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.

Well, I'm really not wanting to modify the Arnorians - even filing down the shields, since I'll be using them for actual Arnor troops when I play SBG scenarios, etc - but I also want to include them in my KoW force - obviously as a vassal state or fiefdom of Gondor, since there'll only be one "proper" unit of them - similar to the figures of Losarnarch and Lamedon - and I have no intention of making them into an actual army. Just a very small allied contingent and a splash of colour in the otherwise quite dour looking Minas Tirith force. So a 3rd age region I can happily call them by - just for my own amusement really, since none of the others I game with will have this level of knowledge of the minutia of Tolkien. We're pretty much at the level of "These Arnor figures are being used as a regiment of spear for the Feifdom of X, since they're also using green livery and are armed more-or-less correctly." To which people will generally blink, nod, and forget. Green with yellow or white trim would probably work - I'm trying to keep the blues for Dol Amroth to keep them a bit more distinct, especially as they're the one Fiefdom I'll have troops for in any numbers - maybe even enough for a small army in and of themselves (once I check the figures and points). - Especially if I'm going to paint the Men of Numenor models in DA-style livery.

As for new stuff - nothing too exciting today - but since I'm showing off what I finish... and this week I've finished this unit of Moria Goblins from LotR. I'm working to finish the sword & shield armed batch now. I just need to find their shields, or even some replacement shields since the original ones got lost in a move...

Aaag! My eyes! Green orcs!

Sorry, they look great. But I have never been a fan of the green orc.

LOOONG before the Green Orc became a "thing" (roughly 1984/85, with the release of the first Space Orcs, when what'shisname at Citadel did the first Soace Orcs), I was painting my Orcs black and Dark flesh tones (There is a White Dwarf from 1983 that shows that Fief Factory Orcs with roughly the same colors).

And then in 1982, the guy in Dallas who first brought me to prominence to the miniature companies (Heritage, Partha, Martian Metals, and Dragon Tooth) had me paint these Goblins a green called Basilisk Green. Poly-S, perhaps the best line of miniature and models paints ever in existence, had the license for an official "AD&D" paint line, and Basilisk Green was one of their colors.

And... To top it off... He primed them, and he did not know how to prime miniatures, and they were the grainiest priming job I have yet to encounter (and I did not yet know about paint strippers for miniatures - I would discover them because of this job).

But because of those Green Goblins, I have had a visceral reaction to any Green Goblin or Orc since.

I even offered to pay him to let me re-paint those Goblins another color....

Anyway... The eyes on the front-right most Goblin look pretty good.

And as for the Arnor troops... I suppose that I can understand wanting tojust use them as proxies (something else I gave up on when I hit my 30's, but which I used to do a lot). Not having a broad enough selection to actually complete a force tends to require proxies for many periods.

MB

Well, in this case, I'm following the colour scheme presented by your favourites at WETA, along with PJ. As opposed to Kev Adam's green GW orcs (which I also do). My LotR Orcs are a variety of shades, again to mimic the PJ films, though I tend to paint D&D Orc models in more of a dark, ruddy brown. Pretty close to how I do my Isengard Uruk-Hai for example.

As for needing to do proxies due to a lack of broad selection... well, here's a few of my unpainted figures. (The old GW boxes have a lot more than what the covers would suggest stuffed into their foam insides. I always found them quite a good way to store figures before I discovered the hardware-store sectioned containers.



These pics are a few years old now, none of my non-WW2 historicals are in those pics for example, and I've sorted much of the other stuff into many, many more of those white tubs. You can fit a LOT of sprues worth of figures into a 15-litre tub, after all. My problem isn't a lack of toy soldiers, or money, or a lack of a broad selection. It's time left on this planet. And I actually quite like the Arnor models, which is why I own them. But I don't like them enough to feel a need to buy hundreds of the three troop sculpts, either. As I said, a nice splash of colour for KoW, and some appropriate figures for the "Historical" scenarios. Multi-use of miniatures is one of the smartest thing that anyone in this hobby can do, in my opinion. Especially when you're the guy in your regular gaming group who provides ALL of the armies and figures...

Looks like my room in 1998, prior to my accident.

MB

Nod. Hopefully that helps to give perspective on breadth vs getting stuff painted and using them across games/forces so games aren't made of grey hordes of lead, pewter or plastic.

I'm sure you also understand a strong preference to play like this:


Over this:

Those goblins are well painted, though I have always had a problem with their blobby faces (I've painted over 50 of the little buggers at this stage...) and lack of definition. I'm going to re-touch mine this year, but I am not looking forward to it. I like the proportions and style of the goblins but they were not the best sculpts that GW ever put out...

Wow, that is a LOT of stuff. And I thought i had a problem...

On Orc skin tones, I do hate the GW green (and in fact, the WFB-style Orc in general), but it does work for these goblins, especially with the red cloth and the yellow eyes. But as for orcs themselves, their skin gets painted any colour that's muddy, dark and not green!

