Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Warpath! A sci-fi game of galaxy wide wars between the elves of two rival companies.

SilverMK2 wrote:I'm not really seeing where the age of the company comes into how good its sculpts are?

The only advantage GW has is that it has a set style to work to and everyone working for them know what it is.

Mantic are entirely capable of hiring or commissioning (as they have) very good sculptors to make models for them. Hell, they could even hire someone who has been sculpting longer than GW has been around if they really wanted to.

If only things were so simplistic... Design, material/ cast limitations, tight schedules etc and a never ending list of things DO influence the final result! But Im repeating myself here... I can even tell you that you can gather a team of the best pros ever born and the final result can still be not positive.

But again, the age of the company doesn't have a massive influence in any of that...

NAVARRO wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I'm not really seeing where the age of the company comes into how good its sculpts are?

The only advantage GW has is that it has a set style to work to and everyone working for them know what it is.

Mantic are entirely capable of hiring or commissioning (as they have) very good sculptors to make models for them. Hell, they could even hire someone who has been sculpting longer than GW has been around if they really wanted to.

If only things were so simplistic... Design, material/ cast limitations, tight schedules etc and a never ending list of things DO influence the final result! But Im repeating myself here... I can even tell you that you can gather a team of the best pros ever born and the final result can still be not positive.

John Romero failed at making us his bitch, one of the best examples out there.

NAVARRO wrote:If only things were so simplistic... Design, material/ cast limitations, tight schedules etc and a never ending list of things DO influence the final result! But Im repeating myself here... I can even tell you that you can gather a team of the best pros ever born and the final result can still be not positive.

Really? I find this logic very hard to follow.

There's only a few things that would lead to a bad product (under those circumstances) and they all stem from the company CEO/directors/Leadership.....one factor would be unclear direction, the other would be lack of investment....but that's it. If you hired experienced sculptors, and operations team, and gave them clear direction as to what you wanted, and based on their assessment, invested the required funds...the prodcut would come pretty much, as close as damn it, to what you wanted....ok, the products success will ultimately be seen in the market place....that's another discussion maybe, but as far as getting "positive" results in the form of getting what the company wants.....why not?

SilverMK2 wrote:But again, the age of the company doesn't have a massive influence in any of that...

That, as you say can make the difference between a project that doesnt kick start well and never passes the first level and closes down... to a biz that can built up the next steps with some latitude due to acquired stability... the more time you tried a formula the more you can change it to your preferences... If you tried it out for the first time in your 1 year life, all is a bit of a surprise and really not knowing how things will be accepted by the clients. These projects evolve and the more time you are at it the more defenses you have ( its not black and white thing though many successful formulas done over and over again sometimes dry up and unless you find a new one you die)

Delephont wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:If only things were so simplistic... Design, material/ cast limitations, tight schedules etc and a never ending list of things DO influence the final result! But Im repeating myself here... I can even tell you that you can gather a team of the best pros ever born and the final result can still be not positive.

Really? I find this logic very hard to follow.

There's only a few things that would lead to a bad product (under those circumstances) and they all stem from the company CEO/directors/Leadership.....one factor would be unclear direction, the other would be lack of investment....but that's it. If you hired experienced sculptors, and operations team, and gave them clear direction as to what you wanted, and based on their assessment, invested the required funds...the prodcut would come pretty much, as close as damn it, to what you wanted....ok, the products success will ultimately be seen in the market place....that's another discussion maybe, but as far as getting "positive" results in the form of getting what the company wants.....why not?

Few things? Sorry Delephont mate but in creative industry you never ever have a safe bet and the tiniest thing can destroy a rather well executed package... for example Heldorado... great minis, superb stuff art package but didnt pass the french tiny barriers and also had some "problems" with some fluff things...
These projects are far from that simple.
How many miniatures games and projects had a very professional creative face and crumbled to other factors?
Also reading you seems that a very good leadership is enough for a company to have success... It helps a lot but its not the ONLY factor to have in consideration... how many great companies with competent leadership didnt manage to "sell" their creative high quality universes?

Creative industries are not that linear IMO.

@ the 2 post above , remember Rakham?

TT-TT

NAVARRO wrote: Few things? Sorry Delephont mate but in creative industry you never ever have a safe bet and the tiniest thing can destroy a rather well executed package... for example Heldorado... great minis, superb stuff art package but didnt pass the french tiny barriers and also had some "problems" with some fluff things...
These projects are far from that simple.
How many miniatures games and projects had a very professional creative face and crumbled to other factors?
Also reading you seems that a very good leadership is enough for a company to have success... It helps a lot but its not the ONLY factor to have in consideration... how many great companies with competent leadership didnt manage to "sell" their creative high quality universes?

