explaining why. Whether the reasoning is couched in artistic terminology or not it still needs to exist.

 keezus wrote:
I personally feel that GW is retreading the same path so heavily that all of the new models for its established ranges are entering the realm of self parody. The last two 40k releases that had mostly postive new sculpts were Necrons and Dark Eldar.

Most space marine re-releases are just the same old retreads with more purity seals, imperial icons and miscelaneous bling added to the sprues. The latest wholly new space marine models have been very hit or miss. IMHO, scout landspeeders and scout bikes (not that new) are pretty good. The Ironclad is a downgrade from the normal dreadnought. The veteran dreadnought is merely passable and the chibi-hawk and the storm talon both leave a lot to be desired when built in stock configuration.

Then we get to the Chaos re-release. The studio doesn't seem to have any vision. The helldrake suffers from being overdetailed for the sake of having details - IMHO, the model would look 10x better without the extra crap on the wing panels. The Forgefiend looks like the old metal Juggernaut's biggersized special needs brother... and don't even get me started on the Mutilators... where they took a terrible concept and expanded it to its terrible conclusion.



The static worldview of GW's products really does their designers a disservice as it stifles innovation in the product design cycle, and IMHO, they've pretty much mined the existing material dry.

A few days after seeing the new Chaos releases I distinctly remember remarking to my friends at the FLGS how they reminded me of the early 90s idea of making things better by adding more bling to it.

I think the idea of "self parody" is very close to how I see the new releases: I can respect that many lines are rather baroque, they are intended to represent a civilization in decline, that doesn't invent, they just layer crap on top of crap to make things bigger and more impressive because they don't understand it. But, why is Chaos where this is taken to the nth degree?

It's like the idea is that Chaos forces have simply been hanging out in the Eye of Terror for millenia, just gluing bits of crap to their armor to pass the time. Oh, and inventing robot dragons, I suppose... unless that's something all the legions had, and we just forgot about it. Or something.

Is there an upgrade kit coming to add spinning rims to a rhino? Maybe a grill for Abaddon? Maybe some fairy lights, or glow sticks...

 Alfndrate wrote:


You say things like that, you say the tank is awesome. Why do you find it awesome? I find the Archangel awesome (a model for an army I dislike because I don't like the mutated aspect and "we're dark evil like elves", but the Archangel is my favorite model in the range because it's awesome. Why is it awesome? The height of the model and the length of the wings accurately portray the scope of a Gargantuan. The reptilian features are very distinctly draconic (having aspects of dragons), and it properly shows just how large dragons are in the Iron Kingdoms world, and represents an imposing figure on the battlefield.

All of which is completely subjective. As fun as it is that you and ShumaGorath have made this your personal gak on GW thread, no-one but you is faulting anyone else for being unable to convince you that models you don't like are actually really good. Just like you aren't going to convince anyone that doesn't like the Archangel that it's actually really good just because you write a grade school English class paper explaining your opinion in a way that you apparently feel makes it more objective.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
you're not really explaining it. Unless you've been in 40k for a month or so, anyone should be able to explain why they do or do not like something.

Please point me to the what is not explained (or if it's everything, point me to what is the least explained). I don't feel like touching it all again.

and

Looks like a tank and awesome for me so I'm fine with it.

...

You say things like that, you say the tank is awesome. Why do you find it awesome?
I understand that English isn't your first language, but you should still be able to to say, "I like the Leman Russ model because it gives this feeling of being the armored behemoth that it is supposed to be on the battlefield, I like the design of the treads...

Maybe you said this, but as it stands, I'm done arguing this. I was looking for clarification and felt I was getting vague answers this entire time.

My last post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I love Imperial tanks and all the mixing of WW I/ WW II designs with sf weaponry

...

Vendetta/ Valkyrie is the flier properly fit to the Imperium aesthetics and mood, not to mention great on it's own, looks heavy, rough, agressive, don't know I'm not really good at explaining such things.

where what I say about the Vendetta could be applied to Leman Russ. I understand that you see it vague but awsome is an impression, I'm not certainly sure where does it come from per every model I like, I never thought about Leman Russ too much. Tanks mixing elements from World War I/ II in an SF settings are great idea and I like how GW executes it, they seem in place in Imperial guard and are crude and simple. Crude and simple works for me as far as military stuff go so AK47 or Mi 24 for example are high on my best looking list.

Also I don't really want to argue, rather try to explain myself and discuss. I'm never dismissing the possibility that you for example may be right and I may be entirely wrong, whatever that means in discussion about taste for models.

 Hulksmash wrote:
But you can generally wave things away with 40k models because it's sci-fi. Can't do that as easily with steam punk

i disagree. firstly, 40k isnt sci fi. its a port of a traditional fantasy setting, except in space and with laser guns. but its still fantasy... in spaaaace. that said, sci fi has even less right to have the "a wizard did it" kind of attitude, as sci fi is based in hard, gritty reality. 40k, a galaxy summed up by a tank driver screaming "get closer so i can him with my sword!" is not gritty sci fi. its not sci fi. period.

secondly, warmachine isnt steampunk. it has some elements, but in the same way, 40k can be considered a game based on "anime" because of eldar aspect warriors.

40k gets its "hand waves" because its fans give GW a free pass, because of the "rule of cool", and for no other reason. its not "better", nor is it more deserving of a handwave than another genre. i also suspect PP comes in for extra criticism from these people for the simple reason that its not GW.

PP have plenty misses. kayazy. prime vlad. the children sized black 13th. but they put a serious amount of time, thought, and effort into their world, and they have a style that they, and plenty of their fans do like. the recent chaos codex on the other hand was goofball.inc if you ask me.

 plastictrees wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:


You say things like that, you say the tank is awesome. Why do you find it awesome? I find the Archangel awesome (a model for an army I dislike because I don't like the mutated aspect and "we're dark evil like elves", but the Archangel is my favorite model in the range because it's awesome. Why is it awesome? The height of the model and the length of the wings accurately portray the scope of a Gargantuan. The reptilian features are very distinctly draconic (having aspects of dragons), and it properly shows just how large dragons are in the Iron Kingdoms world, and represents an imposing figure on the battlefield.

All of which is completely subjective. As fun as it is that you and ShumaGorath have made this your personal gak on GW thread, no-one but you is faulting anyone else for being unable to convince you that models you don't like are actually really good. Just like you aren't going to convince anyone that doesn't like the Archangel that it's actually really good just because you write a grade school English class paper explaining your opinion in a way that you apparently feel makes it more objective.

I just want people to justify their reasoning, as soon as you guys start justifying your opinions in any way at all beyond simple fandom and personal preference It'll stop being our personal whatever thread. As for gaking on GW, I'm not. I'm just trying to get you people to act like adults who have reasons for their opinions. The first thing they teach you in art class is to understand composition, color, and artistic intent. To express what about and why you like something. When you throw your hands up and say that "I like it because I like it and that's all I gotta say" it's juvenile. It's a bad excuse, especially when expressing a preference of one thing over the other like Plumbumbbarum has done repetitiously.

That's not your call to make Shuma. No one has to justify anything to your satisfaction, or explain their preferences in any way beyond personal if they don't want to. You don't get to dictate to other users how to carry on a conversation here. If they are breaking the rules of the site, you hit the Mod alert button, and we deal with it. If they aren't, you are spamming this thread by hanging it up repeating your personal views.

And that would be against rule #3.

Now, since this isn't a one sided conversation everyone please cool off and be respectful of other users. All of them. Also if you have been posting in this thread multiple times per page for a few pages, then it is time to give it a break and let other people use the thread, if you haven't accomplished getting your points across by now, then you probably won't.

Thanks -

I am in agreement with Shuma here. In the realm of models, I want to know WHY you like a model. If you like Carnifexes because they remind you of the Giger-esque aliens, then say it that way. Saying "I like this better, so therefore it is from the better company" Telling me you like a model because of a specific influence, not "textbook artistic terms", then let me know.

What I want to see is a more commonly understood way of understanding why a given person enjoys a particular set of models over another. If you hate comic books, and a particular game's models remind you of comics, use THAT as your reason, not I like these other things better so therefore they are.

The point is, subjectively speaking, that is all they have to say. If you cross over into telling someone else what they should or shouldn't like, that is a different story. But if the question is simply 'What model do you like better' and the answer is 'That one'... if you then ask why, if the answer is 'I just do' it is in fact legitimate.

Lacking depth? Sure. Not particularly convincing? Absolutely. Wrong? No.

I would prefer a higher end discourse too, and I think it fair to say most of the answers given have in fact been more substantive than alluded to by some.

Regardless, even if it was true most answers were simple 'I just like it'(s), not everyone is educated in art history, varied techniques or critical deconstruction. It is what it is guys, if you can draw someone into a civil debate, by all means do so. But you cannot dictate that people discourse at a certain level only you can judge in order to participate . It just doesn't work that way, at least, not here.

If any person, whatever they are saying, just keeps posting over and over and over the same points to the point it becomes barking, that is also spam guys. Hit the Mod alert button, if it is out of hand we will act.

There is plenty of stuff to have solid debate on here, and hopefully that is what can happen, just be good to each other and be tolerant of people who have other opinons or ways of expressing themselves.

Locking this thread for a cool down period...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok guys, re-opening here - let's keep it civil please, remember the rules -

So just to detour away from GW vs PP for a moment of distraction, How about GW specialist games vs other company "specialist" games or their games in general? GW has pretty much all but abandoned their games, but companies like PP are bringing out little side games. PP just released Sector 7 I think it's called? And has shown a continued interest in making these little side distractions. Mean while, the Judge Dredd Kickstarter just finished up and that' pretty much a Mordhiem/Necromunda alternative, but it's supported and awesome. What be the community's thoughts?

Deadnight wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
But you can generally wave things away with 40k models because it's sci-fi. Can't do that as easily with steam punk

i disagree. firstly, 40k isnt sci fi. its a port of a traditional fantasy setting, except in space and with laser guns. but its still fantasy... in spaaaace. that said, sci fi has even less right to have the "a wizard did it" kind of attitude, as sci fi is based in hard, gritty reality. 40k, a galaxy summed up by a tank driver screaming "get closer so i can him with my sword!" is not gritty sci fi. its not sci fi. period.

