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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Power Elephant wrote:
There are plenty of games, even by GW alone, that require very few models and can still provide hours of gameplay, such as blood bowl and shadow war. Hundred bucks is more than enough for a team, even if you buy all the possible options.

For sure, GW have done some great stand alone games over the years, Space Hulk and Dreadfleet being some of my favourites.

That being said, when the new Necromunda comes out, I can guarantee that GW will build a replica Hive City on a 12 x 6 board, or probably even bigger.

Nothing wrong with that, but like I say, it could be off-putting to the average gamer.

It's a double edged sword for me. Some people are inspired, some people are put off.

That's only GW's games.

Infinity plays on a 4x4 board. Malifaux plays on a 3x3 board. Mercs plays on a 2x3 or smaller area. All three games have forces per player that are 10 models or less. There's lots of other skirmish games on the market as well that play on the same smaller boards like Saga, Kensei, Frostgrave, Batman, etc.

As for terrain, there's now some good options for pre coloured terrain that actually looks good. For example, Plastcraft does coloured ranges for Malifaux, Infinity, Post Apocalypse, Kensei, Saga and WW2 in both 28mm and 15mm. 4grounds does a huge range or prepainted MDF terrain. Battlekiwi does a range of Infinity pre painted MDF, though it's generic sci fi enough to fit with any sci fi game, plus some Historical and WW2 buildings.

Then you've got the companies offering printed mats.

Wargaming, the time needed to make a decent looking table to play on, is as time consuming as you make it. Personally, I use printed mats and pre-coloured terrain (aside from scatter terrain which tends to be resin and need paintin) and it is great to play on and requires almost no time to get ready to play. I've got a lot of MDF terrain that needs painting that I just don't have the enthusiasm to do. I'm seriously considering offloading it and buying more pre coloured terrain.

Same with amount of miniatures. If you're put off by building and painting huge armies, there's a vast range of skirmish sized games to play.

 auticus wrote:
To me its something to aspire to.

I got into wargaming *because of* the spectacle.

Take that away with crappy coke can forests and cardboard chit "models" and the point of me playing has been ruined.

The aspirational scenes are the only reason I buy wargaming magazines. If I want to see small armies fighting over a sheet and some cardboard terrain I'll go to my gaming club.

I want to see what's possible, get ideas from it, and have an end goal of producing something like that when I have the time to do so (when I retire in 32 years I'm making boards and armies for some huge games).

I don't recall the high quality of stuff putting me off when I was younger, and most magazines (except WD) still have articles showing you how to make stuff for cheap.

The aspirational scenes are the only reason I buy wargaming magazines. If I want to see small armies fighting over a sheet and some cardboard terrain I'll go to my gaming club.

I want to see what's possible, get ideas from it, and have an end goal of producing something like that when I have the time to do so (when I retire in 32 years I'm making boards and armies for some huge games).

I don't recall the high quality of stuff putting me off when I was younger, and most magazines (except WD) still have articles showing you how to make stuff for cheap.

Exactly. I know what I can afford to do, what I have space for and what is realistic in terms of my current painting and modeling ability. I also know what I want to see in terms of what the "pros" can do. If the game magazines were all filled with images of models painted to my current standard and terrain laid out on a green table cloth with a cramped kitchen in the background - yeah no thanks. I LIKE that they go over the top in magazines. It's inspiring to me and gives me something to shoot for.

I have a few images from old White Dwarfs clipped out and saved from over the years. They are images of 'eavy Metal painted Space Marines, Orks, and CSM. I saved them because those images are what I want my stuff to eventually look like. I've actually managed to get there with Orks (took FOREVER) and it's immensely satisfying when it happens.

I still feel there has to be a mix.

Gorgeous, award winning paintjobs. Massive, breath taking gaming boards or displays - but alongside articles and examples on batch painting to a tabletop standard, how to make a hill out of polystyrene sheets - maybe how to rig up your own polystyrene cutter.