The Moria Goblin sculpts are nice enough, it's the size that I'm not a huge fan of. Not that they're too small, just that those spears are sooo breakable! I'm not sure I have any spearmen actually intact after all these years.

Technically PJ's Moria orcs had a yellow-ochre skin.

You can see it in the promotional photos released with the extended cut of the Moria Goblins chasing the Fellowship to Lórien.

And I prefer a denser grouping of units for armies, but then I don't really do skirmish gaming (I think I have, collectively, about 100 total, of the various factions - or around a couple of dozen each - for the SBG). I use a DBx/FoG basing standard.

It gives a better representation of a unit footprint and figure/man ratio (roughly 50men/figure) for the given ground scale, which the SBG (well, which ANYTHING EVER published by GW fails at) does not seem to accommodate well. It is something that none of their game designers seem to understand the importance of. The divergence of ground scale with movement rates and missile ranges and rates produces strange results (as well as having a strange abstraction for depth).

MB

Yeah, I'm not really a huge fan of these goblins. I mean - they work well enough for what they're supposed to be, but they're simply not exciting or fun to paint. Especially in the numbers that they come in! With that in mind, they're getting pretty much my minimum standard, which includes Citadel Foundation Gretchin Green + wash for their skin and faces for the most part, and maybe a highlight on the ones I remember/can be bothered with. A similar story with the two-tone red + wash for the colourful bits of their clothing. Inspired very much by the "official" GW scheme.


As with most things in miniature wargaming, they're full of abstraction and exaggeration - both in the colour palette used as everything should really be closer to a muddy grey if I were being "true" to the films, including the dull metal and weathered blacks (dark greys) of the Gondor uniforms, rather than the much starker and brighter silver and black that I'm using. Or to put it another way, my palette choices are inspired by the GW models and PJ's films which are in turn inspired by the books.

I've got 24 LotR orcs already painted (with various skin shades, including some decidedly non-GW greens) that I'll show off once I've repaired the broken axes and/or spears and swords, and bulked the units up to 20 figures each to get them to usable as regiments in KoW. Maybe 2x 10 for the archers.

As for the number of models in a unit, it's simply a very generalised abstraction - along with the size of everything on the table right down to the actual size of the table, since 28mm really doesn't allow for "realistic" in anything larger than skirmish scale, anyway. I've never played Kings of WarHammer et al for a realistic depiction of a tabletop war. As any kind of 1:1, 28mm games may as well be called "Supermarket Parking Lot Wars" for the sizes of the tables we play on, and If I wanted something more realistic, I'd be playing something like 10mm on my 6'x4' rather than 28/32mm. I'm quite aware that these games are as "realistic" as Battlefield or Call of Duty, and I'm okay with that. It also has the mechanical advantage of being relatively fast for me to paint a unit (for me, anyway!) has my preferred aesthetic of round bases, and works wonderfully for skirmish games, roleplaying and most anything except for WHFB - about which I give no hoots anymore. Of course, if you prefer denser forces - or looser, such as Para's - that's cool as well. Different strokes and all that.

You have hit upon my major complaint with the GW miniatures.

Or rather, GW's interpretation of PJ's films.

The ONE COMPLAINT that I DON'T HAVE with Peter Jackson's films is in the visual design work.

Even though I object to much of it as being divergent with Tolkien, it is FREAKING BEAUTIFUL.

Yet GW manages to wreck what beauty is in the design works of PJ's films.

I've painted my own closer to the production stills in the various Weta Production Art collections.

I imagine it was from these that GW took their exaggerated color schemes.

Because the Moria Goblins due have a bit of muddy red cloth on them. It is not the bright red of the GW paint suggestions, but it is red enough to be able to tell it is red even if you lift a frame from the movie, and then do a color grab with Photoshop (which I have done, and was surprised to find reds in their clothing).

Later, when I took Sensation and Percepion at UCLA from one of the guys who has written the book about why we perceive color the way we do (Dr. Phil Kellman), I gained some deep respect for PJ's production skills, at the very least (even if I do think him a narrative butcher, he knows visual design deeply).

But GW has managed to turn the muted worlds of the films into these garish, clown-like displays. They took probably the one thing that Jackson got right, and wrecked even it.

It took me a lot of time, but I have managed to paint most of my GW stuff as it appeared in the films (which included a lot of very minimalist conversions to the plastic models to cut out the undercuts that were missing — you would be utterly stunned at the difference this makes). And if I had not taken about four years off painting when I began those, I would probably not be having to re-discover how to paint now.

Also....

I have a deep admiration for people who can paint miniatures just to get them onto the table.

They seem to enjoy what they do much more than do I.

Maybe I am too close to that "suffering for your art" BS, but that seems to be how I am, regardless of how much I wish that I was otherwise.

