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.

RoperPG wrote:

As you're a fan of broad strokes, here goes;

You think nuance is a wood elf special character.

what

You're so sure of your mental superiority that anyone who disagrees obviously is experiencing some sort of hobby- related Stockholm Syndrome.

I just try to find an explanation why people keep supporting a company that made them start an expensive hobby and then invalidated their choices year after year. When you are a Bretonnia player. A Tyranids player. If you bought the goblin-cleaver or the dogs of war. Or people that converted their Marbo for IG. We could go on pages with examples.

That without complicated rules (to feel clever about) and an official points system (so you can convince yourself that your list wasn't broken, you're just a better player) you can't actually garner any enjoyment from the hobby any more because you're back to being an insecure beta with no outlet to demonstrate your prowess at being an alpha nerd. Because if winning isn't the point, then why bother, right?

This is just a clumsy attempt of a strawman. That reveals your insecurities about any competitive games, perhaps (not sure).

I do not want to "feel smart with complicated rules". Lotr SBG (from GW! probably their best work along with BB, other example) has simple rules but they work fine in list building and in game. I do not want to "feel clever": I want the people writing rules being clever, and creating an efficient system because pay them money to do so. This hobby is not cheap, for money I want quality. lotr SBG and BB are simple, but are well thought and elegant. AoS is just sad.

I see the problem of point systems in former GW games; but this just demonstrate that GW is unable, I'd say unwilling, to fix or attempt to balance their games. And consider that 99% of my games were with the usual friends and very friendly, because those were the people I would talk with after drinking a beer and speaking about strategy.

Insecure beta? Oh my delicate feelings... it hurts so much. You are a clever debater, albeit merciless.
I am tempted to just do not dignify you with an answer, I am a professional and I do not live more than 2 years in the same country. And I cannot dedicate so much time to the hobby. Is a slow hobby for me and GW keeps destroying what one builds (see above imagine I built a Bretonnia army, slowly, over time -AAARGH ). This is why I focus on lotr on ebay now. Is old and I hope GW does not ruins it anymore (but they added dumb rules with the Hobbit). And because Perry > Autocad (in general, there is some new stuff very good).

Winning is not the point (point is the fun), but it must be the aim of the game. How this is not obvious, is mind-boggling to me.

Hey, isn't painting people with broad strokes fun?

when done cleverly, yes. But you know... See above. You did show the same heavy-handedness of the company you are defending

You do not like AoS. I'd go as far as to say you don't like GW either.
There are others who feel the same way as you.
But there are many more either at the opposite end of the spectrum or somewhere in between. Seeing the world as only black or white isn't a good idea.

Many more? Let see where this travesty of a game goes. IMHO, not so far..

hobojebus wrote:
GW is an example of how not to run a games company they are a laughing stock.

That is so true, yet GW is still making millions in profit, not in the red at all and don't owe any money and not even close to bankruptcy. For all the ill they do, they are like cockroaches and still surviving.

Then again if GW is not a way to run a games company, I find it funny Privateer Press and FFG/Amsodi (spelling? Maybe not FFG/Amsodi, could be wrong on that part) are doing the same thing GW is doing now.

Davor wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
GW is an example of how not to run a games company they are a laughing stock.

That is so true, yet GW is still making millions in profit, not in the red at all and don't owe any money and not even close to bankruptcy. For all the ill they do, they are like cockroaches and still surviving.

Then again if GW is not a way to run a games company, I find it funny Privateer Press and FFG/Amsodi (spelling? Maybe not FFG/Amsodi, could be wrong on that part) are doing the same thing GW is doing now.

While not technically wrong that GW are in the black and don't owe anything, their revenue has been falling for years now and they are yet to actually find a way to stop that. I'd say a good analogy for GW is a seemingly perfectly healthy person with a potentially deadly tumor growing inside them. If the doctors can get it out they'll be absolutely fine. If.

I'm curious what you mean about PP and FFG 'doing the same thing'?
Both are very big on customer interaction, neither try to run their own retail chain. What's the similarities?

 jonolikespie wrote:

Davor wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
GW is an example of how not to run a games company they are a laughing stock.

That is so true, yet GW is still making millions in profit, not in the red at all and don't owe any money and not even close to bankruptcy. For all the ill they do, they are like cockroaches and still surviving.

Then again if GW is not a way to run a games company, I find it funny Privateer Press and FFG/Amsodi (spelling? Maybe not FFG/Amsodi, could be wrong on that part) are doing the same thing GW is doing now.

While not technically wrong that GW are in the black and don't owe anything, their revenue has been falling for years now and they are yet to actually find a way to stop that. I'd say a good analogy for GW is a seemingly perfectly healthy person with a potentially deadly tumor growing inside them. If the doctors can get it out they'll be absolutely fine. If.

I'm curious what you mean about PP and FFG 'doing the same thing'?
Both are very big on customer interaction, neither try to run their own retail chain. What's the similarities?

He was talking about the recent PP 'free loader policy'.

 auticus wrote:
I'd say the biggest difference in the two are the communities and the fans of either game and what they want out of a game.

I played warmachine back in the day, still own my cryx, but one thing that pushed me out was that the warmachine community ... at least where I am ... was never interested in campaigns or anything that was not related to a tournament or tournament-league.

My warhammer community was also a lot like that until 8th came out.

If the community supported more non tournament events for Warmachine and focused more on narrative or kingdom building, I may give it another look but until then for me thats kind of pointless where I am because the player base is not interested in those type of games at all.