Sci-Fi isn't based in hard, gritty reality. In fact, it's generally pretty campy as a whole. There is an aspect of Sci-Fi that tries very hard to ground itself as much in reality as possible but 40k isn't part of it. However 40k is sci-fi.

secondly, warmachine isnt steampunk. it has some elements, but in the same way, 40k can be considered a game based on "anime" because of eldar aspect warriors.

Warmachine is a game that seems to an outsider to be primarily about giant steam mechs beating each other. Does it have other aspects to it? Sure, but several Warmachine and even 1-2 Hordes factions have a steam punk vibe and certainly the steam mechs can't really be classed as anything else. The inclusion of hordes shifted things I'll grant you but it's still very steam punky to me personally.

40k gets its "hand waves" because its fans give GW a free pass, because of the "rule of cool", and for no other reason. its not "better", nor is it more deserving of a handwave than another genre. i also suspect PP comes in for extra criticism from these people for the simple reason that its not GW.

You do like to tar entire waves of people don't you. I give a free pass on things like the Storm Raven because unknown tech could make them work. I don't spend a lot of time though scrutinizing models and dimensions though. I'm a nutter for a lot of GW products due to them being plastic and extremely customizable. I can build an army to match ideas in my head. It's something that PP doesn't bring to the table for me so I am probably more forgiving due to my passion for conversion and modelling. As for PP getting more criticism for not being GW it's possible. But I feel that many people who don't play 40k or collect the models and have moved onto many other systems do enjoy tearing new GW models here on Dakka. I almost never see people diving on new PP models to tear them down.

PP have plenty misses. kayazy. prime vlad. the children sized black 13th. but they put a serious amount of time, thought, and effort into their world, and they have a style that they, and plenty of their fans do like. the recent chaos codex on the other hand was goofball.inc if you ask me.

There is no doubt that PP has plenty of people that enjoy their product. I can understand why without sharing that enjoyment. The models are enough for me not to want to even play the system. Granted, if I was a teenager again and just getting into wargaming and playing just to play I might have considered PP games. But for me the universe and modeling opportunities provided by GW and hopefully some others like Sedition Wars keep me away.

As for the Chaos codex I like it. I like the models and feel the book is gorgeous and well thoughtout.

Overall I think we'll agree to disagree.

 Surtur wrote:
So just to detour away from GW vs PP for a moment of distraction, How about GW specialist games vs other company "specialist" games or their games in general? GW has pretty much all but abandoned their games, but companies like PP are bringing out little side games. PP just released Sector 7 I think it's called? And has shown a continued interest in making these little side distractions. Mean while, the Judge Dredd Kickstarter just finished up and that' pretty much a Mordhiem/Necromunda alternative, but it's supported and awesome. What be the community's thoughts?

I already commented on why these side games come out from PP. Though GW's abandonment of the specialist games was sad. Mordheim in my opinion was one of the best games and the best gateway game to warhammer fantasy. While they were pushing that game, you saw some real unique ideas coming out of the studio. Just remember one studio members army in WD and the conversion ideas were awesome! Absolute nutter kitbashing at its best. Sadly those days are gone.

At least PP's current side games are well thought out. For my derision of Level 7, at least it is suppose to have a decent game mechanic. Same can't be said for Dreadfleet.... Great miniatures, but mediocre game play. Think Level 7 could have made a bigger splash if they had put figs in it instead of paper chits.

Oh and @Bat Manuel, was trying to keep the thread wholesome, but fine, here comes the sexy...






Now lets all keep it civilized.

Or the Inquisition will be displeased...

@silent25
Yeah, comments tend to get lost in 14 pages of thread that's spent the last 2-3 bickering on minutiae of one argument. But PP isn't the only one out there pushing side games. Mantic is making it's Bloodbowl knock off to take more revenue from GW. Not that I have objections with kicking GW for abandoning it's IP to rot. Mongoose has 2 space games, one Star Trek the other is studio IP I believe to rival BFG. We have the X Wing game from FFG as well in that regard. Dreadfleet is woeful compared to the naval games out there. It just seems that many companies are putting more effort forward towards these types of games that GW could have had a stronger overall presence in but has let slide to the point of atrophy. That GW's focus on it's core games has become a reliability in as much as the effort they would need to put on these other projects would be significant to compete in an open market of ideas that they may not be able to do anymore.

Also, the inquisitor seems to have really stumpy arms thanks to the photograph.

Completely agree that GW not supporting the specialist games any more is a terrible shame; some of the company's most well designed and executed games are nestled away in that corner of the website, disregarded and not spoken of like that embarrassing Uncle who turns up at Weddings and gets drunk before taking his shirt off and trying to start fights before finally passing out while the slow music is playing.

I suppose we are lucky to still have them at all - I don't think any new players are getting into them, and it's amazing (also, quite sad) of how many times I have seen new users even on Dakka ask 'what is Epic?' etc., but at least it gives veterans who re-visit the game a chance to download rules etc. if they need them. I did hear that the entire range, rulebooks and everything was going to get scrapped. But, Jervis Johnson offered to take them under his wing, and keep the whole Specialist Games thing running (without pay, and in addition to his standard duties for the company). Absolutely top bloke if true, although I sometimes wonder if it would be better just to pull the plug rather than just keeping them 'alive' in their current vegetative state.

But the reason why these great games have been neglected? As has been said many times by people who have left the company (chiefly, Rick Priestly) GW regards itself as existing in a market place of 1 - they have no competition. Therefore, why sell games where people can have the 'tabletop experience' at a fraction of the price? Why spend all that money on games development and production, and logistics? Why confuse the parent coming into the GW store with a myriad of different choices and options? There is no need, and the only variation on re-releasing the same old and tired gaming systems, regurgitating older rules, year after year is with the occasional 'one off' game like Space Hulk or Dreadfleet. Customers hand their money over for that, then go back to spending hundreds on the core systems when that limited release is removed from shelves.

If Games Workshop (that name has started to get a hint of irony associated with it, I think - maybe Game Workshop would be better?) were the sole producer of tabletop wargames then it would make perfect sense. Unfortunately for GW however (although fortunately for the us) they are not the only producer - the rather large void left by the absence of specialist games, or any willingness at all to try something new and exciting, has let others fill that void. Mantic seem to be most on the button, with a company mandate that has left it open to criticism in some regards - releasing exactly the kind of stuff that GW once did, but no longer does; cheap large units of plastic soldiers, board games, and of course space dwarves Other companies have brought in radical new gaming mechanics and systems, taking the step-up off the back of some of the older gaming systems and making full use of new interactive technologies. Chief among them Infinity and Malifaux, although a large part of PP's appeal was the fact that it offered something new to a fantasy/sci-fi gaming public that was starting to get bored of playing the same games, and same game mechanics, for so many years.

Anyway I think it will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years; if the 'King' can pull its pants up, tighten its belt, and start to play Queensbury Rules with some of the upstarts that must undoubtedly be becoming more than a niggle now. No doubt a few of the smaller companies might then disappear, but hopefully many of the others will continue to grow to the point where the fantasy/sci-fi wargaming industry can move beyond its reliance on a single company, and the propensity of any company (when operating in a monopoly) to stagnate and stop being creative or trying to expand its horizons.

I think it's important to emphasize that everyone, even the most myopic of consumers who will only by a miniature with a single companies logo on the box, that we will all be better off with a variety of different companies producing miniature wargames and rules. Not just in terms of keeping prices competitive, but in moving the industry forward with development of new gaming systems and technologies and keeping it fresh and exciting. Speaking as someone who has dismounted at least 84,000 marines out of a rhino over the years (not to pick on GW, but its more a case of the era in which I came into wargaming) it has to be fun to have your infantry occasionally paradrop, fall out of an air-balloon or teleport using magic instead!

 Surtur wrote:
So just to detour away from GW vs PP for a moment of distraction, How about GW specialist games vs other company "specialist" games or their games in general? GW has pretty much all but abandoned their games, but companies like PP are bringing out little side games. PP just released Sector 7 I think it's called? And has shown a continued interest in making these little side distractions. Mean while, the Judge Dredd Kickstarter just finished up and that' pretty much a Mordhiem/Necromunda alternative, but it's supported and awesome. What be the community's thoughts?

I think that my short answer here is: "depends on the game". I mean, if we take BFG and compare it to, what is it Dystopia wars? those three "naval" based table top games. I have heard that they have decent rules, but tend to punish one player more than another for arbitrary things (I don't really know, just going off what I've seen here and elsewhere online) But, for the company that makes those games, they are the main games for the company, not a side project. If you are looking at story driven, skirmish scale games, I'd point to Malifaux, but again, that is Wyrd's main game, not a side project. Of course, Wyrd is branching out with Puppet Wars and Evil Baby Orphanage, and are talking about Kickstarting an RPG as well. I honestly wouldn't hold PP's Warmachine/Hordes to Mordheim/Necromunda simply because of them both being skirmish games, as most people compare WM/H to 40k/fantasy. I think that nowadays, we can find games that range from below "Specialist" levels (meaning they are probably not as good as some of the existing Specialist games from GW) to awesome games that, if you are a fan of will continue to pull you away from the GW specialist line. For me personally, Malifaux fits this bill perfectly. I really don't know why I'd ever play a game of necromunda or mordheim, beyond a "hey let's check this game out" thing, when I have discovered how awesome (personally speaking) Malifaux is.


I agree that it's a shame GW doesn't support games like BFG anymore. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily want new rules, because I think we can agree it wouldn't turn out too well. BUT, I think most can agree that they wouldn't mind seeing the support in the form of models at the very least. I'm not sure the level of model support Necro/Mord had when they were supported, but I'm sure most players would agree to the same as with BFG.

In total opposition to their origins, I don't think that GW is interested in developing anything in which they don't control every aspect of it (rules and models).

They are revamping Necromunda. Take a look at some of the gangs.

boyd wrote:
They are revamping Necromunda. Take a look at some of the gangs.