Eventually, I plan to do some actual Moria Goblins to go with the Northern Hithaeglir Goblins I have nearly finished (I finally found a chainmail stamp that looks like it is working, which will greatly speed the finishing of the last six to eight of them).

I want to find something that goes with the Balrog Designs of Tom Meier, so that it will indicate "Moria" distinctly, rather than just being generic Goblins.

After that, I need to get the Gondorians and Foradan Éotheod done before I move on to Mordor Orcs, and Dwarves (I am hoping to do some actual Viking Dwarves — for the Longbeards/Durin's Folk, and Rus Inspired Dwarves for the Non-Longbeards of Middle-earth.... I think the Broadbeams or the Firebeards sound like they would be Rus Looking).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:

I've painted my own closer to the production stills in the various Weta Production Art collections.
I imagine it was from these that GW took their exaggerated color schemes.

Because the Moria Goblins due have a bit of muddy red cloth on them. It is not the bright red of the GW paint suggestions, but it is red enough to be able to tell it is red even if you lift a frame from the movie, and then do a color grab with Photoshop (which I have done, and was surprised to find reds in their clothing).

Of course GW got their schemes from pre-production images, and perhaps a few stills if they were lucky. It's how all of the toy. etc manufacturers get their images before films come out, and as they need to have product ready for the shelves alongside the films' release, there are often "mistakes" or changes. WItness the original version of Bolg (who even had a GW miniature) and the toy release of Tauriel in Unexpected Journey packaging. Even Hot Toys' The Dark Knight Joker sculpt that was criticised as being "off" was due to working from stills - and if you know anything about Hot Toys and their sculpt accuracy, then you'll understand why I make this point.

GW models also need to pass the "three foot test" (or is it the four foot test?) - which is why Warhammer models are all so bright and colourful, and the LotR models all have their brightness and contrast turned up. Not to mention the palette used by most of the rest of the manufacturers and players of miniature wargame models (even many historicals). To have a "realistic" look, there'd be no point painting eyes on our models as they really come across as a dark blurry patch over a certain difference. The whites of (our) eyes isn't something easily seen over much of a distance, after all.

The same applies to picking out individual teeth, which so many of us do.

So the manufacturers, their painters and we the consumer all tend to exaggerate. Colours, details, etc.

I hold nothing against you in your quest for perfection. We all paint differently, and it's a personal thing. I paint for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's just to get things finished and onto the table, and I'm happy with how even my minimum standard looks - and let's be blunt - figures like the GW plastic Moria goblins don't really deserve the best that we can do if we also plan to have enough models to game with. On the other hand, other models deserve (and get) much more care, time and detail. The two things that really give me pleasure in my painting are painting fine details, and completing models. When models don't have the scope or worth for the former, I'll take the latter. Obviously for others, the enjoyment is in painting each and every model to their very highest standard and taking their time on them, which has no less worth than any other. I know a guy who takes weeks or longer on each single model and they are very nice indeed. He doesn't really game with them (aside from Zombicide) so for him the painting alone is the thing.

I'd really like to see some of your painted models, in fact. You mentioned elsewhere that you paint about 8 models per night? So it'd be quite interesting to see the difference between those that you speedpaint en masse and those that you really agonise over. We've only seen your Bolg so far, and while the banner looks nice, the rest is a bit bluury and difficult to see properly.

The number has gone down to only 2 - 4. And even then I do not completely finish them (leaving some details till I get an entire unit finished).

If it were 15mm, then I can easily do 8 - 16 a day/night, as there are so few 15mm manufacturers who produce miniatures worth a damn (Corvus Belli, early Xyston, and some Museum and Old Glory).

But given that Tom Meir's figures demand a lot of attention, and they have details that can pass the 3' test pretty easily.... I am REALLY struggling with them.

Only the last 12 miniatures have been what I would call really "acceptable" (and they are exactly that, only acceptable), due to having just figured out a series of mistakes I had been making in painting.

But I still need to go back over all 48 of the Orcs/Great-Goblins I have finished so far to get their teeth and lips, eyes, sandals/boots, exposed tunics, and things like belt buckles or knives. And... I have a Great-Goblin general whom I need to finish the modification of before I can even paint him.

There is a thread in the Painting & Modeling section of the forums with the unit of Heavy Great Goblins I am working on (It has the word "Hithaeglir" in it - can't recall the full name of the title, but it is likely I am one of a vanishingly small number of people in this forum to use the word "Hithaeglir" so it shouldn't be hard to find).

And currently, I am working on Rohirrim Light Cavalry, since I can't even work on the mod for the Great-Goblin General until I get my epoxy putty (and I am F***ing BUTCHERING the painting on some horses - apparently I have forgotten completely how to paint Black, Grey, or White horses).

I figure that I can get both the Rohirrim and Goblin Army finished by this summer (If I was content to use individually mounted figures on sabot bases, the Rohirrim would already be finished).... But I can't bring myself to do that... Not to mention the game system would not really work with it. The base sizes are too important.