Ah, so much going on in this threads, luckily Dakka appends posts. I was about to make a comment about how civil discussion is on this board compared to...others. And it still is IMO.

Interesting comparison of games, one I haven't discussed that much with groups. Back home we actually have a lot of gamers who, like me, are game whores and play many games. WMH scratches that competitive itch while GW games are the fluff, narrative in many instances. One thing I love though about WMH which is not in Warhammer is the narrative battle is a fight with more than hack and slash. I was really hoping whatever fantasy game GW was going to put out would allow for some power attacks. There are so many interesting points in WMH besides synergy(though with annual releases for al and a constantly shifting "meta" it doesn't get old for me, and many others, but you can pull surprise and more importantly hilarious, moves. Models in my way, didn't expect me to chuck the officer at you, did you? Or epic brawl between beasts and machine, then Headbutt. Lots of options. Gators throwing Gators Or Pigs...what's not to love?

It is different though than mass battle fantasy, obviously. PP models are not too far behind GW in many cases, unless you are content with a starter box and maybe a beast/jack or two. And I love my Fyreslayers. Leaked pics, like usual, sucked. Buying them and knowing I'm going for an elemental fire theme like that sweet pic of Grimnir smashing face solved all that. In fact, I am painting them right now and until I read that I never saw a tip toe. Tbh, I still don't. They are springing or stepping into a swing/strike and the tip toe thing is just silly. It will make for some hilarious commentary at upcoming games, though. Who doesn't enjoy a good voice, pantomime or theatrical performance during a GW game?


Actually, I wonder now how many of my previous gaming groups are splitting time between these two (or maybe also 30/40K) games and for which itch..

 ImAGeek wrote:

He was talking about the recent PP 'free loader policy'.

Yeah, FFG/Asmodi did similar a while back too.
I don't play PP games any more. Did you know that if you pick their expensive stuff you can spend hundreds of dollars on just several models? Disgusting...

RoperPG wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

He was talking about the recent PP 'free loader policy'.

Yeah, FFG/Asmodi did similar a while back too.
I don't play PP games any more. Did you know that if you pick their expensive stuff you can spend hundreds of dollars on just several models? Disgusting...

I know, it's awful, they really should only give you ONE model and charge hundreds of dollars like AoS

While I haven't gamed yet, just collecting and painting even slower, is Aos and Warmahordes the same in terms of rushing into the middle and just have combat?

At least in 40K terms or the only other game I am familiar with now of Dropzone Commander, you have objectives that make you travel the board. In Warmahordes and I think AoS, it's just a rush to the middle or your opponent and duke it out.

Is there any reason to have a bigger board if everything eventually ends up in the middle?

Yes and no.
If you're not playing scenarios then like any other primarily close-combat game you'll wind up with the scrum in the middle more often than not.
Warmachine scenarios are exceptionally objective driven with positioning being very important - you still get big combats, but they are normally focussed around control points.
AoS, the scenarios lean toward destruction of the/an enemy but plenty have specific objectives where body count is irrelevant, such as get model x off the opposite board edge etc.

Pretty sure the people that don't like AoS and GW far outnumber the fans these days.

To me this is not relevant. I don't care if the things I like are embraced by everyone else, the majority of everyone else, or the minority of everyone else.

Having come from taking ancients fairly seriously, AoS was what I was looking for from warhammer (I just wanted to put some cool models and/or monsters down and have a good time, without ing coretax). Not to mention the daunting (and expensive) tome.

Which leads me to think that AoS (probably giving GW too much credit, but it worked out this way) fills a niche that could make money with less competition.
A competitive mass battle game? Kings of War. A competitive "skirmish" small game? Warmahordes. A large "skirmish" game? 40k. Realistic mass battle? Historical.
Why compete with these if you can fill a different role? The "we have nice models and easy, casual rules" role.

jonolikespie wrote:
While not technically wrong that GW are in the black and don't owe anything, their revenue has been falling for years now and they are yet to actually find a way to stop that. I'd say a good analogy for GW is a seemingly perfectly healthy person with a potentially deadly tumor growing inside them. If the doctors can get it out they'll be absolutely fine. If.

I don't think tumours have anything to do with it - think they've just changed direction and just decided they would rather focus on the high end, rather than wanting a huge community to cater to- I mean if you can sell less for more and still come out roughly even. Wouldn't you do it? My dad did the same thing with his business when he got older and when I wasn't going to follow him into it. I mean, he used to have about a half dozen part timers for about six months of the year, but gradually cut back to the point where he could run it as a one man show (with occasional help) and while he was making less stuff, he had far less outgoings and found he was coming out with the same at the end of it all. The recession hit in 2008 and most of the reason my dad was able to stay afloat was because he'd cut back to being a one man band. I see nothing wrong with it to be honest.

Kaiyanwang wrote:
I do not want to "feel smart with complicated rules". Lotr SBG (from GW! probably their best work along with BB, other example) has simple rules but they work fine in list building and in game. I do not want to "feel clever": I want the people writing rules being clever, and creating an efficient system because pay them money to do so. This hobby is not cheap, for money I want quality. lotr SBG and BB are simple, but are well thought and elegant. AoS is just sad.

I see the problem of point systems in former GW games; but this just demonstrate that GW is unable, I'd say unwilling, to fix or attempt to balance their games. And consider that 99% of my games where with the usual friends and very friendly, because those were the people I would talk with after drinking a beer and speaking about strategy.