Woah there, I almost couldn't hear you from back there in 2003...

boyd wrote:
They are revamping Necromunda. Take a look at some of the gangs.

A few points on "offshoot games".

1. PP isn't particularily good at supporting its offshoot games either, though it does seem to be better about returning to them eventually (i.e. Infernal Machine got a reprint), and Monsterpocalypse got a bit of a revamp. PP is still young, but its obvious that they've put the majority of their resources around their core game.

2. As Grimtuff indicated, the "newish" Necromunda models themselves are old. The non-support that GW offers for Necromunda might be best characterized by the fact that the rulebook is not available on their webstore, nor is there a link to the PDF on the "Getting Started with Necromunda" link. I realize the aforementioned games are much beloved due to the customization possibilities offered - and in that vein are tremendous successes alowing hobbyists enormous lattitude to customize their gangs. I myself have lots of fond memories of Necromunda and Mordheim (had an Escher and Cawdor gang in the former, and a Beastman warband in the latter.) However, as rulesets, neither game are particularily sterling examples of good rules writing, with Necromunda being particularily clunky due to its basis in the 2nd Edition 40k ruleset. Both games tend towards unbalance at the higher gang ratings. As the ruleset itself is inherently broken, I think that GW has made the right decision with respect to those two games to offer only token "legacy" support, as proper ongoing support would require a "living rulebook" format and/or a full rewrite of the rules. IMHO Battlefleet Gothic and LOTR are the cleanest rulesets that GW has produced. Saddly, neither have much traction in most hobby circles.

 Hulksmash wrote:


Sci-Fi isn't based in hard, gritty reality. In fact, it's generally pretty campy as a whole. There is an aspect of Sci-Fi that tries very hard to ground itself as much in reality as possible but 40k isn't part of it. However 40k is sci-fi.

the fact that 40k has "sorcery", and essentially "magic" precludes it from having anything other than a veneer of sci-fi about it. Quite a lot of sci-fi is grounded in hard reality (hard sci-fi) buit for the most part, the entire genre-whilst imaginary, it is fundamentally plausable and rational to some lesser or greater degree. this hardly apply to 40k. bar a veneer, 40k is essentially a fantasy setting, with some sci fi/space opera dressings. which is fine! there is nothing wrong with fantasy. Regarding sci-fi, in my ind games like dropzone commander, and infinity epitomise sci-fi.

 Hulksmash wrote:

Warmachine is a game that seems to an outsider to be primarily about giant steam mechs beating each other. Does it have other aspects to it? Sure, but several Warmachine and even 1-2 Hordes factions have a steam punk vibe and certainly the steam mechs can't really be classed as anything else. The inclusion of hordes shifted things I'll grant you but it's still very steam punky to me personally.

Like i said, there are elements, but thats about it. jacks are war machines but they're not WARMACHINE. PP have done enough of a twist on the basic premise that it is its own unique setting - personally i feel the best description of the iron kingdoms is as a fantasy setting undergoing the industrial revolution.

 Hulksmash wrote:


You do like to tar entire waves of people don't you. I give a free pass on things like the Storm Raven because unknown tech could make them work. I don't spend a lot of time though scrutinizing models and dimensions though. I'm a nutter for a lot of GW products due to them being plastic and extremely customizable. I can build an army to match ideas in my head. It's something that PP doesn't bring to the table for me so I am probably more forgiving due to my passion for conversion and modelling. As for PP getting more criticism for not being GW it's possible. But I feel that many people who don't play 40k or collect the models and have moved onto many other systems do enjoy tearing new GW models here on Dakka. I almost never see people diving on new PP models to tear them down.

oh, irony, how i love thee. kinda funny saying that, considering in my next paragraph i pointed out how plenty PP players have a go over quite a few PP sculpts, myself included.

I can understand the appreciation for the customisaton afforded by GW kits - in my mind, its their sole redeeming feature (up until recently, i'd have added "the fluff" to that list, but everything since codex:grey knights has been beyond woeful and utterly unsalvageable in my mind) - in fact, when it comes to conversions, i am quite happy to buy GW kits in order to use their bits to customise my PP and Corvus Beli bits. that said though, PP stuff can be converted - it does take a bit more effort though.

Now, i feel there is a subset of the "beyond 40k" players that enjoy nothing more than blasting the game they used to play due to a jumped up sense of entitlement-the recently converted anti-GW fanboy. there are few things worse than those. then again, there are plenty of the "beyond 40k" players that have moved on, for a variety of reasons. when they say why they moved on, why they feel what they're moving on, why they didnt want to stay, and why they feel doing what they do now is "better", there is also a subset of the "still playing" 40k community who, as a reaction see it as nothing short of the prelude to an all out flame war, with themselves as the victims (everyone tearing on GW!) when in reality, it is just people explaining their position from a different POV.

(to be honest, i think a large part of the GW player base as a whole has a bit of a victimized mentality about it - competition, and "pushing" yourself as far as you can go. rather than "push myself forward", its "push him back". "try to win" is frowned on. as winning means there is a loser. its "winning is bad. hey, if no one wins, no one loses. and i hate being the loser!" criticisms are magnified, taken to heart as personal attacks, and these reinforce the victim mentality. i think this has a huge part in the attitude that the beyond 40k crowd are always having a go and doing so unfairly. but hey, thats ot)

Honestly, moving beyond 40k taught me a lot of things. I no longer see the hobby from a GW-centric POV. and im thankful for that, because in my mind, it has opened me up to so much more thats out there. it doesnt stop me appreciating GW. but i see it now for the narrow viewpoint that is is. fair enough if that narrow viewpoint is either all you know, or all you want to know, or all you like, but it doesnt mean that me having my POV is somehow wrong, or different, or if me explaining my POV equates to blasting yours.

 Hulksmash wrote:

There is no doubt that PP has plenty of people that enjoy their product. I can understand why without sharing that enjoyment. The models are enough for me not to want to even play the system. Granted, if I was a teenager again and just getting into wargaming and playing just to play I might have considered PP games. But for me the universe and modeling opportunities provided by GW and hopefully some others like Sedition Wars keep me away.
As for the Chaos codex I like it. I like the models and feel the book is gorgeous and well thoughtout.

Ironically, appreciating the models isnt the only "gateway" to a game. plenty people get into WM because of the gameplay. the models get appreciated as part of the journey. trust me - give the game a shot - have a go.

as for the chaos codex - the chosen are nice, but thats about it. i dont get the dinosaur/dragon vibe all of a sudden. plus, i wasnt too fond of the "chaos literally grows on/in you" vibe throughout the book. as for the fluff - yeah, lets just say i expected much better.

 Hulksmash wrote:

indeed, each to their own. *tips hat*

But the problem is that you're unlikely to start an army with models you hate.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
But the problem is that you're unlikely to start an army with models you hate.

then dont hate!

"hate" is a strong word though. its a different style, a different aesthetic, nothing more. then again, i suppose im used to seeing the hobby from outside the GW-centric point of view. for me, its the gameplay that draws me in. for example, as much as i like quite a few of the models from malifaux, i found the gameplay disinteresting. same with 40k. with warmachine, at first, i couldnt stand the models. then i looked at them on their own merit, and found that i could deal with them. what drew me to khador and circle was the fluff. it grew from there. Now, i "get" and like the look. *shrug* ymmv, and all that.

Dont say "hate". hate is bad, m'kay.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
But the problem is that you're unlikely to start an army with models you hate.

I think that ExNoctemNacimur has an excellent and clearly stated point. His reasoning is precisely the reason that I did not start Malifaux.

I'd like to ammend his statement though: One is unlikely to start an army with models you don't like the aesthetic of - when considered a vacuum. (i.e. absent any other external forces influencing the decision)

There are extenuating circumstances though that may push players past that hump where you don't like the models. I probably would never have started Warmachine, had GW not treated its veteran hobbyists with such open disdain. At the time, Warmachine was a distant second, model wise, but I picked a faction that had a few models I liked - Butcher of Khardov, Man O Wars (saddly fairly ineffective, game-wise) and Iron Fangs (which I never owned throughout MKI). Once I did try it, the gameplay sucked me in completely. I have a huge half-built (i.e. armless models on bases) Menoth army that I bought for games only. I love the gameplay of the army, but I think that most of their range looks like garbage and I dislike the studio paint scheme - (Sisters of the Flame aside!). Another circumstance might be that one begins playing because of their friends / peer group / significant other etc. I know some players who started Warmahordes purely on gameplay (transitioning from Magic The Gathering) because they like the competitive tournament scene. These players initially care nothing for how the army looks - only how it plays.

YMMV of course.

I own and have played 40k, Warhammer Fantasy, and Warmahordes. Too be honest I probably would have just stayed with GW if not for the ridiculous price increases and the latest Chaos Dex at $50 was really the last straw for me.

As far as comparing the two they really are two totally different games. One Army, the other skirmish. Don't kid yourselves though, it's cheaper to get into WarmaHordes. No matter what anyone tells you WarmaHordes is cheaper. GW has the fluff and the models advantage. PP has the rules/gameplay advantage in my opinion. At the end of the day though if you want fun your going to go with the system that appeals to you. What's sad for me was that Warhammer Fantasy was really my favorite setting but the game just got too big, too expensive, and just does not have the appeal of 40k.

Currently I am looking to give Malifaux a shot. The fact that I don't need dice and can use a regular poker deck to play intrigues me. I suppose in a strange way I should be thankful for the price increases as it has allowed me to expand into other game systems.

If you're looking to not use a normal Malifaux deck, get the Malifaux cheat sheet.

@Deadnight

I never said aesthetics were the only "gateway" to a game. In fact I mentioned that if I was still a teenager the aesthetic might get a handwave for playability. But for me the aesthetic is something I have to enjoy for me to touch and I just can't find enough models in any one line to enjoy the possibility of picking up PP.

Ok I have read all 15 pages of this insanity...

1. I have moved my gaming dollars from GW to PP. I like the rules better. The models have grown on me except a few factions (but didn't like the whole GW range either).

2. I have several of the PP side games and love them. Heap is fun to play with my kids, and Level 7 really draws me and my friends in. As a by product I have started to search out other non-mainstream bored games and it truly has opened a new world to me.