Cover the full gamut. Show the entirety of the hobby, and let the individual find their own ground.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I still feel there has to be a mix.

Gorgeous, award winning paintjobs. Massive, breath taking gaming boards or displays - but alongside articles and examples on batch painting to a tabletop standard, how to make a hill out of polystyrene sheets - maybe how to rig up your own polystyrene cutter.

Cover the full gamut. Show the entirety of the hobby, and let the individual find their own ground.

Sound and sensible advice

And GW used to do that back in the Nigel Stillman days.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I still feel there has to be a mix.

Gorgeous, award winning paintjobs. Massive, breath taking gaming boards or displays - but alongside articles and examples on batch painting to a tabletop standard, how to make a hill out of polystyrene sheets - maybe how to rig up your own polystyrene cutter.

Cover the full gamut. Show the entirety of the hobby, and let the individual find their own ground.

Pretty much exactly this, in my opinion. I love seeing the big inspiring layouts. It gets me motivated, even if I'm not attempting to recreate something like it. But the articles should include more accessible content.

I think this is a problem with any visual aesthetic. I mean, women's magazines have been around forever, and there's plenty of unrealistic expectations in there. It's a problem if you let it be a problem, and I think we all know GW is expensive. My own irritation (: is Dwarven Forge. During the DF KS, backers, who averaged $1000 per pledge, kept saying that a few hundred dollars was an inexpensive (or at least reasonable) price for plastic terrain. Well, I say that it's not, and, with the Reaper KS (not to mention the Hand of Glory RPG miniatures KS which I didn't expect to back), my wallet is certainly glad.

Looking at it from another angle... if you have the money... you can buy a Koenigsiggsiggsigg car road legal for $5 million ... a Daiwa air fishing rod for £3850... I could go on.... but... despite these extremes, "normal" people (whoever they are) carry on buying beans, cars, rods, bananas, toy soldiers...

I think we need to keep in mind that the demographic of people that are going to head to a 40k forum are going to be more into the hobby than the average joe.

I love the crazy pics/ scenarios in magazines, but I wish they would balance it out with, "You people just getting into the scenario. Here is something aimed just at you!."

Sometimes it can feel like you have to be neck deep in the hobby before it feels like it's marketed to you. Granted, the starter boxes helped with that. I think it would go to great lengths though if White Dwarf were to release an article every now and then along the lines of, "You bought the Dark Imperium Starter Set. Here is a new unique scenario and lore to go with it. Here is the new and interesting things you can add to the scenario if you add only 2-300 hundred more points per side.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ Talizvar
A very good post.
But I'm afraid you're preaching to the converted.
I go down to the local beach for sand (why pay for GW's sand when you can get it for free ) and I'm probably an expert at taking rocks from the garden and converting them into terrain pices.
As for trees, some PVA glue, some kitchen paper, and some wire, and you're laughing.
It took me years to get to this stage, and it was probably the same for you. But from the perspective of a kid getting into the hobby, who doesn't have our knowledge or skills, that person might see the giant display boards in WD and could possibly be overwhelmed by what they see.
That's the point I'm getting at.

Say for the moment I focus on GW's White Dwarf.
I would agree that it does portray a somewhat unachievable standard.
I know for a fact they do photo touch-up in the magazine so whatever their professional painters could not achieve, their professional photographers can correct.
They want the images to be inspiring because "everyone" would be very excited to play with "toys" of that caliber, it would be so epic looking.
The magazine is also biased because it is geared toward advertising GW's goods, so if some trees are for sale, they will not be inclined to show how to make your PVA glue, kitchen paper and wire ones.
I have looked at the articles lately and they have been good at showing what amounts to "block painting" of just how to neatly get a coating on each panel of the model without getting into shading just yet.

Now, I would say in their defense that I notice the models may have more detail but they portray more mono-chromatic models or with very few multi-colour models (more an iconic looking model than realistic).
You want to paint a marine? Prime it the main chapter colour, apply 2 to 3 other detail bits and then a wash and you have a good and reasonable tabletop standard looking model.