Speaking about the lotr game, I have to agree with you here. It's a very solid game, so long as you avoid the movie characters! Nice solid rules, and interesting interactions. I think it's probably their most under appreciated game (I remember during its heyday how all the 40K folks, Including me, sadly used to hate on it for stealing resources from gws 'proper games', and I don't think a lot of people got to appreciate its subtleties and cleverness). I've recently bought quite a few warriors and riders of Rohan, along with some Gondor dudes. My mates and I often play historicals (dark ages and classical mainly) and I think the lotr rules will be excellent for running dark age skirmishes, with the boys from Rohan being decent stand-ins for celts, dark ages warriors, Roman auxiliaries etc and the Gondor plate armoured dudes are decent stand ins for any era involving plate armour. Very cheap buys too, to be perfectly honest! Better late than never, eh?

Davor wrote:While I haven't gamed yet, just collecting and painting even slower, is Aos and Warmahordes the same in terms of rushing into the middle and just have combat?

At least in 40K terms or the only other game I am familiar with now of Dropzone Commander, you have objectives that make you travel the board. In Warmahordes and I think AoS, it's just a rush to the middle or your opponent and duke it out.

Is there any reason to have a bigger board if everything eventually ends up in the middle?

To be fair, there are only so many things you can do and only so many places to go in a game where 'getting stuck in' is the order of the dat. And hitting someone over the head in melee is the most likely way to get rid of them. (Is lots of fantasy or historicals). You need to fight somewhere. I mean, you're either gonna fight in the middle, roughly in the middle. or fight on one side or the other. Or else you have two gunlines that don't really move.

Bear in mind as well, while it might seem like rushing into the middle and having combat is going on, there are a lot of subtleties and things going on beneath the surface.

DarkBlack wrote:
Which leads me to think that AoS (probably giving GW too much credit, but it worked out this way) fills a niche that could make money with less competition.
A competitive mass battle game? Kings of War. A competitive "skirmish" small game? Warmahordes. A large "skirmish" game? 40k. Realistic mass battle? Historical.
Why compete with these if you can fill a different role? The "we have nice models and easy, casual rules" role.

Pretty much. Privateer press went after the competitive players specifically with a game that focused on the competitive side of wargaming, thry did everything they can to support 'organised play' and grassroots organisation, and in s lot of ways succeeded. They knew their niche, they targeted it, and their game expanded in a big way. Fair play.

Gw are doing the same thing. They're just targeting a specific niche. It just happens though that they chucked the vast majority of their previous wfb customers off a cliff in the process and this, this didn't really help. But in a lot of ways, I think Aos is gw finally 'being honest', and making a game that reflects their own 'vision' and how they themselves play their games and how they want their players to approach their games. This is not necessarily a bad thing (nuking the old world, and turning their backs on the community that supported it's direct predecessor, along with how they introduced the game - yeah, that leans towards 'bad') There is a niche for this kind of game. It's not as visible as the Internet going/tournament crowd is, but it is there. Whether it's big enough to support Aos and to grow though - that's another question.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Davor wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
GW is an example of how not to run a games company they are a laughing stock.

That is so true, yet GW is still making millions in profit, not in the red at all and don't owe any money and not even close to bankruptcy. For all the ill they do, they are like cockroaches and still surviving.

Then again if GW is not a way to run a games company, I find it funny Privateer Press and FFG/Amsodi (spelling? Maybe not FFG/Amsodi, could be wrong on that part) are doing the same thing GW is doing now.

While not technically wrong that GW are in the black and don't owe anything, their revenue has been falling for years now and they are yet to actually find a way to stop that. I'd say a good analogy for GW is a seemingly perfectly healthy person with a potentially deadly tumor growing inside them. If the doctors can get it out they'll be absolutely fine. If.

I'm curious what you mean about PP and FFG 'doing the same thing'?
Both are very big on customer interaction, neither try to run their own retail chain. What's the similarities?

Yeah but what's worrying is its whoring out its IP to anyone that can pay that's kept it "stable" model sales continue to drop year on year and they've now cut down to the bone they can't loose any more retail staff, 40k is no longer the best selling miniature game and AoS isn't on the charts but they continue on with the same disastrous pricing policy.

And if they can't continue to pay out inflated dividends the shareholders won't stick around.

Yes ffg prices have gone up slightly on web stores but it's a far cry from the 20-30% GW slaps on their new releases, prices in bricks and mortar stores are not affected.

Deadnight wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:
While not technically wrong that GW are in the black and don't owe anything, their revenue has been falling for years now and they are yet to actually find a way to stop that. I'd say a good analogy for GW is a seemingly perfectly healthy person with a potentially deadly tumor growing inside them. If the doctors can get it out they'll be absolutely fine. If.

I don't think tumours have anything to do with it - think they've just changed direction and just decided they would rather focus on the high end, rather than wanting a huge community to cater to- I mean if you can sell less for more and still come out roughly even. Wouldn't you do it? My dad did the same thing with his business when he got older and when I wasn't going to follow him into it. I mean, he used to have about a half dozen part timers for about six months of the year, but gradually cut back to the point where he could run it as a one man show (with occasional help) and while he was making less stuff, he had far less outgoings and found he was coming out with the same at the end of it all. The recession hit in 2008 and most of the reason my dad was able to stay afloat was because he'd cut back to being a one man band. I see nothing wrong with it to be honest.