3. It's ok to like GW, it's ok to like PP. Heck it's even ok to like both.

 darefsky wrote:

3. It's ok to like GW, it's ok to like PP. Heck it's even ok to like both.

The Inquisition of the Emperor and the Church of Menoth would like to have a word with you

 Alfndrate wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

3. It's ok to like GW, it's ok to like PP. Heck it's even ok to like both.

The Inquisition of the Emperor and the Church of Menoth would like to have a word with you

And that's why I play Eldar and Khador.....

 darefsky wrote:
Ok I have read all 15 pages of this insanity...

It's ok to like GW, it's ok to like PP. Heck it's even ok to like both.

Then you learned nothing!
Choose your incongruously large weapon and engage in incoherent combat. Nobody leaves until everybody feels terrible about their hobby choices!

 darefsky wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

3. It's ok to like GW, it's ok to like PP. Heck it's even ok to like both.

The Inquisition of the Emperor and the Church of Menoth would like to have a word with you

And that's why I play Eldar and Khador.....

Many Khadorians are Menites. SHAKUSE!

Deadnight wrote:

the fact that 40k has "sorcery", and essentially "magic" precludes it from having anything other than a veneer of sci-fi about it. Quite a lot of sci-fi is grounded in hard reality (hard sci-fi) buit for the most part, the entire genre-whilst imaginary, it is fundamentally plausable and rational to some lesser or greater degree. this hardly apply to 40k. bar a veneer, 40k is essentially a fantasy setting, with some sci fi/space opera dressings. which is fine! there is nothing wrong with fantasy. Regarding sci-fi, in my ind games like dropzone commander, and infinity epitomise sci-fi.

Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I'd personally consider 40k 'Space Opera' as there's a lot of greek-style tragedy and general boisterousness and rule of cool in the setting, but that may just be me.

To be picky, doesn't Infinity have some tech that really messes with conservation of mass with the werewolf characters?

Still, Infinity and Dropzone Commander do look pretty hard, especially as compared to 40k.

 Balance wrote:
Still, Infinity and Dropzone Commander do look pretty hard, especially as compared to 40k.

More people should play Infinity. It's the idea backup game. Buy a starter pack and a few other figs you like from the faction you like the look of. Use the official free army builder to make sure it's a legal army. Download the completely free rules.

The game has no startup costs outside of a few figs, and maybe a template set from MAS if you don't want to use printed out templates.

Definitely second that!

Regarding the above conversation, Infinity is also one of the few games that I have seen played by people who don't have any of the correct miniatures, but the rule mechanics are so strong that some people are prepared to do that. It's not uncommon for people to proxy in IG, Space Marines or whatever just to play the game.

Even though the miniatures are insanely detailed, and beautiful sculpts (name another company matching them at the moment for consistent quality), they nevertheless follow a particular aesthetic template - and there will always be the situation where that isn't everyone's cup of tea.

 Pacific wrote:
Definitely second that!

Regarding the above conversation, Infinity is also one of the few games that I have seen played by people who don't have any of the correct miniatures, but the rule mechanics are so strong that some people are prepared to do that. It's not uncommon for people to proxy in IG, Space Marines or whatever just to play the game.

Even though the miniatures are insanely detailed, and beautiful sculpts (name another company matching them at the moment for consistent quality), they nevertheless follow a particular aesthetic template - and there will always be the situation where that isn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do enjoy that like WM/H, 40k and other of the larger games, the various factions of Infinity have their own aesthetic within the overall aesthetic of the game... My only downfall of the game, is that it uses d20, which may be a bit of a turn off for those gamers who have never done an RPG, and own nothing more than d6.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

My only downfall of the game, is that it uses d20, which may be a bit of a turn off for those gamers who have never done an RPG, and own nothing more than d6.

What? Is it really that hard to go to the local game store or an online store and pick up 4-5 d20s?

Also, to the general discussion, as someone who doesn't play any of PP's or GW's games, I feel a little left out at times...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Definitely second that!

Regarding the above conversation, Infinity is also one of the few games that I have seen played by people who don't have any of the correct miniatures, but the rule mechanics are so strong that some people are prepared to do that. It's not uncommon for people to proxy in IG, Space Marines or whatever just to play the game.

Even though the miniatures are insanely detailed, and beautiful sculpts (name another company matching them at the moment for consistent quality), they nevertheless follow a particular aesthetic template - and there will always be the situation where that isn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do enjoy that like WM/H, 40k and other of the larger games, the various factions of Infinity have their own aesthetic within the overall aesthetic of the game... My only downfall of the game, is that it uses d20, which may be a bit of a turn off for those gamers who have never done an RPG, and own nothing more than d6.

Fine, add 4-5 D20's to the startup cost. It's still dirt cheap.

Don't confuse it with other tabletop games - you won't be rolling buckets of D20's.

Ohh, don't get me wrong, I have I think 4 different d20s... however, 3 of them are parts of "sets" and therefore are "unusable" in Infinity, because like most gamers, my dice will hate me for using them "wrong" (doesn't really stop me, really)

It's just that I have had at least one fellow gamer from my unit blatantly not want to even TRY Infinity because it doesn't use a d6, like he's used to.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Definitely second that!

Regarding the above conversation, Infinity is also one of the few games that I have seen played by people who don't have any of the correct miniatures, but the rule mechanics are so strong that some people are prepared to do that. It's not uncommon for people to proxy in IG, Space Marines or whatever just to play the game.

Even though the miniatures are insanely detailed, and beautiful sculpts (name another company matching them at the moment for consistent quality), they nevertheless follow a particular aesthetic template - and there will always be the situation where that isn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do enjoy that like WM/H, 40k and other of the larger games, the various factions of Infinity have their own aesthetic within the overall aesthetic of the game... My only downfall of the game, is that it uses d20, which may be a bit of a turn off for those gamers who have never done an RPG, and own nothing more than d6.

If the number of sides of the dice used scares you, but putting together models, painting, memorizing rules and tables and large numbers of dice used doesn't... well then I have nothing else to say.

 Surtur wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Definitely second that!

Regarding the above conversation, Infinity is also one of the few games that I have seen played by people who don't have any of the correct miniatures, but the rule mechanics are so strong that some people are prepared to do that. It's not uncommon for people to proxy in IG, Space Marines or whatever just to play the game.

Even though the miniatures are insanely detailed, and beautiful sculpts (name another company matching them at the moment for consistent quality), they nevertheless follow a particular aesthetic template - and there will always be the situation where that isn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do enjoy that like WM/H, 40k and other of the larger games, the various factions of Infinity have their own aesthetic within the overall aesthetic of the game... My only downfall of the game, is that it uses d20, which may be a bit of a turn off for those gamers who have never done an RPG, and own nothing more than d6.

If the number of sides of the dice used scares you, but putting together models, painting, memorizing rules and tables and large numbers of dice used doesn't... well then I have nothing else to say.

It doesn't bother me personally, it bothers me in that it specifically has "scared" away gamer friends of mine from trying the game, I have the book, and some models, dice and everything to play, except an opponent.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Surtur wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Definitely second that!

Regarding the above conversation, Infinity is also one of the few games that I have seen played by people who don't have any of the correct miniatures, but the rule mechanics are so strong that some people are prepared to do that. It's not uncommon for people to proxy in IG, Space Marines or whatever just to play the game.

Even though the miniatures are insanely detailed, and beautiful sculpts (name another company matching them at the moment for consistent quality), they nevertheless follow a particular aesthetic template - and there will always be the situation where that isn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do enjoy that like WM/H, 40k and other of the larger games, the various factions of Infinity have their own aesthetic within the overall aesthetic of the game... My only downfall of the game, is that it uses d20, which may be a bit of a turn off for those gamers who have never done an RPG, and own nothing more than d6.

If the number of sides of the dice used scares you, but putting together models, painting, memorizing rules and tables and large numbers of dice used doesn't... well then I have nothing else to say.

It doesn't bother me personally, it bothers me in that it specifically has "scared" away gamer friends of mine from trying the game, I have the book, and some models, dice and everything to play, except an opponent.

I didn't necessarily mean you in the specific, I meant more of in the general sense. It's quite silly to latch onto GW style d6 imo. The probabilities are broken up in 16% intervals, that's quite a steep difference that +1 to a roll will make. Auto success and failure on d6 is also quite stark and aberrant. It's why I like PP/Btech's 2d6 system in many ways because of it's parabolic scalar nature and Mongoose's d10 for nice intervals of 10% or Infinity/D&D for d20 creating even smaller margins or FFG's RPG system. I just find that d6 is too sensitive to modifiers. It's why hammerhand and rad grenades break melee combat, because they shift the odds so significantly compared to any other game with just adjustments with a value of 1. In a 2d6 system +1 can give you anywhere between 3% and 16% depending on where you are on the curve allowing a more in depth odds system. In a d10 or d20, +1 is more marginal allowing greater control on the impact of a modifier allowing for better balance.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

It doesn't bother me personally, it bothers me in that it specifically has "scared" away gamer friends of mine from trying the game, I have the book, and some models, dice and everything to play, except an opponent.

We now have to try and find out what the scientific term is for a fear of dice with more than 6 sides?

Seriously though, force your mate into a demo game, even with proxies - the inhibitions will disappear the moment a guy gets hit by a sniper rifle while running in-between 2 buildings!

 Pacific wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

It doesn't bother me personally, it bothers me in that it specifically has "scared" away gamer friends of mine from trying the game, I have the book, and some models, dice and everything to play, except an opponent.

We now have to try and find out what the scientific term is for a fear of dice with more than 6 sides?

Seriously though, force your mate into a demo game, even with proxies - the inhibitions will disappear the moment a guy gets hit by a sniper rifle while running in-between 2 buildings!

Polyhedraphobia?

 Balance wrote:
Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I'd personally consider 40k 'Space Opera' as there's a lot of greek-style tragedy and general boisterousness and rule of cool in the setting, but that may just be me.

