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.

I picked up my two copies and am happy with my purchase.

Why 2 copies?

Kilkrazy wrote:
It will work for some people and it won't work for everyone.

There are loads of really good games on the market already. Most new ones get announced in advance, so you know what to look forwards to. This autumn we have Gears Of War and Super Dungeon Explore on their way, both featuring super components.

Compare that with the idea that every two years GW may release a game you might be interested in, but you won't know until the week before.

I think that's the entire point: GW wants their releases stand out somehow from a large number of boardgames out there. One can argue about relative merits of the strategy, but to at least some degree, it seems to be working.

kitch102 wrote:Why 2 copies?

Conversions? Resale? If I could, I'd get four.

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:

kitch102 wrote:Why 2 copies?

Conversions? Resale? If I could, I'd get four.

Same here.

kitch102 wrote:Why 2 copies?

I got money to burn I guess. jk.

Actually, I still consider Man o War one of the best games GW ever produced. While Dreadfleet is not Man o War. The components in Dreadfleet are really well done. From my read of the rules it looks good and feedback from friends that have played it enjoyed it. So I didn't want to find myself wanting additional components and not having them.

Additionally, I strongly think one of the worst decisions GW has made in the last decade is to cease the "seasonal games". With Space Hulk and now Dreadfleet I'm willing to support my conviction with my pocket book so we might see a few more.

-Hank

No interest in naval and/or fantasy games. I would like to dabble in Battlefleet Gothic, though. I like the tie-in to 40K.

I'm afraid I haven't read much of this thread, so maybe this has been said before: I don't like the models. I'm amazed that so many people seem to find them impressive. I'm sure the level of detail and such is all terrific, I just think the designs are awful. Admittedly I know a fair bit about sailing and the historical development of warships, I'm probably being very boring by the standard of someone who just wants to play a magic naval game. But come on, they couldn't have included a couple warships that look like they could actually exist? They're all castles and buildings built on odd-shaped hulls, mechanical squids and steam barges and an undead whale.
See, that last one would be cool, IF most of the other ships were conventional. It's the same thing as many new releases for WHFB. When every army has some huge howdah-bearing monster, it makes it less special and less effective. When every ship is a gothic castle with mechanical arms floating on a sea creature, why should we be impressed? The designs look more like kids action figures than models for grownups IMO.

Maybe I'm just becoming more of a realism-nazi as I age, and soon I will be installing new weapons onto scale tank kits to make them exactly accurate representations of those used for one month in 1943. It's not that I mind fantastical elements in such a game, but I think they went way over the top.

Yes, I often paraphrase from The Incredibles, "When everything is fantastical, nothing is."

On second thought, I may get it for Christmas or something.

After seeing how smallish and cheapish the boats look at the store I am happy with my decision not to fall for this one.

The game could be lots of fun of course, maybe, but the miniatures definitely aren't anywhere near worth the price GW asks for this box, Imo.

Flashman wrote:Yes, I often paraphrase from The Incredibles, "When everything is fantastical, nothing is."

Precisely. I get a bit of a chuckle from the idea of each pirate captain ploughing the ocean wave in his impossible vessel, just thinking he's the coolest thing afloat. Then another even more insane ship hoves into view . . . and another . . . and another . . . and another . . . oh what's the use? he thinks to himself.

Another thing that bugs me a bit is where warhammer navies stand cannon-wise. Because each nation draws on different historical periods and tropes, you'd logically get age of sail warships fighting viking longboats and arabic xebecs/dhows, it just doesn't make much sense.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:I'm afraid I haven't read much of this thread, so maybe this has been said before: I don't like the models. I'm amazed that so many people seem to find them impressive. I'm sure the level of detail and such is all terrific, I just think the designs are awful. Admittedly I know a fair bit about sailing and the historical development of warships, I'm probably being very boring by the standard of someone who just wants to play a magic naval game. But come on, they couldn't have included a couple warships that look like they could actually exist? They're all castles and buildings built on odd-shaped hulls, mechanical squids and steam barges and an undead whale.