Divorced from any GW discussion, I agree with this and have said similarly on here. In many businesses, raising prices and targeting the higher-spending niche of a niche is a smart way to go. Anecdotally, my girlfriend in her business has found more success raising prices and selling fewer products, and has even found that raising prices alone can spur new sales because of perceived value. In a project I ran for a time, I had a similar experience. There were some people who would buy my product when offered at a decent, and quite low, price, but the time investment wasn't worth it to me. There were exactly two people who would buy the highest-end version of my product for a very high price, and I was far better off catering to those two customers than the dozens below. This is not to say anything GW or anyone else does is right or wrong, but that in many industries and businesses and situations, lower prices is not always the answer.

While I haven't gamed yet, just collecting and painting even slower, is Aos and Warmahordes the same in terms of rushing into the middle and just have combat?

At least in 40K terms or the only other game I am familiar with now of Dropzone Commander, you have objectives that make you travel the board. In Warmahordes and I think AoS, it's just a rush to the middle or your opponent and duke it out.

That's not an issue with the game but the players. Each of my AoS games has been me having get across the entire board without getting stuck in the middle.

What you describe is the issue with constantly playing a beat em up, kill all battle game. You can play any game like that, 40k can and has been played like that as well. If that is the sort of game you don't like then stop playing them and put some objectives down instead - make victory dependent on getting off the far corner in 6 turns, or moving some portal objective off your side or having your wizard perform a ritual on a dragon fate dias, kill a specific hero, give your opponent unlimited reinforcements etc. It is very very easy to come up with multiple ways of avoiding what you say is an issue.

Deadnight wrote:


Speaking about the lotr game, I have to agree with you here. It's a very solid game, so long as you avoid the movie characters! Nice solid rules, and interesting interactions. I think it's probably their most under appreciated game (I remember during its heyday how all the 40K folks, Including me, sadly used to hate on it for stealing resources from gws 'proper games', and I don't think a lot of people got to appreciate its subtleties and cleverness). I've recently bought quite a few warriors and riders of Rohan, along with some Gondor dudes. My mates and I often play historicals (dark ages and classical mainly) and I think the lotr rules will be excellent for running dark age skirmishes, with the boys from Rohan being decent stand-ins for celts, dark ages warriors, Roman auxiliaries etc and the Gondor plate armoured dudes are decent stand ins for any era involving plate armour. Very cheap buys too, to be perfectly honest! Better late than never, eh?

The movie characters often cost a lot of points so you have to think twice before including them. Even Sauron can be "contained" somehow (but the guy would need a post dedicated). Is true that the scale and the scope feel "better" with "anonymous" captains.
I absolutely love how is a skirmish, but you can put models in formation and you have a game effect for this. I expected a similar system for AoS, you know.
I said to myself "well, maybe is for the best. Maybe we will see new interesting combats and games on a different, needed scale". Oh my how wrong was I.

I, too, regret not having appreciated lotr sbg it fully when I was still in my homeland. Still, even back then, we immediately recognised the simplicity. The hobbit introduced awful weapon rules that everybody ignores, but now the monsters are more useable. In any edition, there are imbalances but not so big like in other GW games. You can mix and match so you can have Rivendell finally with a cavalry and dwarfs with spear support. Cavatore created it, Matt Ward continued cleverly but introduced his usual imbalances and power creep, and fluff-murder like the shamans, but I just ignore the not-fluffy models. The current hobby is ok, I love less the new models because I ove less the Hobbit movies compared to the Lotr ones.
There are ways to have a whole hero army but you have to know what are you doing. Evil and Good can ally with other Evil and Good, and the warband system gives some coherence in the presentation of the list so you have no "frankenstein lists". Many things could have been improved but there would not have been time for flyers and giant robots in 40k I guess.

Rohirrim? I painted uruk-hais today

You are absolutely spot-on on the historical. Many basic tactics in lotr copy middle age low-number encounters and skirmishes. You could even go the other way around, building stats for historicals with lotr system.You can estimate very well the point cost for troops in lotr, use gondorian and rohirrim as a baseline. Go something like Orc Bow = Short Bow (1 pt), Elf Bow = English Bow (2 pt, english only). uruk-like Str4 only for the well-fed knights, the rabble uses Str3. Otherwise you keep most stats equal among all the troops and you keep the Armor system. Pikes, Spears, Lances, Cavalry, Banners, Drums, Horns, are covered. It's interesting and I could imagine a future project with models from Perry or similar companies. You gave me a good idea, thanks

Kaiyanwang wrote:

The movie characters often cost a lot of points so you have to think twice before including them. Even Sauron can be "contained" somehow (but the guy would need a post dedicated). Is true that the scale and the scope feel "better" with "anonymous" captains.
I absolutely love how is a skirmish, but you can put models in formation and you have a game effect for this. I expected a similar system for AoS, you know.
I said to myself "well, maybe is for the best. Maybe we will see new interesting combats and games on a different, needed scale". Oh my how wrong was I.

Well, I think we'll be sticking with 'kings of men' to be our leaders and warlords.