IMHO, that quote is a poor one when applied to 40k, considering that anything warp based in 40k, is essentially magic. It is my personal feeling that 40k disqualifies itself from falling back onthe "high tech" crutch, since the writers stupidly try and explain how their technology works, throwing around rule-of-cool buzzwords like Gauss, Fusion and Plasma, while clearly having zero understanding of the actual meaning of the terms. i.e. plasma = superheated gas, and somehow based on the fluff, reactors based on superheated gas (likely conversion of fuel to highest energy state - but still retaining mass!) have better energy efficiency than matter/antimater reactions (i.e. mutual annihilation converting ALL mass to energy). It's like how we could make a super high tech steam engine now in the 2000's, but it's power output still limited by the fact that its underlying technology is limited.

-edit- DISCLAIMER: I LOVE THE 40K BACKGROUND... I HATE WHAT IT HAS EVOLVED INTO.

40k's mythos is tired, disjointed and rapidly decending into self-parody. Anything, even the best concepts, become lame if they fail to innovate and evolve. This happened with mighty brands like IBM and Blackberry. The 40k background is built on a solid foundation, but it has 5 MAJOR strikes against it:

1. It doesn't advance. It's always the same thing all the time.
2. The depth of fluff accompanying the game is much reduced. Once, there was more emphasis on background and theme lists. The world was dark with ambiguity. These days, the feel of the setting has been distiled down to "IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE, THERE IS ONLY WAR". For example: Old fluff would go in depth into the motivations of the Chaos Legions. These days, their motivations have been pared down to the oft quoted "KILL MAIM BURN".
3. 40k appears neither to have a "Style Bible" nor a "Continuity Bible", leading to sloppy retcons (i.e. Necrons), contradictory equipment descriptions (MULTILAZORS) and disjointed fluff in general. This is generally exacerbated by the Black Library publications - which vary greatly in quality, and sometimes outright contradict previously established storylines.
4. Over-reliance on rule of cool. Bigger explosions, huger weapon yields. Giant armies. The nuanced fluff of the old days has been replaced by a Michael Bayish bigger = epic mentality designed to cater to 12 year olds.
5. GW's protectionist stance on their IP stifles external innovation.

2. The depth of fluff accompanying the game is much reduced. Once, there was more emphasis on background and theme lists. The world was dark with ambiguity. These days, the feel of the setting has been distiled down to "IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE, THERE IS ONLY WAR". For example: Old fluff would go in depth into the motivations of the Chaos Legions. These days, their motivations have been pared down to the oft quoted "KILL MAIM BURN".

This right here is the extent of my friends' knowledge of 40k. A majority of them don't play, and my long time friends only say, "THERE IS ONLY WAR" when talking about 40k.

I don't like the cogs and steam look of the PP models. I'm not into the steam punk genre and the War Machine models radiate that vibe, unfortunately.

GW does make some derpy models, but I like the BOG standard Space Marine with a boltgun a lot. I also am a big fan of the Black Library books, most notably the Horus Heresy, Helsreach, and the Night Lords trilogy.

If you disagree, then your opinion is obviously different.

 Surtur wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Surtur wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Definitely second that!

Regarding the above conversation, Infinity is also one of the few games that I have seen played by people who don't have any of the correct miniatures, but the rule mechanics are so strong that some people are prepared to do that. It's not uncommon for people to proxy in IG, Space Marines or whatever just to play the game.

Even though the miniatures are insanely detailed, and beautiful sculpts (name another company matching them at the moment for consistent quality), they nevertheless follow a particular aesthetic template - and there will always be the situation where that isn't everyone's cup of tea.

I do enjoy that like WM/H, 40k and other of the larger games, the various factions of Infinity have their own aesthetic within the overall aesthetic of the game... My only downfall of the game, is that it uses d20, which may be a bit of a turn off for those gamers who have never done an RPG, and own nothing more than d6.

If the number of sides of the dice used scares you, but putting together models, painting, memorizing rules and tables and large numbers of dice used doesn't... well then I have nothing else to say.

It doesn't bother me personally, it bothers me in that it specifically has "scared" away gamer friends of mine from trying the game, I have the book, and some models, dice and everything to play, except an opponent.

I didn't necessarily mean you in the specific, I meant more of in the general sense. It's quite silly to latch onto GW style d6 imo. The probabilities are broken up in 16% intervals, that's quite a steep difference that +1 to a roll will make. Auto success and failure on d6 is also quite stark and aberrant. It's why I like PP/Btech's 2d6 system in many ways because of it's parabolic scalar nature and Mongoose's d10 for nice intervals of 10% or Infinity/D&D for d20 creating even smaller margins or FFG's RPG system. I just find that d6 is too sensitive to modifiers. It's why hammerhand and rad grenades break melee combat, because they shift the odds so significantly compared to any other game with just adjustments with a value of 1. In a 2d6 system +1 can give you anywhere between 3% and 16% depending on where you are on the curve allowing a more in depth odds system. In a d10 or d20, +1 is more marginal allowing greater control on the impact of a modifier allowing for better balance.

I knew there was something that's been bugging me about GK

 kronk wrote:
If you disagree, then your opinion is obviously different.

Deadnight wrote:

the fact that 40k has "sorcery", and essentially "magic" precludes it from having anything other than a veneer of sci-fi about it. Quite a lot of sci-fi is grounded in hard reality (hard sci-fi) buit for the most part, the entire genre-whilst imaginary, it is fundamentally plausable and rational to some lesser or greater degree. this hardly apply to 40k. bar a veneer, 40k is essentially a fantasy setting, with some sci fi/space opera dressings. which is fine! there is nothing wrong with fantasy. Regarding sci-fi, in my ind games like dropzone commander, and infinity epitomise sci-fi.

By that definition, Star Wars isn't Sci-fi either, even though it is considered one of the penultimate Scif-Fi movies ever. The force is essentially "magic" as well.

On an interesting note, a couple people have commented to me that Warmachine isn't steampunk, but industrial sci-fi. I agree slightly with that since I don't recall seeing one of signature traits of steam-punk like dirigibles and a Victorian style setting. People more familiar with the WMH setting can correct me if wrong and those elements are there. Thought that I had given we were disputing genres.

silent25 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

the fact that 40k has "sorcery", and essentially "magic" precludes it from having anything other than a veneer of sci-fi about it. Quite a lot of sci-fi is grounded in hard reality (hard sci-fi) buit for the most part, the entire genre-whilst imaginary, it is fundamentally plausable and rational to some lesser or greater degree. this hardly apply to 40k. bar a veneer, 40k is essentially a fantasy setting, with some sci fi/space opera dressings. which is fine! there is nothing wrong with fantasy. Regarding sci-fi, in my ind games like dropzone commander, and infinity epitomise sci-fi.

By that definition, Star Wars isn't Sci-fi either, even though it is considered one of the penultimate Scif-Fi movies ever. The force is essentially "magic" as well.

Actually, Star Wars is often referred to as the seminal work of science fantasy.

Not saying that in a pejorative way, but it's instructive when one compares the two stars: Star Wars versus Star Trek.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Well, if you think of it this way:

You're getting one model and 2 Dreadnoughts.

20 pounds (SM dreadnought) + 20 pounds (SM dreadnought) + 12 pounds (plastic Chaos Aspiring Champion) = 52 pounds = NZ$102.235. Ok, you're not getting all the upgrades and stuff you get in the Dreadnought kit, but that's something to consider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus you get everything you need to start playing (quickstart rules and model profiles). Does GW do that with their paint sets or their battleforces?

Yes, but like I said before, a lot of people do NOT want to play with three models in their army. To some, skirmish games are just uninspiring. I for one don't mind having to buy a few battleforces to get my army going, at least it's more then 3-10 figs...

silent25 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

the fact that 40k has "sorcery", and essentially "magic" precludes it from having anything other than a veneer of sci-fi about it. Quite a lot of sci-fi is grounded in hard reality (hard sci-fi) buit for the most part, the entire genre-whilst imaginary, it is fundamentally plausable and rational to some lesser or greater degree. this hardly apply to 40k. bar a veneer, 40k is essentially a fantasy setting, with some sci fi/space opera dressings. which is fine! there is nothing wrong with fantasy. Regarding sci-fi, in my ind games like dropzone commander, and infinity epitomise sci-fi.

By that definition, Star Wars isn't Sci-fi either, even though it is considered one of the penultimate Scif-Fi movies ever. The force is essentially "magic" as well.

On an interesting note, a couple people have commented to me that Warmachine isn't steampunk, but industrial sci-fi. I agree slightly with that since I don't recall seeing one of signature traits of steam-punk like dirigibles and a Victorian style setting. People more familiar with the WMH setting can correct me if wrong and those elements are there. Thought that I had given we were disputing genres.

It's sort of Medieval Steam Punk, if that makes sense. The setting draws a lot from typical fantasy but with robots and guns.

 Surtur wrote:


It's sort of Medieval Steam Punk, if that makes sense. The setting draws a lot from typical fantasy but with robots and guns.

I think what these people were taking issue with was that the Victorian style setting is an integral part of what defines steam punk. WMH doesn't have that and thus they refer to it as industrial fantasy/sci-fi. Also WHM doesn't have a aviation element to it (not game, but world) and that is also a common theme in steam punk.

Having been to a couple steam punk events, the Victorian element seems to be very central to it. At least in the fashion.

Regardless, the WMH world was a nice departure from most typical fantasy/scifi. Especially given the bizarre phobia some fantasy works have towards guns in a fantasy setting.

silent25 wrote:

On an interesting note, a couple people have commented to me that Warmachine isn't steampunk, but industrial sci-fi. I agree slightly with that since I don't recall seeing one of signature traits of steam-punk like dirigibles and a Victorian style setting. People more familiar with the WMH setting can correct me if wrong and those elements are there. Thought that I had given we were disputing genres.

The closest thing they have (only in the background) is the Balloon Vinter Raelthorne used to cross over into where the Skorne are. WM is either a case of "Our Steampunk is different" or veering right to the other end of WM's tagline of "full metal fantasy" is what "grimdark" is to 40k.

silent25 wrote:

By that definition, Star Wars isn't Sci-fi either, even though it is considered one of the penultimate Scif-Fi movies ever. The force is essentially "magic" as well.