Yeah, I think the ships are quite over-the-top myself, too. Though, some real-life Carracks and Holks were nearly as extreme as 'Heldenhammer'. Must have been horrible to sail.

Ironically, the ghost ship is the most realistic looking vessel.

What I've seen old Man'o'War ship models, they were in fact even more silly than DF ships...

Historical ships and battles were sometimes pretty fantastical. They only seem normal because they are part of history.

Kilkrazy wrote:Historical ships and battles were sometimes pretty fantastical. They only seem normal because they are part of history.

Reality



Man O War - Some basis in reality



Dreadfleet - Screw reality

I guess it depends on what appeals to your sensibilties, but I would have preferred Man O War style (with Dreadfleet's sculpting detail obviously)

Backfire wrote:Though, some real-life Carracks and Holks were nearly as extreme as 'Heldenhammer'.

Probably not as big, though.
When you consider that the Cogs represent massive warships...

Sometimes it is hard to remember how grounded in reality Man-O-War was.

Sidstyler wrote: FFG and other board game manufacturers can afford to keep producing their games, even years after the fact, but Games Workshop can't afford to print more than a few thousand copies?

The fact that you still see a game on store shelves doesn't actually mean that the company that made it is still producing it. It can take years to sell the initial print run.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:I'm afraid I haven't read much of this thread, so maybe this has been said before: I don't like the models. I'm amazed that so many people seem to find them impressive. I'm sure the level of detail and such is all terrific, I just think the designs are awful. Admittedly I know a fair bit about sailing and the historical development of warships, I'm probably being very boring by the standard of someone who just wants to play a magic naval game. But come on, they couldn't have included a couple warships that look like they could actually exist? They're all castles and buildings built on odd-shaped hulls, mechanical squids and steam barges and an undead whale.
See, that last one would be cool, IF most of the other ships were conventional. It's the same thing as many new releases for WHFB. When every army has some huge howdah-bearing monster, it makes it less special and less effective. When every ship is a gothic castle with mechanical arms floating on a sea creature, why should we be impressed? The designs look more like kids action figures than models for grownups IMO.

Maybe I'm just becoming more of a realism-nazi as I age, and soon I will be installing new weapons onto scale tank kits to make them exactly accurate representations of those used for one month in 1943. It's not that I mind fantastical elements in such a game, but I think they went way over the top.

Yeah that was what I have been saying on this thread... The Model design on this game is something you would see on a kids box at toysrus but with more details and its the biggest reason why I don't like this dreadfleet box.

As for WFB armies getting all a big kit that doubles into 2 OTT beasties its also so damn predictable and boring that like you said it ruins the experience for me to.

Its a GW thing I guess and started with the skull spam... one skull here and there its cool but a swimming pool of skulls or islands of skulls is errr childish.

Flashman wrote:
I guess it depends on what appeals to your sensibilties, but I would have preferred Man O War style (with Dreadfleet's sculpting detail obviously)

Historical Carrack:



Some of the Mediterranean ships and Baltic Holks had even higher forecastles.

As for the Dreadfleet ships, I think all are passable (though some just barely) except Tomb King ship - I mean, pyramid in the middle of the ship? That's the best way you could imagine to make the ship feel 'Egyptian'?

Plenty of historical examples of over the top ship designs.

http://www.abc.se/~pa/mar/nemships.htm

http://www.pixelparadox.com/pic/images/Nemi_ship_color.jpg

Backfire wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
It will work for some people and it won't work for everyone.

There are loads of really good games on the market already. Most new ones get announced in advance, so you know what to look forwards to. This autumn we have Gears Of War and Super Dungeon Explore on their way, both featuring super components.

Compare that with the idea that every two years GW may release a game you might be interested in, but you won't know until the week before.

I think that's the entire point: GW wants their releases stand out somehow from a large number of boardgames out there. One can argue about relative merits of the strategy, but to at least some degree, it seems to be working.