Creative industries are not that linear IMO.

I think we are talking around each other I don't disagree with you. I think, to make things simple, you can break a project down into two phases, pre production and post production. Pre production, a company has an idea, a concept, and works towards making that concept a working "reality"....this is the area I was mostly discussing. This is where the company gathers the right people (in terms of experience and ability). Once the whole team believes the product to be ready, they hit the button, and KAPOW....it appears on the shelf at the shops....now this, for example, is post production, and this is where we'll see if the initial concept and the way that concept was executed will actually be successful in its target market.

The examples you give above of failures, in my opinion, all happen in the post production stage, and it turns out that the concepts strategies that the company wanted to express, for whatever reason, was not well recieved by the market.

However, like most people have been saying, this has nothing what-so-ever to do with the age of the company.....granted, the age of the individuals who make up the company may well paly a big role, if the guys are fresh out of University, arrogant and feel that what-ever they do will be gold, then yes, that will definately play a role in the products success. But look at Mantic, these guys have been in the industry for years....so they don't have that excuse.

All in all, it seems like a waste of time arguing over whether the Elves are good or bad it's clearly a question of taste, by all means, a person can state clearly that they either like or dislike them, but to drag the debate on and on like this is pointless.....unless you are trying to convince others to change their mind....I shall mention no names here.

kenshin620 wrote:Well if they are going to make space bugs, they better be way better than these!

Have you seen those models in person? I have, they are not as bad as you think.

Generally, although i love mantic and what they do, the paintjobs and photograpghy could be better.

xxvaderxx wrote:I love how every mantic hater`s only argument is "i hate those elves". If we were to apply the same argument to GW firsts models, they wouldn't even be here today.

I am not a Mantic hater. If I was, I wouldn't have written rules for sieges, Kislev armies and other things for use with their Kings of War game. But that doesn't mean I like what they've done with the miniature line. They've only made plastics for units that already have plastic kits from GW, and some of them have really obvious flaws. The Ghouls and Zombies are great, but if the heads at Mantic can look at their top-hat-wearing, gak-eating-grinning doofus of a mascot for their Ax regiment and claim that they're intimidating or less comedic than GW's, they're crazy.

AlexHolker wrote:The Ghouls and Zombies are great, but if the heads at Mantic can look at their top-hat-wearing, gak-eating-grinning doofus of a mascot for their Ax regiment and claim that they're intimidating or less comedic than GW's, they're crazy

This, for me, is SO true. I watched the BoW Turn 8, and I almost fell off my chair when the head guy from Mantic explained that their Orks were "not comical, and looked agressive and menacing!".....WTF! Those guys are as comical as anything.....I mean, they're not bad, but they ain't that different to the GW offerings.

The Orks from LotR, now those guys were serious....but what most game companies consider to be orks, are (IMHO) just GW derivative work.

Warpath: A sci-fi game of comedy duelling Orks in Spaaaace.

AlexHolker wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:I love how every mantic hater`s only argument is "i hate those elves". If we were to apply the same argument to GW firsts models, they wouldn't even be here today.

I am not a Mantic hater. If I was, I wouldn't have written rules for sieges, Kislev armies and other things for use with their Kings of War game. But that doesn't mean I like what they've done with the miniature line. They've only made plastics for units that already have plastic kits from GW, and some of them have really obvious flaws. The Ghouls and Zombies are great, but if the heads at Mantic can look at their top-hat-wearing, gak-eating-grinning doofus of a mascot for their Ax regiment and claim that they're intimidating or less comedic than GW's, they're crazy.

Both dwarft races are grate.
All undead are grate
Orcs are grate.

GW already had plastics for them? i guess you dont really have a clue what mantic is about...

xxvaderxx wrote:GW already had plastics for them? i guess you dont really have a clue what mantic is about...

Again, people need to comprehend that there's a difference between not understanding how a company does things and not agreeing with how a company does things. I know what Mantic is about, but the lack of innovation in their miniatures range is the reason I expect to be buying AoW's next plastic kit and none of Mantic's.

AlexHolker wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:GW already had plastics for them? i guess you dont really have a clue what mantic is about...