The plan is to begin promoting the Fantasy Variants for a Historical Rules set(s) that are exclusively for Mass Combat (armies representing 5,000 - 50,000; a 5,000 man army would be about 20 bases, and a 50,000 man army would be 200 bases - My Goblins and Orcs will come close when completed). And to eventually help promote the Middle-earth themed miniatures I am working on.

I wish that I could work faster, so that I could re-build the Hyborian Themed Armies that I used to have.

I had an Undead Army that was gigantic, with some of the coolest commanders ever (Rivalling the Valley of the Four Winds Undead Army that used to be owned by Ian Livingstone). I had the Ral Partha Evil Lord on a Litter, with an Ogre bodyguard, and the Necromancer on a Throne of Bone as the C-C, commanding an Army of Skeletons, Ghouls, and Zombies, with an Evil Wizard and Minions (Ral Partha figures, cannot recall which) that could summon up a unit of around 48 of the Ral Partha Heironymous Bosch demons they used to make (They were a selection of eight bodies, and twelve heads, allowing for a substantial variety).

And then an army of Aquilonians from the Old Armies of the Hyborian Age line, led by King Conan....

Those would probably be a better draw in this day and age.

But I need to just concentrate on the Goblins and Middle-earth themed stuff for the moment (besides, with its incredible lack of "magic" the rules will be easier to deal with).

MB

Another unit I've just finished, these guys were supposed to be one of those projects that takes a week, at the most. That of course was sometime between 6 months and a year ago. I honestly can't recall since they've basically been a half-finished fixture of my painting table for a long time now. One of the big hold-ups that became a mental block (and then a wall) was my plan to convert one of their number into a Standard bearer for Kings of War. It took long enough to settle on a colour scheme for the unit - I went with red to get a look that is distinctive from the Warriors of Minas Tirith, especially as I find the stock GW scheme rather boring, even if it does fit in well with the WoMT.



I chose Red for two reasons - since the unit is considered an Elite unit in the GW SBG (despite the background talking of the men of Lossarnach being farmers and such) - and obviously these guys aren't dressed as a levy of farmers, in their fine plate over the chain. The second is because I'm reserving Blue for the substantial number of Dol Amroth guys I'll have when the army is finished, and Green for the small "Arnor" contingent, who will either be renamed for another of the Third Age Fiefdoms when not used in scenario play, or will be a "made up" unit of WoMT guard that represents their former kinsmen by wearing their traditional uniform. I might do something in Yellow/Mustard, but I'm not really a fan of that colour as a unit colour on models for whatever reason. It works for me more as an accent. So while I've been reliably informed this week by BA with his pretty thorough knowledge of Tolkien that red probably wouldn't have been used by Gondorians, I'm going with a combination of artistic licence, the rule of cool (I think they look good) and the fact that they were already painted(!)



I did briefly consider using some form of Tartan for the sashes on these guys, but with the Clansmen of Lamedor also in my painting queue, I decided that I've already got enough figures to make me sick of painting Tartan without starting early here.
Now take a good look at the next picture.



Did you look? The red line on the under-surcoat of the leftmost guy being thicker than the others really does bother me for some reason. Did you even notice it?

Anyway, with the upcoming KoW rules having done away with Standards and Musicians in units as things that have their own rules (since in 1E they were overpriced and pretty much just cancelled each other out) and now just going with "model them however you like", It helped to motivate me to just get these guys off the paint desk and onto the gaming table. I might do a standard bearer for them sometime down the line, but it's not a priority for the moment.



Oh, and the reason that the second and third ranks don't have any static flock/grass on their bases is simple. I ran out of Matt Varnish, so they've got a coat of satin for the time being while I wait for a couple of new cans of anti-shine I ordered to come in. The front rank was finished first, and got some of the Matt before it expired. I'll try to get a whole-army shot featuring the Gondor units I've shown off so far sometime soon. I'm working on some unit leaders for the WoMT Spear and Bowmen that I'm really struggling to get done, and I really want to get those finished first, so hopefully we'll have the army shots soon.

Another unit done! Hooray!

Cool stuff! I'm not sure whether or not I regret not getting any of the non-Dol Amroth Fiefdom stuff; on one hand, they are some cool models (although a fair few I don't like), but on the other, they look easy enough to make from Historicals should I ever fancy trying them.

That, and I've never liked 2-handed weapons in SBG

The Axemen look pretty good.

And... I don't know what this fixation with standards and musicians for each unit is about.

That is one of the aspects of the whole GW game-design philosophy for mass combat that is a bit flawed.

Typically, individual units were not really that affected by standards, and the standard and musician were used for communication, not morale purposes. They did help to establish cadence for drill, but then ONLY in units that were drilled.