The 8th edition release has these "push-together" models that look pretty darn good right from the start so beginner efforts should not be too bad.
We are far and away from kits that would be under 2" high and have 10+ parts to them.
I would say that unless you play a game like X-wing, GW is getting their 40k game into shape to be a good entry product for new hobbyists.

I really must note that I have done this for so long that I may be completely overlooking some "simple" challenges the uninitiated may be facing.
I keep reminding myself for every 5 minutes I seem "brilliant" represents some 2 hours of stupidity in my past.

To me its something to aspire to.

I got into wargaming *because of* the spectacle.

Take that away with crappy coke can forests and cardboard chit "models" and the point of me playing has been ruined.

Couldnt agree more. I remember the WDs from the 90s with cool looking ork forts and forest scenes with Tyranids and thinking "wow, I've got to try and recreate these".
It was inspiring.
The open days with their mega displays also, the siege of terra one, the nids attacking the space wolf fortress, the tau VS IoM one etc.

 Ratius wrote:

To me its something to aspire to.

I got into wargaming *because of* the spectacle.

Take that away with crappy coke can forests and cardboard chit "models" and the point of me playing has been ruined.

Couldnt agree more. I remember the WDs from the 90s with cool looking ork forts and forest scenes with Tyranids and thinking "wow, I've got to try and recreate these".
It was inspiring.
The open days with their mega displays also, the siege of terra one, the nids attacking the space wolf fortress, the tau VS IoM one etc.

Yeah, but how many bad paint jobs did the 1990s WDs cause? I've got a few horror stories I could share with you, plus a couple of minis I held on to for old times' sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@ Talizvar
A very good post.
But I'm afraid you're preaching to the converted.
I go down to the local beach for sand (why pay for GW's sand when you can get it for free ) and I'm probably an expert at taking rocks from the garden and converting them into terrain pices.
As for trees, some PVA glue, some kitchen paper, and some wire, and you're laughing.
It took me years to get to this stage, and it was probably the same for you. But from the perspective of a kid getting into the hobby, who doesn't have our knowledge or skills, that person might see the giant display boards in WD and could possibly be overwhelmed by what they see.
That's the point I'm getting at.

Say for the moment I focus on GW's White Dwarf.
I would agree that it does portray a somewhat unachievable standard.
I know for a fact they do photo touch-up in the magazine so whatever their professional painters could not achieve, their professional photographers can correct.
They want the images to be inspiring because "everyone" would be very excited to play with "toys" of that caliber, it would be so epic looking.
The magazine is also biased because it is geared toward advertising GW's goods, so if some trees are for sale, they will not be inclined to show how to make your PVA glue, kitchen paper and wire ones.
I have looked at the articles lately and they have been good at showing what amounts to "block painting" of just how to neatly get a coating on each panel of the model without getting into shading just yet.

Now, I would say in their defense that I notice the models may have more detail but they portray more mono-chromatic models or with very few multi-colour models (more an iconic looking model than realistic).
You want to paint a marine? Prime it the main chapter colour, apply 2 to 3 other detail bits and then a wash and you have a good and reasonable tabletop standard looking model.

The 8th edition release has these "push-together" models that look pretty darn good right from the start so beginner efforts should not be too bad.
We are far and away from kits that would be under 2" high and have 10+ parts to them.
I would say that unless you play a game like X-wing, GW is getting their 40k game into shape to be a good entry product for new hobbyists.

I really must note that I have done this for so long that I may be completely overlooking some "simple" challenges the uninitiated may be facing.
I keep reminding myself for every 5 minutes I seem "brilliant" represents some 2 hours of stupidity in my past.

Probably the best lesson I learnt was to avoid enamel paints at all costs. Enamel paint is evil.

But yeah, you're right, I'm amazed myself at how much hobby knowledge I've accumulated over the years, and a lot of it is common sense borne from experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hatachi wrote:
I think we need to keep in mind that the demographic of people that are going to head to a 40k forum are going to be more into the hobby than the average joe.