Again, people need to comprehend that there's a difference between not understanding how a company does things and not agreeing with how a company does things. I know what Mantic is about, but the lack of innovation in their miniatures range is the reason I expect to be buying AoW's next plastic kit and none of Mantic's.

I think you should seriously look up the word "Innovation" in a dictionary.


In fact, does anybody actually know how is it that AoW has not been sued out of existence by now?. I know its off topic, but i cant figure that one out.

xxvaderxx wrote:I think you should seriously look the word "Innovation" up in a dictionary.

And you should look up "grate".

Its not like GW is the first one that came up with ideas for undead or dwarfs.

Both the company are creating kits for popular races...

AlexHolker wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:I think you should seriously look the word "Innovation" up in a dictionary.

And you should look up "grate".

Spell checker not the same as dictionary, but i am getting an idea as to why you might be confused...


Seriously thou, does AoW have licences from GW or something? we have seen other companies get sued for much less.

The hell could GW sue for?

You can not trademark dwarf, elf, undead, as they are part of popular culture.

I could produce a dwarf model tomorrow, and GW would just ignore me.

The ONLY way they can sue is if the model is so similar as to produce confusion, and even then its iffy.

If GW continue to ignore their specialists games, then eventually you could challenge them for the copyright in court, as you have to actively use/defend your copyrights in order to maintain them.

People need to get out of the mindset that GW own fantasy and sci-fi - they do not. They stole most of their universes from other places as well. In fact GW owes quite a bit to J.R.R. Tolkien as that is where most of their "ideas" came from in the first place.

darkslife wrote:The hell could GW sue for?

You can not trademark dwarf, elf, undead, as they are part of popular culture.

I could produce a dwarf model tomorrow, and GW would just ignore me.

The ONLY way they can sue is if the model is so similar as to produce confusion, and even then its iffy.

If GW continue to ignore their specialists games, then eventually you could challenge them for the copyright in court, as you have to actively use/defend your copyrights in order to maintain them.

People need to get out of the mindset that GW own fantasy and sci-fi - they do not. They stole most of their universes from other places as well. In fact GW owes quite a bit to J.R.R. Tolkien as that is where most of their "ideas" came from in the first place.

Cmon be honest, they are carbon copy of GW`s IP, as i said before other companies have been sued for much less.

xxvaderxx wrote:

darkslife wrote:The hell could GW sue for?

You can not trademark dwarf, elf, undead, as they are part of popular culture.

I could produce a dwarf model tomorrow, and GW would just ignore me.

The ONLY way they can sue is if the model is so similar as to produce confusion, and even then its iffy.

If GW continue to ignore their specialists games, then eventually you could challenge them for the copyright in court, as you have to actively use/defend your copyrights in order to maintain them.

People need to get out of the mindset that GW own fantasy and sci-fi - they do not. They stole most of their universes from other places as well. In fact GW owes quite a bit to J.R.R. Tolkien as that is where most of their "ideas" came from in the first place.

Cmon be honest, they are carbon copy of GW`s IP, as i said before other companies have been sued for much less.

Why of course it is. One look at GW's fantasy range reveals a wealth of protectable ideas, from the fanciful dwarven flying machines, steam tanks, riflemen... I mean, the list just goes on and on...


*N.B. Before anyone begins ranting about who copied who, my point isn't who first popularized a unit, it's noting that almost nothing aside from a few of the proper names in WHFB (or WoW, for that matter) are protectable in any meaningful way.

good news for me, having non GW options it´s good for all wargamers!

As people are discussing in the CHS threads, it seems like it would be very difficult to actually infringe upon GW's IP without physically making a cast of a GW item. AoW make very generic fantasy models; the only one of theirs I think is even vaguely approaching real GW IP is the ogre, and even then the idea of a mongoloid ogre is hardly protectable.

GW have not completely abandoned their Specialist Games - they do still sell the models. Unlike say, their Lamassu model which they recently caused a small stir. Even then , copyright expires only after 30 years of misuse iirc.

I'm looking forward to seeing some humans or xenos from mantic - some great-coated guardsmen types would be cool

Indeed, vonsirius. Dragging the thread back on topic...

Despite the various accusations, Mantic does have a business strategy distinctly different to that of GW, and this inevitably influences design of both their models and their games.

Whether you personally like or dislike particular sculpts is entirely subjective. Having painted a goodly number of Mantic minis, now, I think some sculpts are a bit rubbish whilst some are brilliant. I would say exactly the same thing about GW.