Seen the game. Played the game. Overall it is not a bad game, but at my local GW store, there were still plenty of them there. I still say that they will eventually sell but not as quick as anyone had thought, at least in my region that is.

Dread Fleet needs more Space Mariens.

Kilkrazy wrote:Dread Fleet needs more Space Mariens.

I concur.

I'm glad to see I'm not alone in my view. Toys'r'Us is exactly what these models seem like to me.

Kilkrazy wrote:Historical ships and battles were sometimes pretty fantastical. They only seem normal because they are part of history.

What are you actually saying here? I'm not talking about exciting, improbable or volatile situations. I'm saying these are supposed to be ships with brick-and-mortar buildings on top of them! The only even remotely comparable thing I can recall is the ancients did once or twice mount siege equipment on galleys to attack various fortified ports. (Tyre, Syracause, Rhodes) but most any sea battle followed some sort of logic based on the technology of the time - both sides tried to board, or ram, or fire broadsides, etc. I know warhammer has wizards and magic and so forth, but it is pretty stupid that every single ship on the seas has a magic gun(s) or dragons or zeppelins or mechanical arms or flies.

The comparison of cogs, carracks, and some very heavy ancient galleys (the example posted was not a practical warship, but some very high-sided and heavy galleys were used in combat - they did not often do well, and eventually died out) is not valid. I am not talking about high stern-and-forecastles or tubby hulls. I'm talking about how every single ship is some magical gimmicky superweapon.

Bought it, love it - very impressed with the models and production values. No, they don't look realistic. I'm glad - I don't look to GW games to get a fix of "realistic" gaming or models. If I really wanted to play a realistic looking naval game I'm sure one could be tracked down (or maybe there's a video game for that?). This is in the Warhammer world and I think it's really "fun" (I havent even had a chance to play yet, I'm just painting so far).

Flashman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Historical ships and battles were sometimes pretty fantastical. They only seem normal because they are part of history.

Reality



Man O War - Some basis in reality



Dreadfleet - Screw reality

I guess it depends on what appeals to your sensibilties, but I would have preferred Man O War style (with Dreadfleet's sculpting detail obviously)

What the feth is wrong with you people? this is a FANTASY board game.

STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT REALISTIC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why does it need any basing on realism, whatsoever? I quite like the look of the helden hammer. I'm a history centric student.,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orangecoke wrote:Bought it, love it - very impressed with the models and production values. No, they don't look realistic. I'm glad - I don't look to GW games to get a fix of "realistic" gaming or models. If I really wanted to play a realistic looking naval game I'm sure one could be tracked down (or maybe there's a video game for that?). This is in the Warhammer world and I think it's really "fun" (I havent even had a chance to play yet, I'm just painting so far).

@ Scipio - Fantasy is great and all, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But everything has a breaking point before it gets ridiculous. Allow me to illustrate using blockbuster films as a metaphor.

Raiders of the Lost Ark involves a magical box for communicating with God, yet for most of the film, the characters act within the boundaries of reality whilst they hunt for it. The truck chase is one of the most exciting action scenes in cinema, yet at no point does Indy do anything that is physically impossible. The only real moment of fantasy is the payoff when they finally open the Ark, yet because they haven't overplayed the fantasy elements, it doesn't spoil the feel of the film.

In modern blockbusters, they tend to overcook the pudding as it were and just throw as much as they can at the screen just because they can. The extreme example is Transformers where none of the "action" scenes are particularly exciting because they're not believable and there's too much going on to take in.

This is kind of where I think Warhammer has gone or is going. Basically, it's become a fantasy blockbuster directed by Michael Bay.

Flashman wrote:

This is kind of where I think Warhammer has gone or is going. Basically, it's become a fantasy blockbuster directed by Michael Bay.

More a Mickey mouse movie by Disney Or a masters of the universe episode


As for the eternal argument "its fantasy"... well there are diferent levels of fantasy but most are supported with a good pinch of realism, thats what differentiates believable fantasy to pure nonsense... And in this case thats what differentiates tabletop war game from toysrus stuff.