I love the crazy pics/ scenarios in magazines, but I wish they would balance it out with, "You people just getting into the scenario. Here is something aimed just at you!."

Sometimes it can feel like you have to be neck deep in the hobby before it feels like it's marketed to you. Granted, the starter boxes helped with that. I think it would go to great lengths though if White Dwarf were to release an article every now and then along the lines of, "You bought the Dark Imperium Starter Set. Here is a new unique scenario and lore to go with it. Here is the new and interesting things you can add to the scenario if you add only 2-300 hundred more points per side.

I'd like to see more quick and easy card terrain in starter sets. Print technology is awesome these days, and it would help beginners getting into the hobby IMO.

Yeah, but how many bad paint jobs did the 1990s WDs cause? I've got a few horror stories I could share with you, plus a couple of minis I held on to for old times' sake.

Oh Im still a seriously butt average painter after 25 years so made no odds to me

Ha!

Still got my incredibly old CSM and daemons with the bright green thick graveled bases just like in the WD!
I truly have committed some painting crimes in my past (by today's standards).

I will second that enamel paints are beyond evil.
I have no idea how I got anything to look good back then using those fine Testors Enamel paints.

I think people should keep in mind that your worst critic is yourself.
If anyone opens their trap and says your painting is horrible, it is more a reflection of how horrible their personality is.

I think the absolute worst thing I can say in respect to painting is "Good coverage." and pray they do not read between the lines (I am usually at the very least impressed an attempt was made to paint).

I dunno, at some point I would love to get a page together of "I wish I knew then what I do now" for each stage of model preparation and paint.
Getting a bunch of the folk together here would make a heck of a FAQ document.

I say, we need that insane bar to reach for in painting standards, while managing to get practical advice to the new hobbyists so they can squeeze the most fun out of their leisure time.
The good thing is, many of us show off some of what we paint to each other at various levels of capability so we do not only see the near perfect models.

Maybe magazines and companies are rather irrelevant at setting the expectations?
It is our peers that lend that support and push us to improve our game.

Honestly, I love the pictures GW and other miniature wargame companies put out. Yeah, I am not a fan of how big games are getting if you don't play a skirmish game like Malifaux or MERCS, but all I do to counteract that is simply play smaller games. Most opponents in my area are not off put when I say I only want to play 1,500 points of 40k right now. We get more games in and everybody wins since it is easier to build up to that level, and makes it easier for the newer player. In earlier editions I used to scoff at the idea of anything less than 1,850, but nowadays I enjoy the smaller games.

Whew, got a little off topic (dang beer!), but I like the challenge of trying to get as close to the studio paint jobs as possible (I am still very far off quality wise), and like how it displays the product. I would rather see fantastic paint jobs on what is advertised to me, than something that is poor and does not Justice to tell quality of the sculpt.

I have the exact opposite opinion of GW: most of their pictures suck. They cram as many models as possible (look at our Citadel™ Space™ Marine™ Army™ and Citadel™ Space™ Marine™ Rhino™ and Predator™ and Ultrasmurf™ Primarch™ Marine™ God™) into a dense square, then line up an army in a similar formation 1" away. It's stupid from a "pretty pictures" point of view because it's just a bunch of random models piled on a table (preferably a Citadel™ Realm™ of™ Skulls™ Battle™ Board™ with Citadel™ Ruins™), usually the same old catalog picture models and their mediocre paint jobs that we've been seeing for years. And it's stupid from a "show a real game" point of view because a real game is never going to involve units in that kind of position. Stuff is going to be spaced out, long-ranged shooting units are not going to park right up on the edge of the deployment zone, etc. It's a complete lack of effort that GW should be embarrassed by, especially when they have FW putting out much more impressive dioramas for their books.

The interesting thing about GW is that they have got a bit of schizophrenia going on in terms of how to approach wargaming as a hobby.

GW sell everything you need to play GW games, but, you still need to paint it all. You can spend $1000s on GW stuff, and get a massive complete game and table and everything, but it will all be grey plastic.