In units of irregular, or Undrilled troops... Standards, musicians, etc. had little to no use, other than to identify to the army commander where a unit commander might be.

Also, unit standards were only present in groups of around 250 - 1000 men.

Given the ground scales in games like KoW, or WAB, the number of men in a unit varies depending upon whether you are looking at movement distances, missile weapon ranges, or unit size (with each one giving a different figure:man ratio).

They also tend to over-emphasize depth (another thing that distorts figure:man ratios).

Typical Infantry fought in eight to twelve ranks.

Spearmen fought in twelve to sixteen ranks, and pike in sixteen to thirty-two ranks (thirty-two for marching, sixteen for Melee).

If you have a figure:man ratio of 1:20, this works out to having a normal melee or spear unit being two figures deep, and a pike unit being four.

Yet they pile units five figures deep, when unless you have a figure:man ratio of 1:4, you just won't see that kind of depth, and then the frontage would be much wider (around 25 figures).

But... Back to the Axemen.

They look good, even with the Red Sash. It is minimal enough to not really be that big a deal to the colors.

And... The red stripe on the leftmost Axemen was noticeable, but probably would not be inside a unit.

As for saving Blue for Dol Amroth.

There are other shades of Blue, and Morthond Vale is explicitly in Blue, as would be the Troops of Erech, the seat of the Fief of Morthond. They would be a darker blue than would Dol Amroth, which would probably be slightly greener than the colors used by GW (more of a blue, blue-green).

And Lamedon is supposed to be dressed in Blue and Green.

Gondor's armies are effectively Black-Silver, Blue, Green, and a few Green-Brown in color.

Sort of like a Roman Army from the Early Imperial Roman period being mostly Red, Green, and Yellow (with a big emphasis upon red).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
Cool stuff! I'm not sure whether or not I regret not getting any of the non-Dol Amroth Fiefdom stuff; on one hand, they are some cool models (although a fair few I don't like), but on the other, they look easy enough to make from Historicals should I ever fancy trying them.
U
That, and I've never liked 2-handed weapons in SBG

Yep... Considering the Axemen of Lossarnach are supposed to be, in effect, Anglo-Saxon Axemen with two-handed axes, they are dead easy to finds Historical proxies for (just make sure that any shields the have are round).

And the Hunters for Pinnath Gelin are easily filled by the Perry Norman/Crusader Archers.

And any sort of Saxon Fyrd would fit the Typical Levy of the larger fiefs (basic unarmored Spearmen). Norman Spearmen might work for the wealthier fiefs, but the shields would need to be replaced if using them with the GW Caras Maedhryn (WoMT).

Really, only the plastic Knights of Dol Amroth and Ithilien Rangers are the only troops that GW makes (made) that are really needed for they fiefs.

The only troops that I can think of that might be a problem are the Archers of Morthond Vale, as they are the only others Longbowmen in the Late-3rd Age Gondor Armies, but English Longbowmen would be wholly inappropriate for them (the styles of the armor and clothing are far too distinct).

I had already suggested using the Late-2nd/Early-3rd Age Numenorean Archers, with a head swap with a WoMT figure to create the Archers of Morthond Vale. Morthond Vale is supposed to be the wealthiest Western Fief of Gondor, as the Western Fiefs are substantially poorer than the Eastern Fiefs, but Morthond is a legacy troop, and a large agricultural center.

But that would be a LOT of work to produce 12 - 24 Archers for a unit.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:

But given that Tom Meir's figures demand a lot of attention, and they have details that can pass the 3' test pretty easily.... I am REALLY struggling with them.

Only the last 12 miniatures have been what I would call really "acceptable" (and they are exactly that, only acceptable), due to having just figured out a series of mistakes I had been making in painting.

But I still need to go back over all 48 of the Orcs/Great-Goblins I have finished so far to get their teeth and lips, eyes, sandals/boots, exposed tunics, and things like belt buckles or knives. And... I have a Great-Goblin general whom I need to finish the modification of before I can even paint him.

There is a thread in the Painting & Modeling section of the forums with the unit of Heavy Great Goblins I am working on (It has the word "Hithaeglir" in it - can't recall the full name of the title, but it is likely I am one of a vanishingly small number of people in this forum to use the word "Hithaeglir" so it shouldn't be hard to find).

Here it is.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/639074.page#7656255

You might find it more useful to (re-)post it in the P&M blog section, which is much more for ongoing projects, WIPs and the like. I imagine you'd be more likely to attract comments, feedback and encouragement in P&M Blogs than in the general Painting and Modelling section.

I'll give you some feedback here, though - the shields look outstanding - both the fine rune work and the stylised bones, dragons, etc. The blue skin on some of them has a similar effect on me to how the green makes you react - it just looks "wrong" to me. - though I recognise there may be some precedent in the written works for it. The drybrushed skin works well for the rough and dirty nature of orcs, and it also looks like you've used some washes on the orange-skinned ones? They work nicely as a horde. Which ruleset are you planning to use them in, or will they just be for display? Either way - the shields are the absolute highlight of those figures.