We tend to do a lot of home brewing anyway, and usually play 2 on 2, so I think what I'll suggest some day (and I think the suggestion will carry) is one player 'leads' with the 'King' (because there can only be one) and the second player gets the second in command - the 'kings champion'. I envision the King to have a fight value of 5, strength 4 (because he's had at least one square meal a day most of his life) and two attacks. Along with 2 might and will points. The Kings champion gets a fight value of 6, strength 4, 3 attacks and a single point of might.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

I, too, regret not having appreciated lotr sbg it fully when I was still in my homeland. Still, even back then, we immediately recognised the simplicity. The hobbit introduced awful weapon rules that everybody ignores, but now the monsters are more useable. In any edition, there are imbalances but not so big like in other GW games. You can mix and match so you can have Rivendell finally with a cavalry and dwarfs with spear support. Cavatore created it, Matt Ward continued cleverly but introduced his usual imbalances and power creep, and fluff-murder like the shamans, but I just ignore the not-fluffy models. The current hobby is ok, I love less the new models because I ove less the Hobbit movies compared to the Lotr ones.
There are ways to have a whole hero army but you have to know what are you doing. Evil and Good can ally with other Evil and Good, and the warband system gives some coherence in the presentation of the list so you have no "frankenstein lists". Many things could have been improved but there would not have been time for flyers and giant robots in 40k I guess.

I like the models for their simplicity and more 'true scale' nature. Although it's a Wargame based on a movie that's based on a fantasy book that was written by a literature profesure with a fascination for Nordic folklore, I find the sbg and its models are remarkably well grounded in a decently believable historical 'look'. I think that's entirely down to the perry's. Aside from minor greebles - I filed off the stupid trees and filigree from the Gondor helmets and shields and I find the wee horse motifs on the Rohan boys to be handwaveawayable.

When I introduced the game, I made the point that there were a few things to be aware of. First is the scale - generally, about fifty models a player is at the very upper end of what is recommended - I think at that level, the game will bog down rather quickly (2 on 2 means a hundred a side!).
Second issue is the fantasy/movie characters. The others aren't necessarily so keen on either fantasy (magic is a big immersion breaker for them) or reenacting the movies, so we'll probably just ignore frodo, his mates and the more overt fantasy elements in the gsme- we were all quite taken with Bernard cornwell's Saxon series, and uhtred is a rather cool warlord, but I can't really see him, or other dark age warlords fighting a balrog in Mercia!)
Third point - mixing and matching - well, it won't be a problem as we'll probably do that anyway. Most stuff will probably be firmly grounded in the historical period in terms of bow, spear, axe and so on. If a unit profile fits the scenario/theme then it gets used. Or else we just brew up our own one - it's not hard to figure out really (unarmoured skirmishers with bows being defence 3 and so On).
If anything though, my only issue with the rules is that they can be a bit 'artificial' at times - and I get it. Gw had to write a bunch of factions and make each distinct, but some of the limitations make little sense - Gondor cavalry don't get shields, and warriors of Rohan can't take spears (thry can take shooty spears, but not stabby spears) for example. Again, we will probably just ignore those ones and go with what makes more sense.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

Rohirrim? I painted uruk-hais today

Filthy Orc!

I was having a paIn ting night with my mate and counted what I had- twenty cavalry, forty odd archers, a hundred odd warriors of Rohan (mixture of spears and swords/axes), along with 36 warriors of minas tirith, some characters that will step in for 'kings of men' and a bunch of elves and numenorians. Enough for about eighty or ninety models aside, with two players on each.

Yeah, I have started painting the cavalry! The rest is pending!

Kaiyanwang wrote:


You are absolutely spot-on on the historical. Many basic tactics in lotr copy middle age low-number encounters and skirmishes. You could even go the other way around, building stats for historicals with lotr system.You can estimate very well the point cost for troops in lotr, use gondorian and rohirrim as a baseline. Go something like Orc Bow = Short Bow (1 pt), Elf Bow = English Bow (2 pt, english only). uruk-like Str4 only for the well-fed knights, the rabble uses Str3. Otherwise you keep most stats equal among all the troops and you keep the Armor system. Pikes, Spears, Lances, Cavalry, Banners, Drums, Horns, are covered. It's interesting and I could imagine a future project with models from Perry or similar companies. You gave me a good idea, thanks

Horns and drums? I think I skipped them...

Feel free to use my ideas though! Neither of us are the first ones to use the lotr sbg rules to run historical games. There is a lot of potential there - coastal raids, sieges (love the siege ladders, battering rams and siege towers!) and a lot of interesting scenarios besides. The more I read into it, the more excited I got for all the possibilities. It's more adaptable than most of the 'rank and file' historicals we play as well, I think. Just go easy on the balrogs! This is middle England, not middle earth!

For me too, the simple and and more realistic models are a breath of fresh air compared to the over-designed stuff you see now. And the poses. Look at the Perry orcs: they are evil, but clumsy, scared pitiful creatures as well and you see them from their poses. Compare with the aggression of the Uruk. The calm distance of the elves. The best models are the ones from the movies. The actors helped a lot in the design, and this is BTW what the CGI Hobbit orc fail to accomplish: they look more like Uruk-hai than orcs. Thay are big and aggressive but they lack the pitiful aspect that a normal lotr orc has. Warhammer orcs are awesome and I love them, but that's another universe and they have another origin.

The system is modular enough that Magic is an option not something you have to bring to win. Same big monster. They are like tanks in 40k you need infantry for support. Really, does not look like a game from the same company of Warhammer. Perhaps because no more than one designer at time made it. This should perhaps show that the books of Warhammer are not unbalanced because the designers are bad, but because there is a lack of a person caring for coordination in the studio. Management problem. I can see they just give up, leave (the talented people left, who remained wrote AoS).