On an interesting note, a couple people have commented to me that Warmachine isn't steampunk, but industrial sci-fi. I agree slightly with that since I don't recall seeing one of signature traits of steam-punk like dirigibles and a Victorian style setting. People more familiar with the WMH setting can correct me if wrong and those elements are there. Thought that I had given we were disputing genres.

i more often hear of star wars being described as a western in theme than as a sci fi by pundits of the genres. to be fair, its more fantasy than sci fi (and even then, only the quasi-mythos of "mytochlorians" gives "the force" any sense of grouding in real, quantifiable (if rational, and even slighly plausible) physics.

as i've said though with regard to warmachine, it has elements of stempunk (ie steam powered combat!) but beyond that, it lacks the victorianesque architechture, and the anachronistic technology. it is, essentially a fantasy setting (gods, monsters, magic etc) undergoing an industrial revolution. heck, even warjacks can be seen as an industrial revolution verson of DnD rock/wood and metal golems. basically, it is nothing more than a "twist" on a standard trope, but it does it in a unique enough way that it can call what it does its own.

All science fiction is technically based on the Western. As for the differenct sub-genras of Science Fiction, consider the following:

Star Wars is space opera.
Star Trek (classic) is science fiction.
TNG is barely science fiction and often becomes science fantasy.
DS9 and Voyager are purely science fantasy.
Total Recall (Arnold versior) is space opera.
Blade Runner is science fiction although it has a lot of nods to space opera in the dialogue (offworld colonies, c-beams, etc.)
Avatar starts off as science fiction but turns into science fantasy/pure fantasy real quick.
Looper is action/adventure based on a science fiction premis but isn't actually science fiction.
Most superhero movies are science fantasy.

That help?

 Breotan wrote:
All science fiction is technically based on the Western. As for the differenct sub-genras of Science Fiction, consider the following:

Star Wars is space opera.
Star Trek (classic) is science fiction.
TNG is barely science fiction and often becomes science fantasy.
DS9 and Voyager are purely science fantasy.
Total Recall (Arnold versior) is space opera.
Blade Runner is science fiction although it has a lot of nods to space opera in the dialogue (offworld colonies, c-beams, etc.)
Avatar starts off as science fiction but turns into science fantasy/pure fantasy real quick.
Looper is action/adventure based on a science fiction premis but isn't actually science fiction.
Most superhero movies are science fantasy.

That help?

What about 5th Element? you forgot it

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
All science fiction is technically based on the Western. As for the differenct sub-genras of Science Fiction, consider the following:

Star Wars is space opera.
Star Trek (classic) is science fiction.
TNG is barely science fiction and often becomes science fantasy.
DS9 and Voyager are purely science fantasy.
Total Recall (Arnold versior) is space opera.
Blade Runner is science fiction although it has a lot of nods to space opera in the dialogue (offworld colonies, c-beams, etc.)
Avatar starts off as science fiction but turns into science fantasy/pure fantasy real quick.
Looper is action/adventure based on a science fiction premis but isn't actually science fiction.
Most superhero movies are science fantasy.

That help?

What about 5th Element? you forgot it

5th Element is ruined by Chris Tucker.

Happy?

 Surtur wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
All science fiction is technically based on the Western. As for the differenct sub-genras of Science Fiction, consider the following:

Star Wars is space opera.
Star Trek (classic) is science fiction.
TNG is barely science fiction and often becomes science fantasy.
DS9 and Voyager are purely science fantasy.
Total Recall (Arnold versior) is space opera.
Blade Runner is science fiction although it has a lot of nods to space opera in the dialogue (offworld colonies, c-beams, etc.)
Avatar starts off as science fiction but turns into science fantasy/pure fantasy real quick.
Looper is action/adventure based on a science fiction premis but isn't actually science fiction.
Most superhero movies are science fantasy.

That help?

What about 5th Element? you forgot it

5th Element is made more awesome by Chris Tucker.

Happy?

Fixed that for you.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Surtur wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
All science fiction is technically based on the Western. As for the differenct sub-genras of Science Fiction, consider the following:

Star Wars is space opera.
Star Trek (classic) is science fiction.
TNG is barely science fiction and often becomes science fantasy.
DS9 and Voyager are purely science fantasy.
Total Recall (Arnold versior) is space opera.
Blade Runner is science fiction although it has a lot of nods to space opera in the dialogue (offworld colonies, c-beams, etc.)
Avatar starts off as science fiction but turns into science fantasy/pure fantasy real quick.
Looper is action/adventure based on a science fiction premis but isn't actually science fiction.
Most superhero movies are science fantasy.

That help?

What about 5th Element? you forgot it

5th Element is made more awesome by Chris Tucker.

Happy?

Fixed that for you.

Oh it's on, NERD FIGHT!

 keezus wrote:
1. It doesn't advance. It's always the same thing all the time.
2. The depth of fluff accompanying the game is much reduced. Once, there was more emphasis on background and theme lists. The world was dark with ambiguity. These days, the feel of the setting has been distiled down to "IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE, THERE IS ONLY WAR". For example: Old fluff would go in depth into the motivations of the Chaos Legions. These days, their motivations have been pared down to the oft quoted "KILL MAIM BURN".
3. 40k appears neither to have a "Style Bible" nor a "Continuity Bible", leading to sloppy retcons (i.e. Necrons), contradictory equipment descriptions (MULTILAZORS) and disjointed fluff in general. This is generally exacerbated by the Black Library publications - which vary greatly in quality, and sometimes outright contradict previously established storylines.
4. Over-reliance on rule of cool. Bigger explosions, huger weapon yields. Giant armies. The nuanced fluff of the old days has been replaced by a Michael Bayish bigger = epic mentality designed to cater to 12 year olds.
5. GW's protectionist stance on their IP stifles external innovation.

Every single one of these reasons is exactly why I moved onto the 40K RPG's (in every conceivable way - reading/playing/testing/writing). Every single problem listed above is essentially eliminated within the realm of the 40K RPG's. Yes, I'm coming back into 40K proper because 6th Ed is the first Edition since 2nd that I actually like, but I'd much rather play a game of Deathwatch or Dark Heresy than I would 40K.

silent25 wrote:

On an interesting note, a couple people have commented to me that Warmachine isn't steampunk, but industrial sci-fi. I agree slightly with that since I don't recall seeing one of signature traits of steam-punk like dirigibles and a Victorian style setting. People more familiar with the WMH setting can correct me if wrong and those elements are there. Thought that I had given we were disputing genres.

Admittedly, there's an undercurrent of concerns about what Steampunk is to begin with. WM seems a bit outside the norm, but there's already Steampunk curmudgeons who rail against the newer crowd who thinks anything is Steampunk if you wear goggles and glue some gears on it. "Magitek" is probably more accurate (Stollen from FFIII US) as it's basically jsut fantasy with a little bit of a veneer of mechanical work.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 keezus wrote:
1. It doesn't advance. It's always the same thing all the time.
2. The depth of fluff accompanying the game is much reduced. Once, there was more emphasis on background and theme lists. The world was dark with ambiguity. These days, the feel of the setting has been distiled down to "IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE, THERE IS ONLY WAR". For example: Old fluff would go in depth into the motivations of the Chaos Legions. These days, their motivations have been pared down to the oft quoted "KILL MAIM BURN".
3. 40k appears neither to have a "Style Bible" nor a "Continuity Bible", leading to sloppy retcons (i.e. Necrons), contradictory equipment descriptions (MULTILAZORS) and disjointed fluff in general. This is generally exacerbated by the Black Library publications - which vary greatly in quality, and sometimes outright contradict previously established storylines.
4. Over-reliance on rule of cool. Bigger explosions, huger weapon yields. Giant armies. The nuanced fluff of the old days has been replaced by a Michael Bayish bigger = epic mentality designed to cater to 12 year olds.
5. GW's protectionist stance on their IP stifles external innovation.

Every single one of these reasons is exactly why I moved onto the 40K RPG's (in every conceivable way - reading/playing/testing/writing). Every single problem listed above is essentially eliminated within the realm of the 40K RPG's. Yes, I'm coming back into 40K proper because 6th Ed is the first Edition since 2nd that I actually like, but I'd much rather play a game of Deathwatch or Dark Heresy than I would 40K.

So what sound DOES a Lasgun make?

Frem

pewpew?

Mattman154 wrote:
So what sound DOES a Lasgun make?

I've always imagined a faint hum (from the power pack), followed by a very fast vwip-ZOT sound. Think the sound of the laser from Real Genius ratcheted up a few octaves due to the compactness of the design.

According to Abnett's writing, a lasgun pops and cracks.

My favourite tidbit about the lasgun is how supposedly, Guardsmen could recharge the powerpacks by throwing them in a fire, or by sunlight. Even if this process was 100% efficient, due to the laws of conservation of energy, the concept is IMHO laughable... especially when some zealous writers have lasguns performing feats like punching through power armor or vaporizing rock.

Can I try to drag this thread back towards the topic?

I like games to be consistant .
If its fantasy in space fine.
If its space opera, fine.
If its hard sci fi, fine.
If its middle age/steam punk scifi, fine.
If its neo moden sci fi hard edged with a theme of magic woven through, fine.

BUT , keep a synergy between the background and the game play, please!!!!
PP attempts to do this.And most other games companies do.

GW plc seems to be content to just chuck cool ideas into the hat,and let any inanne drivel fall out , as long as it sounds cool to a 13 year old boy. (Lets not worry about over complicating the rules , counter intuitive gameplay , and down right WTF moments all over the place shall we?)

Basicaly PP is a games company , that has a prime demoghraphic of gamers that like thier particular asthetic.
(Like all other games companies.)

GW plc is 'in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children'.
Its prime demoghaphic is NOT GAMERS BUT COLLECTORS.(According to Tom Kirby and Jervis Johnson, 'company chairman' and 'lead games devloper.')

This is the main difference, between PP and GW.

Where did you find the JJ and Tom Kirby quote?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Where did you find the JJ and Tom Kirby quote?