And currently, I am working on Rohirrim Light Cavalry, since I can't even work on the mod for the Great-Goblin General until I get my epoxy putty (and I am F***ing BUTCHERING the painting on some horses - apparently I have forgotten completely how to paint Black, Grey, or White horses).

Assuming you've been out of the painting game for some time, I'd recommend picking up the Army Painter wash set. They're very good, and if you're willing to experiment with and use new/unfamiliar products and play with new techniques for things you already (or used to) know how to do, then they're a very worthwhile (and not an expensive) pickup.

The plan is to begin promoting the Fantasy Variants for a Historical Rules set(s) that are exclusively for Mass Combat (armies representing 5,000 - 50,000; a 5,000 man army would be about 20 bases, and a 50,000 man army would be 200 bases - My Goblins and Orcs will come close when completed). And to eventually help promote the Middle-earth themed miniatures I am working on.

I wish that I could work faster, so that I could re-build the Hyborian Themed Armies that I used to have.

It's going to take some time (and money) to build Orcs to that size, let alone Rohirrim as well. Best of luck to you there.

I had an Undead Army that was gigantic,
...
And then an army of Aquilonians from the Old Armies of the Hyborian Age line, led by King Conan....

Obviously your originals won't be coming back in any numbers, but it should be possible to purchase replacements fpr many of the figures. Some will be difficult or near-impossible of course, but it depends on how you wish to spend your resources in the meantime.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
Cool stuff! I'm not sure whether or not I regret not getting any of the non-Dol Amroth Fiefdom stuff; on one hand, they are some cool models (although a fair few I don't like), but on the other, they look easy enough to make from Historicals should I ever fancy trying them.

That, and I've never liked 2-handed weapons in SBG

Heh, you can always pick up a few from the 'Bay if you ever decide you want some of the official models. I found a nice/interesting list on TMP on my other PC of figures people have been using for proxies. I'll link it a little later and reply to the other post then, since I'm about to crash here...

Yo Az :-) looking damn good mate! I really rally like the way you did all the wooden things! such a great rich colour on everything! and I'm absolutely awestruck by the sheer amount of, well, stuff in your hobby room! it's beautiful :-)

Azazel- I think you may have a problem lol. That's a nice big ol' pile of "To Do" haha

 Azazelx wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

But given that Tom Meir's figures demand a lot of attention, and they have details that can pass the 3' test pretty easily.... I am REALLY struggling with them.

Only the last 12 miniatures have been what I would call really "acceptable" (and they are exactly that, only acceptable), due to having just figured out a series of mistakes I had been making in painting.

But I still need to go back over all 48 of the Orcs/Great-Goblins I have finished so far to get their teeth and lips, eyes, sandals/boots, exposed tunics, and things like belt buckles or knives. And... I have a Great-Goblin general whom I need to finish the modification of before I can even paint him.

There is a thread in the Painting & Modeling section of the forums with the unit of Heavy Great Goblins I am working on (It has the word "Hithaeglir" in it - can't recall the full name of the title, but it is likely I am one of a vanishingly small number of people in this forum to use the word "Hithaeglir" so it shouldn't be hard to find).

Here it is.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/639074.page#7656255

You might find it more useful to (re-)post it in the P&M blog section, which is much more for ongoing projects, WIPs and the like. I imagine you'd be more likely to attract comments, feedback and encouragement in P&M Blogs than in the general Painting and Modelling section.

I'll give you some feedback here, though - the shields look outstanding - both the fine rune work and the stylised bones, dragons, etc. The blue skin on some of them has a similar effect on me to how the green makes you react - it just looks "wrong" to me. - though I recognise there may be some precedent in the written works for it. The drybrushed skin works well for the rough and dirty nature of orcs, and it also looks like you've used some washes on the orange-skinned ones? They work nicely as a horde. Which ruleset are you planning to use them in, or will they just be for display? Either way - the shields are the absolute highlight of those figures.

I have mixed feelings about the Blue Skinned Orcs. I included them purely as an homage to the original Hobbit movie (The Rankin-Bass cartoon), where many of the Goblins were blue-Skinned.

I only have a few of them in each unit with Blue Skin, and in the future I will probably cease doing so, since technically Goblins and Orcs had "Ruddy, yellowish skin."

They did not have the great variation of either the Rankin-Bass animation, nor of Peter Jackson's impetigo infected Orcs and Goblins.

So... Your creeped out feeling is justified. I have it too, to a degree, over there Blue-skinned Orcs.

And... My newer shields are even better than these, as I have a new means of lining the runes.

BTW...

The runes actually say stuff in Black Speech, or corrupted Westron.