The stuff I am painting now is an army of 52 Uruks (48 + 4 heroes), 39 Dwarfs + 4 Heroes and 34 Noldor Elves plus 3 Heroes. 750 points each army (elves are super elite and difficult IMHO) Only 1 Elf hero has magic. One day I will add Saruman so he can rant about his Fighting Uruk-hai and ask them whom do they serve. Slooooowly hunting for metal orcs on Ebay.

BTW, you called them Filthy Orcs? They are the Fighting Uruk-hai! They slew the great warrior. They took the prisoners. They are the servants of Saruman the Wise, The White Hand: The Hand that gives them man's-flesh to eat. They came out of Isengard, and will bring the Hobbit there.

Horns and drums are options in the books, generally cost 20-25 points IIRC. I do not have the models so far but orc ones increase the non-charge movement (represent march at the rhythm of the drum) and banners give reroll. Horns increase Courage of the models on the field. Goblin drums decrease good model courages. If this breaks your immersion, just ignore them, but just FYI.

Now we should stop, is an off-topic... albeit not really. Lotr, like warmachine, is a well thought skirmish system. AoS is just an excuse to sell overpiced, overdesigned wow-ripoffs.

As other people have already said, juxtaposing Age of Sigmar and Warmachine is an apples and oranges comparison, and that's one of the reasons why it's so difficult - as this thread sadly demonstrates - to have a civilised discussion on the subject, or indeed to have one that doesn't degenerate into rehashing the same entrenched positions of 'competition vs. narrative'.

(A dichotomy of dubious value to begin with, but that's another issue.)

It not even that Age of Sigmar has just attracted players' disfavour because it has obviously been positioned by GW as the successor to WFB, while manifestly not offering players' the same experiences (i.e. massed ranks, notionally balanced battles), though it's not hard to see how this has fostered anger and disappointment.

I think the real problem with drawing comparisons between Age of Sigmar and any other mainstream wargame is that though AoS bears the signifiers of a wargame (plastic men on scenic terrain, rules, measuring, dice-rolling) it has stepped, by virtue of what it does not include (composition rules) outside the substantive boundaries of what a wargame is generally considered to be. It is a thing of its own for which there is not yet a proper name; a 'game-themed activity'.

VeteranNoob wrote:

It is different though than mass battle fantasy, obviously. PP models are not too far behind GW in many cases, unless you are content with a starter box and maybe a beast/jack or two. And I love my Fyreslayers. Leaked pics, like usual, sucked. Buying them and knowing I'm going for an elemental fire theme like that sweet pic of Grimnir smashing face solved all that. In fact, I am painting them right now and until I read that I never saw a tip toe. Tbh, I still don't. They are springing or stepping into a swing/strike and the tip toe thing is just silly. It will make for some hilarious commentary at upcoming games, though. Who doesn't enjoy a good voice, pantomime or theatrical performance during a GW game?

Sorry but what can be badly misunderstand from this "masterpiece"?
http://imgur.com/VqLK1Fn

Moreover, the mirror pose, details, beard, are an effect of the photo and paint job? I mean seriously? Look at the crest. See nothing wrong?

What is this dwarf doing? "Come at me bro" the only SFW explanation I have. And even in that case, one expects the feet holding firmly on the ground, bracing for the charge. Tell me this is not tiptoeing. Is souless, in the pose and in the expression. Is very symbolic of AoS actually. It lacks a context.

You know, it remember me what Hayao Miyazaki said about modern anime.
"You see, whether you can draw like this or not, being able to think up this kind of design, it depends on whether or not you can say to yourself, ‘Oh, yeah, girls like this exist in real life. If you don’t spend time watching real people, you can’t do this, because you’ve never seen it. Some people spend their lives interested only in themselves. Almost all Japanese animation is produced with hardly any basis taken from observing real people, you know. It’s produced by humans who can’t stand looking at other humans. "

The resemblance with this dwarf design is uncanny. Now, in the industry there is far worse, but the price for this "masterpiece" is way too high for what it offers. Is a rushed job, and is another example of the contempt GW has for the customer. Deserved contempt, I start to think.

Kaiyanwang wrote:
another example of the contempt GW has for the customer. Deserved contempt, I start to think.

Perhaps you are projecting your own contempt for people who like something you don't.

I don't have the same depth of feeling as Kaiyanwang, and more power to people who like it, but to me that Fireslayer looks like a pretty lazy CAD job. The two sides are almost perfectly symmetrical. It most clearly stands out in the beard, which is mirrored exactly on either side.

The face IS lacking in character compared to other GW dwarves. I'm not a huge fan of WFB Dwarves despite having an army of them, but the faces of the models almost always had a clear character to them - something this mini is clearly lacking.

This compounds the problem of the Stormcast lacking character (as an intentional design choice - asking for them to have character would be somewhat like wanting rank and file necrons to have character), and the Bloodbound being pretty mono-maniacal. The bloodbound are the only new release for AoS that I can say express any particular character beyond "I am a badass". It's "I am a psychopathic, murdering, evil badass", which isn't exactly a huge breadth either.

This is a shame for those of us who loved WFB due to it's gritty nature and the wonderful character of things like the Free Company, the Bret Men at Arms and the like.

coldgaming wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:
another example of the contempt GW has for the customer. Deserved contempt, I start to think.

Perhaps you are projecting your own contempt for people who like something you don't.

Perhaps. But is what I did say valid or not? I ask it again: What is the dwarf doing and what is his facial expression?

 Da Boss wrote:
I don't have the same depth of feeling as Kaiyanwang, and more power to people who like it, but to me that Fireslayer looks like a pretty lazy CAD job. The two sides are almost perfectly symmetrical. It most clearly stands out in the beard, which is mirrored exactly on either side.