Really they are pushing on the one hand the idea that you can buy everything you need off the shelf in your local GW, and on the other hand, the idea that you have to do lots of assembly, painting and basing to really make it look the part.

Of course it's a lot of time and effort to paint an army, and to do it to the WD standard takes even more work. That's why a lot of people end up with grey armies. They've bought the sizzle, not the sausage.

I've been saying for years that GW should manufacture multi-colour kits that you can assemble out of the box and have a nice looking model without any painting.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The interesting thing about GW is that they have got a bit of schizophrenia going on in terms of how to approach wargaming as a hobby.

GW sell everything you need to play GW games, but, you still need to paint it all. You can spend $1000s on GW stuff, and get a massive complete game and table and everything, but it will all be grey plastic.

Really they are pushing on the one hand the idea that you can buy everything you need off the shelf in your local GW, and on the other hand, the idea that you have to do lots of assembly, painting and basing to really make it look the part.

Of course it's a lot of time and effort to paint an army, and to do it to the WD standard takes even more work. That's why a lot of people end up with grey armies. They've bought the sizzle, not the sausage.

I've been saying for years that GW should manufacture multi-colour kits that you can assemble out of the box and have a nice looking model without any painting.

To be fair to GW, they have shifted away from grey plastic. Some of the new Ultramarines are blue plastic, and some of the new Nurgle stuff are, er, green.

But yeah, I do take your point about the amount of stuff they shovel onto you. They are a business after all, I get that, but they probably need to dial it down a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
I have the exact opposite opinion of GW: most of their pictures suck. They cram as many models as possible (look at our Citadel™ Space™ Marine™ Army™ and Citadel™ Space™ Marine™ Rhino™ and Predator™ and Ultrasmurf™ Primarch™ Marine™ God™) into a dense square, then line up an army in a similar formation 1" away. It's stupid from a "pretty pictures" point of view because it's just a bunch of random models piled on a table (preferably a Citadel™ Realm™ of™ Skulls™ Battle™ Board™ with Citadel™ Ruins™), usually the same old catalog picture models and their mediocre paint jobs that we've been seeing for years. And it's stupid from a "show a real game" point of view because a real game is never going to involve units in that kind of position. Stuff is going to be spaced out, long-ranged shooting units are not going to park right up on the edge of the deployment zone, etc. It's a complete lack of effort that GW should be embarrassed by, especially when they have FW putting out much more impressive dioramas for their books.

Even though I stopped buying their stuff ages ago, I cannot speak highly enough of Forgeworld. Great company




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Ha!

Still got my incredibly old CSM and daemons with the bright green thick graveled bases just like in the WD!
I truly have committed some painting crimes in my past (by today's standards).

I will second that enamel paints are beyond evil.
I have no idea how I got anything to look good back then using those fine Testors Enamel paints.

I think people should keep in mind that your worst critic is yourself.
If anyone opens their trap and says your painting is horrible, it is more a reflection of how horrible their personality is.

I think the absolute worst thing I can say in respect to painting is "Good coverage." and pray they do not read between the lines (I am usually at the very least impressed an attempt was made to paint).

I dunno, at some point I would love to get a page together of "I wish I knew then what I do now" for each stage of model preparation and paint.
Getting a bunch of the folk together here would make a heck of a FAQ document.

I say, we need that insane bar to reach for in painting standards, while managing to get practical advice to the new hobbyists so they can squeeze the most fun out of their leisure time.
The good thing is, many of us show off some of what we paint to each other at various levels of capability so we do not only see the near perfect models.

Maybe magazines and companies are rather irrelevant at setting the expectations?
It is our peers that lend that support and push us to improve our game.

In my experience, your peers tend to lower the bar.

Some people I knew over the years never opened a pot of paint in their lives and played their army all grey plastic.

I didn't mind because I was more interested in a game, but when you're caught between too extremes of unpainted Vs. professionally painted in magazines, it did make my head spin at times.