Kirby I have no idea but JJ's is a paraphrasing of his column in last months WD.

There's a statement in the last bi-annual release by either Kirby or the CFO that states they are a modeling company, and something along the lines of 'wish we could remove the Games from the Games Workshop tag'.

And that's why they completely miss the boat; without the GAME component of GW, there's minimal demand for their product.

Lanrak wrote:
GW plc is 'in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children'.
Its prime demoghaphic is NOT GAMERS BUT COLLECTORS.(According to Tom Kirby and Jervis Johnson, 'company chairman' and 'lead games devloper.')

If GW is marketing to collectors... they've got a problem - because IMHO, their products aren't really collectables! They are mass produced model kit / gaming aid that doesn't offer any incentives to collect outside of their already captive fanbase.

GW products lack a lot of the properties that other "collectable items" exhibit:

(1) Limited Run - i.e. one-and-done releases such as many collectable statues, stamps, coins, certain toys etc.
(2) Rarity Fixed - i.e. packaged with fixed rarity ratios such as MTG and it's ilk, and random packed toys etc. Even Cabbage Patch Kids, made their mass produced dolls unique (read collectable) by adding the unique certificates.
(3) Are not unique - i.e. like handcrafted goods, antiques, movie props etc.

Any uniqueness that the models acquire is added by the previous owner - Unfortunately, this leads to:

(4) Little to no resale value. Most of the range depreciates immediately on the secondary market, whether it is in production or OOP. Only the rarest models hold any value, and only to the aforementioned captive fanbase.

Sad to say, but resale and appreciation of value is another reason why people "collect".

 keezus wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
GW plc is 'in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children'.
Its prime demoghaphic is NOT GAMERS BUT COLLECTORS.(According to Tom Kirby and Jervis Johnson, 'company chairman' and 'lead games devloper.')

If GW is marketing to collectors... they've got a problem - because IMHO, their products aren't really collectables! They are mass produced model kit / gaming aid that doesn't offer any incentives to collect outside of their already captive fanbase.

GW products lack a lot of the properties that other "collectable items" exhibit:

(1) Limited Run - i.e. one-and-done releases such as many collectable statues, stamps, coins, certain toys etc.
(2) Rarity Fixed - i.e. packaged with fixed rarity ratios such as MTG and it's ilk, and random packed toys etc. Even Cabbage Patch Kids, made their mass produced dolls unique (read collectable) by adding the unique certificates.
(3) Are not unique - i.e. like handcrafted goods, antiques, movie props etc.

Any uniqueness that the models acquire is added by the previous owner - Unfortunately, this leads to:

(4) Little to no resale value. Most of the range depreciates immediately on the secondary market, whether it is in production or OOP. Only the rarest models hold any value, and only to the aforementioned captive fanbase.

Sad to say, but resale and appreciation of value is another reason why people "collect".

If you keep GW stuff long enough it will increase in value due to crazy price hikes I've got a few GW kits that I bought awhile ago that are very expensive now. I have to keep checking the stupid prices before I trade them

@Bat Manuel> YMMV. You may get good returns in trades with other members of the "captive fanbase", but in general, the secondary market for unopened kits sell for below MSRP on the open market and assembled+painted kits sell for significantly below MSRP unless brilliantly assembled and painted (where upon they fall into the "collectable handcrafted goods" category, and not the broad category of "collectable" that GW thinks they cater to). I don't know what the secondary market is like for FINECAST, but I personally would never buy it secondhand as I don't think it can be refurbished like metals and plastic kits can, making its value to me, essentially zero.

Granted PP has the same issues in this regard, but at least they treat their toy soldiers as toy soldiers.

 Humaniora wrote:

Anyway add another torso to him and the 5 meters long horn, I might still like it. Looking at William Blake's pictures people see a lot of anatomical errors, I don't. I see the countnance, the meaning, the depth. Don't now why maybe it's amaeurish or sth, don't really care. Also 40k is the last place to nitpick on anatomy imo especialy if the topic is an alien beast that is hardly explained, also there are orks talking like footbal hooligans who have engineering written in genome and are really fungus, I mean wtf. The universe is grimdark serious and its own parody the same time, also go to the rules everyone has 1/6 of a chance to survive direct Lascanon hit. I don't care whether the tank could work, where is the crew, where do they keep ammo etc, wrong place for such questions. Looks like a tank and awesome for me so I'm fine with it.

That's intellectually lazy and leads to the designers of this game making gak models because they get a free pass. If something looks bad because of history (like the dreadnaught or leman russ) that is one thing. If the proportions are bad because the entire line has always had bad proportions and it's impractical for them to update 100% of their lines to realistic proportions that's one thing. Saying "It doesn't matter because things are already goofy" isn't a good excuse. This community is already permissive enough and GW already rapes his customers for every last penny while delivering bad games because of it. When people don't even expect quality from their art of models that's pretty telling of the way the 40k community wants to be treated.

There are standards to be met but just not realistic or technical ones. Rule of Cool is more restrained than you think, imo that they don't design with a technical schemes in hand doesn't mean they can do whatever they want to. Example is Dreadknight that is technicaly fine but is harshly criticised nonetheless and it's rule of cool that it has troubles with.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Two questions

Do you know any foreign language?

Now, go discuss art in that language. How was it?

My dictionary is lacking. Also at times especialy when drunk, hangovered or sleep deprived I'm not even certain whether I'm readable or not.

Than you should probably take better care to point out that your terminology is questionable because it's unfamiliar. What you've been doing is expressing opinions, implying their dominant, but refusing to back them up. You can't say "I'm right", which you have been doing, and without explaining why. Whether the reasoning is couched in artistic terminology or not it still needs to exist.

You see the poster I was reffering too was asking me to discuss artistic styles. I really thought for a moment that it's going to require sentences like "I am flushed with overriding sense of impermanence with this piece that is eclectic and monumental, a bit conceptual and rusticaly chaotic despite geometric exactness. It flourishies while naked in its rabid exhibitionism, it really is a great kitchen table" where I wouldn't really feel confident because such areas is where the language barrier gets thickier. No terms I used so far require pointing out that they're questionable, imo.

If I knew talking artistic styles means saying Gigeresque instead of "the alien ripoff" (btw the latter fits GW method of works much better), I wouldn't bother with that response tbh.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:


You say things like that, you say the tank is awesome. Why do you find it awesome? I find the Archangel awesome (a model for an army I dislike because I don't like the mutated aspect and "we're dark evil like elves", but the Archangel is my favorite model in the range because it's awesome. Why is it awesome? The height of the model and the length of the wings accurately portray the scope of a Gargantuan. The reptilian features are very distinctly draconic (having aspects of dragons), and it properly shows just how large dragons are in the Iron Kingdoms world, and represents an imposing figure on the battlefield.

All of which is completely subjective. As fun as it is that you and ShumaGorath have made this your personal gak on GW thread, no-one but you is faulting anyone else for being unable to convince you that models you don't like are actually really good. Just like you aren't going to convince anyone that doesn't like the Archangel that it's actually really good just because you write a grade school English class paper explaining your opinion in a way that you apparently feel makes it more objective.

I just want people to justify their reasoning, as soon as you guys start justifying your opinions in any way at all beyond simple fandom...

My week old post from one of the csm threads http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/480003.page?userfilterid=60506

Plumbumbarum wrote:This is something that is just unbelievable, pay 50$ for a book with marketing tricks and nerfing beyond the point of uselesslness. It's shameless, impudent crap that shows their absolute lack of respect for their consumers - how did they manage to tame their playerbase like that, no idea. Anyway I'm out from buying new models or codieces, Dark Vengenance is hopefuly my last purchase for a long time.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
...and personal preference

I'm not really sure what you are trying to achieve here, establish the objective method of judging models?. You won't prove to me that a Dreadnought is bad/ stupid/ cheap/ whatever, I don't wan't to prove to you that Archangel is bad, what's the point. Also objective analysis of the commercial pulp fantasy/sf models is shooting flies with Abrams, not to mention stating bland personal preference helps avoiding cuting on other peoples tastes.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It'll stop being our personal whatever thread. As for gaking on GW, I'm not. I'm just trying to get you people to act like adults who have reasons for their opinions. The first thing they teach you in art class is to understand composition, color, and artistic intent. To express what about and why you like something.

The artistic intent of a tank in 40k, if that's not obvious I don't know what is. The intent is a grimdark tank that fits the overall design of the army - more crude in case of IG, a tad more sleek in case of SM, tank from hell with CSM etc.

The artistic intent of a Carnifex is a grimdark scary Alien ripoff (sorry I meant a beast inspired by Giger artwork but differentiated from ones existing before) creature, this one particularly a "living battering ram" as is one-dimensionaly stated in the codex. That's another obvious one I'd say.

Not to mention you can judge art outside of artistic intent, at least that's what I thought. A 100 page analysis of PP Archangel with elaborate explanation what it is is irrelevent to my judgement of it, because it takes one look for me to subjectively see that:

Plumbumbarum wrote: those muscular arms, dragon wings and wolf nose just don't fit together aestheticaly, for me.

There is no real objective reason, it's fantasy. If you like flying blind wolves with muscular humanoid hands and monkey proportions, I'm fine with it and can't use any of that as an objective argument against the model. I just personaly don't like it, I prefer impossible tanks, boxy walking coffins and usless iron sights. You can't really throw an "Warmachine" models make more sense than 40k " argument here, wrong genre imo.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
When you throw your hands up and say that "I like it because I like it and that's all I gotta say" it's juvenile. It's a bad excuse, especially when expressing a preference of one thing over the other like Plumbumbbarum has done repetitiously.

I would say your explanations are no more elaborate or constructive than mine, examples:

Carnifex: "They take a lot of work to make look not dumb. It's doable, but it's hard." and how the beast is out of balance. Funny btw how Relic took it as it is only animated and Fex on the move is one of the most impressive sights I've ever seen as far as fictional beasts are concerned (and don't forget to demand explanation of why is it impressive, who would guess it's because it's an alien exoskeletal dinosaur monster with sick posture, scythes for arms and buglike chitin armour roaming the future battlefield in only war universe).