The face IS lacking in character compared to other GW dwarves. I'm not a huge fan of WFB Dwarves despite having an army of them, but the faces of the models almost always had a clear character to them - something this mini is clearly lacking.

This compounds the problem of the Stormcast lacking character (as an intentional design choice - asking for them to have character would be somewhat like wanting rank and file necrons to have character), and the Bloodbound being pretty mono-maniacal. The bloodbound are the only new release for AoS that I can say express any particular character beyond "I am a badass". It's "I am a psychopathic, murdering, evil badass", which isn't exactly a huge breadth either.

This is a shame for those of us who loved WFB due to it's gritty nature and the wonderful character of things like the Free Company, the Bret Men at Arms and the like.

Honestly I think lazy CAD design should be GW's new catch phrase.

I do not like any of the AoS models released to date they certainly don't warrant the prices GW asks for them even if I'd liked the game I would of gone elsewhere for models.

hobojebus wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I don't have the same depth of feeling as Kaiyanwang, and more power to people who like it, but to me that Fireslayer looks like a pretty lazy CAD job. The two sides are almost perfectly symmetrical. It most clearly stands out in the beard, which is mirrored exactly on either side.

The face IS lacking in character compared to other GW dwarves. I'm not a huge fan of WFB Dwarves despite having an army of them, but the faces of the models almost always had a clear character to them - something this mini is clearly lacking.

This compounds the problem of the Stormcast lacking character (as an intentional design choice - asking for them to have character would be somewhat like wanting rank and file necrons to have character), and the Bloodbound being pretty mono-maniacal. The bloodbound are the only new release for AoS that I can say express any particular character beyond "I am a badass". It's "I am a psychopathic, murdering, evil badass", which isn't exactly a huge breadth either.

This is a shame for those of us who loved WFB due to it's gritty nature and the wonderful character of things like the Free Company, the Bret Men at Arms and the like.

Honestly I think lazy CAD design should be GW's new catch phrase.

I do not like any of the AoS models released to date they certainly don't warrant the prices GW asks for them even if I'd liked the game I would of gone elsewhere for models.

Strange from my part perhaps but.. I would save the Gaunt Summoner.
- Good Concept
- Tzeentchian themes are subtle, lacks the usual heavy-handedness (ok barring the disc)
- Reminds the monsters of the director Del Toro. Just think about the Death in Hellboy
- Has over-worked parts, but they fit with the model concept
- Even then, it has clear areas to "give a break" to the viewer
- Is clear what he is doing. You don't only get he is speaking, you get he is chanting. Brilliant.
- They cared to make details of vest, head and armour not symmetrical. This should be a given but apparently is not

But still. Speaking of dwarfs, is perhaps an old trend. Who remembers the second wave of metal longbeards? Look what happened when dwarfes switched to plastics. Meh.

The FyreSlayer Dwarf looks like an animation model in neutral post, before the animator gets to work and poses him.

Kaiyanwang wrote:

VeteranNoob wrote:

It is different though than mass battle fantasy, obviously. PP models are not too far behind GW in many cases, unless you are content with a starter box and maybe a beast/jack or two. And I love my Fyreslayers. Leaked pics, like usual, sucked. Buying them and knowing I'm going for an elemental fire theme like that sweet pic of Grimnir smashing face solved all that. In fact, I am painting them right now and until I read that I never saw a tip toe. Tbh, I still don't. They are springing or stepping into a swing/strike and the tip toe thing is just silly. It will make for some hilarious commentary at upcoming games, though. Who doesn't enjoy a good voice, pantomime or theatrical performance during a GW game?

Sorry but what can be badly misunderstand from this "masterpiece"?
http://imgur.com/VqLK1Fn

Moreover, the mirror pose, details, beard, are an effect of the photo and paint job? I mean seriously? Look at the crest. See nothing wrong?

What is this dwarf doing? "Come at me bro" the only SFW explanation I have. And even in that case, one expects the feet holding firmly on the ground, bracing for the charge. Tell me this is not tiptoeing. Is souless, in the pose and in the expression. Is very symbolic of AoS actually. It lacks a context.

You know, it remember me what Hayao Miyazaki said about modern anime.
"You see, whether you can draw like this or not, being able to think up this kind of design, it depends on whether or not you can say to yourself, ‘Oh, yeah, girls like this exist in real life. If you don’t spend time watching real people, you can’t do this, because you’ve never seen it. Some people spend their lives interested only in themselves. Almost all Japanese animation is produced with hardly any basis taken from observing real people, you know. It’s produced by humans who can’t stand looking at other humans. "

The resemblance with this dwarf design is uncanny. Now, in the industry there is far worse, but the price for this "masterpiece" is way too high for what it offers. Is a rushed job, and is another example of the contempt GW has for the customer. Deserved contempt, I start to think.

Well. I didn't design it so I can't speak for those who made this but all I can give is my own opinion.
You like it or you don't. I've yet to meet a dwarf collector with more and a wider range of dwarf models that I have from many many lines so I feel quite comfortable with my own take on my models. Are they better than the previous slayers or 8th Ed dwarf releases? IMO no. Having assembled and painted a few boxes of these this one model you linked is the closest to what I think you are calling tippy toes. Even then, I don't think I'd call it that. I'm happy to have plastic slyaers and have modeled them in a way I like, so I'm content. Could they have been better? Absolutely! the crest looked odd in the pics but works out just fine in person. These studio pics were unfortunate. But I've seen many painters so far work the flesh tone design just fine and make they look great.