But Mantic has always been about "building big armies". And KoW is about playing games with big armies. You can play with smaller forces, but the degree of abstraction can be a bit distracting. But when you play with a really huge force of dozens or hundreds of models the game comes into its own and is a really epic experience.

As far as Warpath goes, I would expect something similar: big armies with big tanks and rules stripped down to enable epic conflicts. Imagine an Apocalypse game that doesn't take a whole weekend to play four turns! I would also, therefore expect the forces in Warpath to be priced accordingly. As was recently pointed out elsewhere, one can buy a whole Mantic army for less than the price of some GW 5-model regiments. At the size of game KoW is designed to support, the occasional weak sculpt is absorbed into the impact of an entire army.

Having said all that, I'm not too thrilled with the concept artwork for Warpath. The half-track dog-tank thing is unspeakably silly, and the space dwarves barely less-so. Making Abyssal Dwarves for KoW was an act that seemed more inspired by antipathy (albeit relatively good-natured) towards GW than by good business sense, and making space dwarves would seem to be a similar act of corporate nose-thumbing.

I'm hoping to be impressed by Warpath. So far I'm yet to be convinced, but it's very early days for what's been released for fans to see. For now, Ronnie and crew, I remain cautiously optimistic.

R.

Buzzsaw wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

darkslife wrote:The hell could GW sue for?

You can not trademark dwarf, elf, undead, as they are part of popular culture.

I could produce a dwarf model tomorrow, and GW would just ignore me.

The ONLY way they can sue is if the model is so similar as to produce confusion, and even then its iffy.

If GW continue to ignore their specialists games, then eventually you could challenge them for the copyright in court, as you have to actively use/defend your copyrights in order to maintain them.

People need to get out of the mindset that GW own fantasy and sci-fi - they do not. They stole most of their universes from other places as well. In fact GW owes quite a bit to J.R.R. Tolkien as that is where most of their "ideas" came from in the first place.

Cmon be honest, they are carbon copy of GW`s IP, as i said before other companies have been sued for much less.

Why of course it is. One look at GW's fantasy range reveals a wealth of protectable ideas, from the fanciful dwarven flying machines, steam tanks, riflemen... I mean, the list just goes on and on...


*N.B. Before anyone begins ranting about who copied who, my point isn't who first popularized a unit, it's noting that almost nothing aside from a few of the proper names in WHFB (or WoW, for that matter) are protectable in any meaningful way.

Uh dwarves have been portrayed as technically advanced in a number of books/rpgs etc.

I could make a dwarven helicopter tomorrow, and as long as I do not call it "Dwarven Gyrocopter" or make it an exact copy - I am golden. I could make it look very similar, but its my ip, and they can not sue me for it.

In fact I'm more than willing to bet GW has already asked their lawyers about Mantic, and have been shot down hard. GW is very legal happy, which is detrimental to the hobby, but good for GW.

Personally, I can not wait to see WARPATH rules and miniatures, and I'm hopeful its easily scaleable from small to large battles. If they do a human empire army, I am hopeful that if they have walking tanks, they are a lot better than the "I'm an american footballer in armour" that space marines have going on.

Hold up... isn't there a Dwarven Gyrocoptor in Warcraft II and Warcraft III? I wasn't aware that GW had invented the concept of a medieval helicopter that happens to be piloted by Dwarves?

Come at me bros

H.B.M.C. wrote:Hold up... isn't there a Dwarven Gyrocoptor in Warcraft II and Warcraft III? I wasn't aware that GW had invented the concept of a medieval helicopter that happens to be piloted by Dwarves?

Didn't you know? GW invented everything under Heaven, including Heaven. Or at least their IP lawyers would like you to think.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Hold up... isn't there a Dwarven Gyrocoptor in Warcraft II and Warcraft III? I wasn't aware that GW had invented the concept of a medieval helicopter that happens to be piloted by Dwarves?

My point exactly.

According to google, I could call it a Dwarven Gyrocopter, as a gyrocopter is a thing, and not something made up by GW.

Also I like the distinct elven look quite a bit, and would consider collecting a sci-fi elf army if the sci-fi undead do not capture my imagination.

Maybe I'm just completely anti-GW now, but blocking off Euro retailers, and then claiming they "support the hobby" in Australia just annoys me to no end.

Vladsimpaler wrote:Come at me bros

lol

Anyway...you're all wrong. Just felt like putting that out there.

Except for the guy who said the tiger half-track was silly, because it is. Hopefully that idea got scrapped.