Sometimes it is just the initials of the Great-Goblin General (which I would have to go look up), but most are just the equivalent off "SouthCentral Rules!" Or "Elves suck my ....."

As for the rules....

They are intended for a rules set that is similar to DBA/DBM(M) called Hoplon.

It, obviously, does not use individually mounted figures, and as a rules set intended for Historical Miniatures, modified forFantasy, it tends to have more rigorous basing standards for ground scale and figure:men(orc) representation.

The unit is organized, as you see it, for a troop type equivalent to DBA's "warband," which in Hoplon is the deepest normal infantry unit other than Pikes (Deeper even than spears, due to the effects of their fighting style, which tends to deeply penetrate into enemy units, whereas spears must maintain a rigidly fixed formation to make use of depth).

The unit is organized either as the Warband (with nine bases/elements in a 3x3 formation) or as Impetuous Irregular Heavy Infanty (with 8 bases/elements in a 4x2 formation).

The upside of the 4x2 Heavy Infantry is they can get rear support from a unit of Light Infantry Archera to their rear. The Light Infantry Archers begin to the front of the Heay Infantry, and can halt charges into theHeavy Infanty effort falling back through them to support the unit in melee to their rear. This was a very common infantry tactic from the dawn of massed armies up until the firearm replaced close combat weapons.

And currently, I am working on Rohirrim Light Cavalry, since I can't even work on the mod for the Great-Goblin General until I get my epoxy putty (and I am F***ing BUTCHERING the painting on some horses - apparently I have forgotten completely how to paint Black, Grey, or White horses).

Assuming you've been out of the painting game for some time, I'd recommend picking up the Army Painter wash set. They're very good, and if you're willing to experiment with and use new/unfamiliar products and play with new techniques for things you already (or used to) know how to do, then they're a very worthwhile (and not an expensive) pickup.

I already have a set of washes from Reaper that work pretty well.

I am still atruggling with them, trying to get the wash the right shade, as I have got a lot of the washes on these too dark. It wasn't until I did the figures in that link that you see that do not have styrene laminate on the top of the bases that I managed to figure out what the HELL I had been doing wrong up till then with the flesh-tones.

The flesh on those eight, and that on the command group make the flesh on the rest of them look like mud... And even those 12 are not fantastic, just better than I had been doing.

At least now I now what NOT to do when painting flesh.

When I get to the Lesser-Goblins (which are vastly easier to paint), I think the speed and confidence will help get me through the rest of the Great-Goblins faster (After I get this unit of 36 done, I am moving to two units of Lesser-Goblins, which is only 48 figures - the Lesser-Goblin units are roughly the same size in base count, but are Medium Infantry rather than Heavy, and thus have fewer figures per base, which helps to identify what the troop type is).

The plan is to begin promoting the Fantasy Variants for a Historical Rules set(s) that are exclusively for Mass Combat (armies representing 5,000 - 50,000; a 5,000 man army would be about 20 bases, and a 50,000 man army would be 200 bases - My Goblins and Orcs will come close when completed). And to eventually help promote the Middle-earth themed miniatures I am working on.

I wish that I could work faster, so that I could re-build the Hyborian Themed Armies that I used to have.

It's going to take some time (and money) to build Orcs to that size, let alone Rohirrim as well. Best of luck to you there.

I already have all of the figures. I have 48 bases of the Greater-Goblins, and around 64 bases of Lesser-Goblins and Snaga.

But those are purely for the Northern Hithaeglir Goblins (Gundabad to Caradhras, not including Moria).

The largest Orc Army will be the Mordor Army, which I can build with either GW figures (I have a HUGE number of the plastics), even though I would prefer not to, given the makeup of the army.

But I have around 220 bases worth of Orcs, Morgul humans, and Núrnen Humans (48 bases of Morgul Orcs - what people call "Morannon Orcs", 54 bases of Gorgoroth Orcs - your basic "Mordor Orc", 36 bases of Lugbúrz Orcs - Mordor Uruks, and the remainder in unspecified "Orcs" - which I would prefer to have filled out by some Lesser-Orc type, but I have yet to find any.... I will just use hoard-bases of Mordor Orcs as Snaga currently).

And I could build around 96 bases of Rohirrim, but a full Éoherë (the complete Army of the Rohirrim) is 12,000 Riders, which would only be about 72 to 80 bases (depending upon if the Royal Guard Éoreds were used as Outriders - The Outriders are drawn from the Royal Guard - or how many normal Éoreds were used as Scouts). The rules I use (either Hoplon or Fields of Glory have Light Cavalry/Horse base represented as slightly fewer men than a Cavalry base, thus an equal number of Light Cavalry/Horse would be more bases than Cavalry, or Fast Knights (depending upon which system, Rohirrim are either Lancer Cavalry, or Fast Knights - the distinction is entirely definitional). So... I do not need all of the GW figures I have.