In short, I disagree with you on this one. The crest and poses worked out fine. I don't see tippy toes as you do. And I'm really not sure where you are getting this whole "masterpiece" thing from. It's unfortunate you dislike all the AOS stuff, I hope your gaming experience is enjoyable and you fight many epic battles But I really hope you don't actually think the staff at GW, or really any company, is out to get its customers and muhahahaha, monies!! That last part is...just absurd.

It's lazy CAD work.. Beard is exact on both sides, Mohawk is same on both sides, both arms in the same position... Just change the symbol on the wristband and models done

That dwarf model is a chubby turd

 VeteranNoob wrote:

Well. I didn't design it so I can't speak for those who made this but all I can give is my own opinion.
You like it or you don't. I've yet to meet a dwarf collector with more and a wider range of dwarf models that I have from many many lines so I feel quite comfortable with my own take on my models. Are they better than the previous slayers or 8th Ed dwarf releases? IMO no. Having assembled and painted a few boxes of these this one model you linked is the closest to what I think you are calling tippy toes. Even then, I don't think I'd call it that. I'm happy to have plastic slyaers and have modeled them in a way I like, so I'm content. Could they have been better? Absolutely! the crest looked odd in the pics but works out just fine in person. These studio pics were unfortunate. But I've seen many painters so far work the flesh tone design just fine and make they look great.

In short, I disagree with you on this one. The crest and poses worked out fine. I don't see tippy toes as you do. And I'm really not sure where you are getting this whole "masterpiece" thing from. It's unfortunate you dislike all the AOS stuff, I hope your gaming experience is enjoyable and you fight many epic battles But I really hope you don't actually think the staff at GW, or really any company, is out to get its customers and muhahahaha, monies!! That last part is...just absurd.

What can I say? As people above said, more power to you. And I suppose modelling (helped by the plastic material) solves some of the posing issue. I do not like the big weapons and I am appreciating the small maces on my lotr orcs right now, but that's high fantasy and behind this there is a common design paradigm present in Warmachine, too.
I cannot explain the pricing, anyway. Of course a company will want money from customers, is how they work. What I question is the offer in base of the money asked.
But you too have fun converting and painting man (or woman)! Enjoy and thanks!

One note: I do not want to pick on designers that much. I do not think that people working in GW now are exceptionally talented (the comparison with former employees, even people dangerously creative like Mr. Ward, author of so much crap but of so much brilliance as well), but my guess (just my guess, mind it) is that many game designers or miniature artists are doing hasty jobs because they are overworked and undermanned. Bean counters in GW, I think, just do not believe in investing in people.

GW did see Warmachine, a CEO said "look they have bigger minis in proportion, and free 4 pages rules. That's why they are gaining ground. Do something like this. Do it NOW do not worry about the quality - they will buy it anyway because we are the best on the market. Ah, add something spacemariney to it. Horus Heresy is selling like hotcakes, is not because FW gives a flying disk about rules and bg, it must be because of the marines. Add moar marines we cannot go wrong. Get rid of this low fantasy stuff, look at Warcraft this is what kids want nowadays".

The problem is that, like psychopaths, GW knows the words but not the music. Behind the skirmish rules of Warmachine there is a careful process of testing and dialogue with the gamers. This is not perfect (Pistol Wraith uber-nerf, anyone? ) but the framework created allows for a tight ruleset that can be then well represented in few pages. Then any model comes with rules on the box and this is the reason warscrolls exist. We will see them in the boxes. because Privateer does and must be the cool thing to do - disregarding all the context around such rules in the box.

Same with the setting. Albeit the stereotype behind Warmachine is a cutthroat gaming environment, the setting is rich. The Iron Kingdoms are born from a DnD 3rd edition campaign setting; there is heart and creativity poured in it, with typical and untypical fantasy tropes applied ad hoc. Hell, even basic elements very DnD-esque, like energy damage (fire, frost, acid.. ) are maintained. Nothing of this is compared to the Cosmic Blandess of AoS.

GW just fails to understand why certain mechanics or setting elements in Warmachine reach the heart of the customer. Like psychos, GW sees a normal "person" (Privateer) interact and have depth, plans, content but the only thing that GW can do is mimicry the behaviour of the neurotypical dude because has no depth by himself. From a superficial analysis it looks like the same behaviour but is not. Is a mimicry devoid of the inner understanding of why certain behaviours are implemented. The words, but not the music.

Calm down, I am aware of the exaggeration of this hyperbole. Is indeed veeeeery daring (but I am not the first person that compares a company to a person, and even not the first one to attribute to a company a psychopathic behaviour).

But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures. There is not a visible and coherent plan in the release, at least one that the customers can envision (there is not empathy for the customer, no understanding that he would want to plan for his expensive hobby. There is no concept of planning, just impulsivity). . Ruthlessness. Goodbye bretonnia, goodbye khemri. Pathological lying ("we are not going to squat anything anymore").
And going outside AoS, just think how easily GW becomes a bully when thinks that can get away with it. does anyone remembers the Space Marine lawsuit? I mean that is impossible, arrogant, and unrealistic. Something only a psycho can conceive. The facade drops, and you see the true face of the psycho.

And you, like the friends or relatives of the psychopath, remain there baffled, bewildered and unable to understand this guy, his plans, his incoherence, his shortsightedness, and his ultimate tendency to self destruction.