Vendetta: "two jets that would burn their own tails off and can't turn" "one of the worst aircraft designs I had seen in my life".

All you do is nitpicking on technical side of things, which just as nitpicking on anatomy is out of place imo because of, funnily enough, it doesn't fit artistic intent of 40k, at least as I understand it.

I believe the recent attempt to rebrand as collectables rather than game pieces is part of their legal strategy in the case vs Chapterhouse having to do with what their stuff is classified as and how that relates to copyrights and trademarks and stuff.

 BrookM wrote:
According to Abnett's writing, a lasgun pops and cracks.

Don't forget those 'snaps' as well.

 sourclams wrote:
There's a statement in the last bi-annual release by either Kirby or the CFO that states they are a modeling company, and something along the lines of 'wish we could remove the Games from the Games Workshop tag'.

That's stupid beyond comprehension. Maybe it's time for them to bankrupt, they're too old for this apparently (JJ).

 sourclams wrote:
And that's why they completely miss the boat; without the GAME component of GW, there's minimal demand for their product.

Yes you have to be disconnected from reality to not see this. Collectible 60 hormagaunts, or 35 genestealers, or 50 marines

'Collectable' stuff in general is a bit of a con

REAL collectables are items that have enough age and rarity to be desired

Things intended to be collectables, whether they are 'limited' edition plates, penknives, thimbles, comics or miniatures are speculative at best (where the limited edition is genuinely small) or a complete con at worst (limited to however many orders we get)

The other problem with them is that folk tend to take care of them, leading to less natural wastage and keeping the number in circulation high

Hi .
Just to clarify, when Jervis and Tom talk about 'collectors'.They are refering to those people who buy minatures,(mainly because of the asthetic value,) and sort of never get around to actualy playing the games.
This makes up the majority of GW plc customers since Kirby 'got involved ' with game development...
(Because the rules are so poorly defined and purpously over complicated perhaps?)

I am sure GWplcs target demoghraphic of 'children' is primarily to suport this short sighted strategy.
GW is 'cool' enough to get 2 years of Birthday and Christmas money from 11 to 16 year old boys on average.
Any other custom is seen as 'suplimentary' by GW plc corperate managment.

And this is why GW plc has to raise prices to compensate for falling sales volumes.
They ARE that stupid, they dont realise the GAME is why Space Marine Tac Squad box set is the best selling product.
IF it was people just buying cool minatures for collecting /painting etc.SINGLE CHARACTER models would be the highest sellers, NOT boxes of rank and file trioops.

Any gamer can see the problems with GWplc current buisness plan.
But GW plc is not realy interested in gamers any more , are they?

Personally I play both but prefer the Iron Kingdoms stuff. But it's down to personal taste which miniatures company is "better". Arguing about it on the interweb isn't going to change anyone's opinion. My suggestion is, play the game you like, or both games if you're that way inclined, and leave everyone else to get on with it.

Deleted my posting. The reason why is that the posting (even though it was a nice posting) was not on target with what the OP was talking about and I did not want to derail the topic to another tangent.

Adam

We seem to forget some of the AMAZING models from the LOTR range, whether they're based on the movies or made up. And the rules are clear, concise and very, very fun. It's a shame the game is dying, but c'est la vie.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
We seem to forget some of the AMAZING models from the LOTR range, whether they're based on the movies or made up. And the rules are clear, concise and very, very fun. It's a shame the game is dying, but c'est la vie.

The problem with that game was the licensing. I don't know specifics, but they weren't allowed to mix with any other GW minis for pics or anything. They were also a different size than fantasy so you couldn't mix and match them. Because of those reasons, most people don't even know how the game plays. I heard it was good, but I'm not paying money to find out when no one I know plays it

I find that the game works best not as a pick-up game like 40k (though it does work well as that) but in scenarios and recreating bits from the books and movies. It's also effective if you and your friends have worked on setting up a decent storyline for a series of narrative games with special rules and objectives. For example, once I played a series of games where goblins were attacking Lothlorien. And what made it fun were special rules and stuff.

The Mines of Moria set really is perfect because to be honest you don't need much more than that to play a decent set of games. Add your own scenarios, maybe get a set of Dwarves or extra goblins and duke it out using the simple rules. You get most of the profiles on the GW website and you don't need points because you'll just know what feels right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be honest, I prefer LOTR to any of the other games that I've played. And I've played Fantasy, 40k and Warmachine. The game just feels right.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
We seem to forget some of the AMAZING models from the LOTR range, whether they're based on the movies or made up. And the rules are clear, concise and very, very fun. It's a shame the game is dying, but c'est la vie.

While LOTR is a good game I never liked the models (or the movies' depicting of them), possibly because I've read those books ever since I learned my first English words and my own imagination supplied the requisite imagery.

Regardirng the issue of what is and is not collectable, is there an actual legal definition? Something that is codified into law somewhere? Or is it all subjective?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
We seem to forget some of the AMAZING models from the LOTR range, whether they're based on the movies or made up. And the rules are clear, concise and very, very fun. It's a shame the game is dying, but c'est la vie.

That ship turned has sailed long ago for GW. Why they haven't given a damn about it until these Hobbit movies, because then maybe people will actually start caring about it again.

Honestly I'm surprised WHFB has held on as long as it has, and GW actually is still giving it appropriate attention (something I give them credit for).

 Breotan wrote:
Regardirng the issue of what is and is not collectable, is there an actual legal definition? Something that is codified into law somewhere? Or is it all subjective?

judging by various television shows, it is a highly subjective subject.

PP is becoming GW... Wyrd is following the same path.

They all begin as 'alternatives'... then greed sets in and the pretenders step forwards to show their true colours.

Wyrd doesnt even produce nice sculpts anymore.

@AvatarForm: I hope that you're kidding. Wyrd has always been hit-or-miss, but IMHO, the've made great strides recently.

 keezus wrote:
@AvatarForm: I hope that you're kidding. Wyrd has always been hit-or-miss, but IMHO, the've made great strides recently.

Spoiler:

Go easy with those things Keezus, for an instant I thought that you were going to post the Dark Debts box and I really don't need another Malifaux crew at this time!

PhantomViper wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@AvatarForm: I hope that you're kidding. Wyrd has always been hit-or-miss, but IMHO, the've made great strides recently.

Spoiler:

Go easy with those things Keezus, for an instant I thought that you were going to post the Dark Debts box and I really don't need another Malifaux crew at this time!

Lol, I own the Dark Debts box, and trust me, you do need it

@PhantomViper and Alfndrate: I wasn't a fan of the original Wyrd crew sculpts, but I've been trolling their website recently looking for models to use as civies in IK RPG... I hadn't seen the Dark Debts models... effing great! They've really come a long way. Their steam punk crawly things are great as well. Just picked up my first Malifaux figure. A Guild Guard for use as an IK duelist. The standing guy is kinda crap, but the advancing model is fantastic.

Honestly, with GW, I was really hoping that they'd do a clean reboot a-la 3rd Edition with a Big Black Tome for everything. It's the only way to clean up all the stuff that they had leftover from 3 editions worth of messy patches. IMHO, 6th Edition not only doesn't do this, but makes things messier by completely changing the strength values of the core mechanics: Vehicles, shooting and assaults. It's poor games design to alter these core mechanics when the points values of units are "relatively" set in stone. The only reason that things even "sort-of" work points wise is that GW pigheadedly made units pay for shooting abilities, AND assault abilities regardless of whether shooting and/or assault was viable in that version of the core rules. This meant that in a bubble, the legacy shooting units AND the assaulty units were kind of balanced against each other in that they are universally an overpriced useless archetype or a useful archetype. Once new codexes hit, all bets are off. Though reviews I've read on the new Chaos Dex seems to suggest that GW's writers seriously have their heads up their collective backsides as it offers little in gameplay improvements, and serves up a bunch of mediocrity in new units.

Warmachine's PRIME to MKII release didn't change the core mechanics much, but instead removed lots of out-of-activation instances, resulting in streamlined play. The redution of points costs x10 resulted in some odd power balance issues, with units like Black 13th being somewhat too good for their points cost, and units like Greylords being somehat poor for their points cost. Neither would be well served going a full point in the other direction, but overall, PP's wave system serves it well to smooth out the bumps between editions, with Cygnar (IMHO, all finesse with little punch)getting a very powerful model in the last book to help with the army's lack of ability to do heavy lifting.

I am noticing a lot of new skirmish games hitting the market lately. In fact there seems to be a new skirmish game on kickstarter every other week. The issue is that with so many games you are going to see a number of these games fizzle out. The audience just is not there. With the current state of the economy I just don't see too many of these games being successful. The strong systems seem to be GW 40k, PP Warmahordes, Mantic seems to be doing well, Inifinity has a pretty good following, and I am pretty Malifaux is in good shape as well. The rest just seem like massive gambles, and right now you might be hard pressed to find people playing anything but GW or PP games in your area.

Note that I did not mention Warhammer Fantasy...I really think GW dropped the ball with that system. While it might be more popular in the UK it's hard to find a game in most areas I have gamed in here in the US. However that's more likely due to poor rules than anything else.

 keezus wrote:
@AvatarForm: I hope that you're kidding. Wyrd has always been hit-or-miss, but IMHO, the've made great strides recently.

Spoiler:

Damn you! Now I need to dust off my fate deck...

Seriously though, very awesome. I gotta find out if this faction interacts with the existing Asian theme starter...

 keezus wrote:
@AvatarForm: I hope that you're kidding. Wyrd has always been hit-or-miss, but IMHO, the've made great strides recently.

I was excited about this until I tried to assemble the damn plastics.

Tiny, fiddly, and they only fit one way. I'm a terrible assembler. Give me
something to work with!

 malfred wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@AvatarForm: I hope that you're kidding. Wyrd has always been hit-or-miss, but IMHO, the've made great strides recently.

I was excited about this until I tried to assemble the damn plastics.

Tiny, fiddly, and they only fit one way. I'm a terrible assembler. Give me
something to work with!

Wait, those are plastic? When did Wyrd start making plastic Malifaux stuff? And yeah, that Thunders set looks pretty damn good.