But, I have:

• 12 Éored of Royal Guard, as 6 bases/elements of Royal Guard or 8 bases/elements of Outriders
— 18 figures of Lancer Cavalry/Fast Knights, or 16 figures of Light Horse (Royal Guard or Outrider figures)
• 96 Éored of Rohirrim as 48 bases/elements of Rohirrim
— 144 figures of Lancer Cavalry/Fast Knights (Basic Rohirrim figures, excluding the archers, of which every other Base gets one archer figure)
• 12 Éored of Scouts as 16 bases/elements of Light Horse
— 32 figures as typical Light Horse (basic Rohirrim Mounted Archers)
• 1 mass of untrained Éothéod as 12 bases/elements as Undrilled Lancer Cavalry/Fast Knights
— 36 figures of Saxon Cavalry as the untrained mounted Rohirrim/Éotheod.
• Roughly 36 bases of Dismounts/Infantry as Heavy Infantry, and 12 bases of Foot Archers
— 144 figures of Heavy Infantry, and 36 Archer figures as formed archers

I got most of these at a convention where a guy sold a giant garbage bag full of GW LotR figures for $40. I got something like 500 figures in that bag...

I also have roughly equal numbers of Haradrim, Easterlings, and Mordor Orcs (maybe more Mordor Orcs).

So... Painting time is really the only drawback, and I will be eventually selling most of these as DBA/HotT matched sets of armies and replacing them with figures I sculpt.

I had an Undead Army that was gigantic,
...
And then an army of Aquilonians from the Old Armies of the Hyborian Age line, led by King Conan....

Obviously your originals won't be coming back in any numbers, but it should be possible to purchase replacements fpr many of the figures. Some will be difficult or near-impossible of course, but it depends on how you wish to spend your resources in the meantime.

The only figures I will be buying will be undead replacements, but they are pretty far down the line.

My goal right now is to sculpt replacements for the GW Middle-earth figures.

If I continue to paint, I will likely get back up to near my old painting speed, where I will be able to easily knock out one or two units (roughly 36 to 72 figures) a month.

That is roughly half of what I used to be able to produce. If I could get myself to stick to four figures a day, that would be no problem. I am managing to finish four figures whenever I go to paint, but the problem is that I wind up skipping days.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
Cool stuff! I'm not sure whether or not I regret not getting any of the non-Dol Amroth Fiefdom stuff; on one hand, they are some cool models (although a fair few I don't like), but on the other, they look easy enough to make from Historicals should I ever fancy trying them.

That, and I've never liked 2-handed weapons in SBG

Heh, you can always pick up a few from the 'Bay if you ever decide you want some of the official models. I found a nice/interesting list on TMP on my other PC of figures people have been using for proxies. I'll link it a little later and reply to the other post then, since I'm about to crash here...

Something else that occurred to me about the fiefdoms.

Picts or Welsh would make for excellent levies for the Langstrand or Pinnath Gelin. The Welsh or Pict Archers are almost exactly what Tolkien had in mind for what he called the Hill Men of Middle-earth, of which the Pinnath Gelin and Lanstrand are remnant populations.

These would also be excellent miniatures for "bad-guys" from Eriador when Arnor was broken up. Rhudaur would have been composed entirely of these Hill Men. They are simple unarmored, or very lightly armored Spearmen, with a few Archers as Skirmishers (not formed bodies of archers)

MB

MB - not to hijack Azazel's thread, but I commented on your PM blog and will follow it if you are going to keep posting pictures. It's hard to get much traction in PM with any kind of fantasy project.

 Da Boss wrote:
MB - not to hijack Azazel's thread, but I commented on your PM blog and will follow it if you are going to keep posting pictures. It's hard to get much traction in PM with any kind of fantasy project.

I noticed that they are almost wholly about 40k.

I may eventually surprise them with some 40K miniatures (But, even there I seem to be an outlier, as they are Tau, which I do not see much of on Dakka). I was inspired by the Truescale Marine thread to do some sketching for actual 7ft. tall Marines, and some Power Armor that is based more upon the work on the Lockheed Power-suit (I know Homayoon Kazerooni, the inventor at UCB Berkeley - he is among the possible labs for Graduate school). But... That will have to be done between work on painting my Middle-earth/LotR stuff, and sculpting new Middle-earth/LotR minis.

I am really focused upon providing a line of miniatures that will give a lot more breadth to the GW line of Middle-earth minis, so that there are more miniatures available for the fiefs of Gondor, and for more variety in the current line.

Technically, as I have said, this is really to provide a complete alternative to GW, but I do want them to work with theGW stuff as well.

Of course, some of the stuff has no use except with the GW line, such as the Easterling Chariot I have done (and need to get laid out to 3D print the master of). It was made for solely the GW Easterlings, and would not fit at all with the Easterlings I am working on (Which look like a cross between Hun, Mongol, Bulgar, and Magyar, but with some a-historic components, such as Chariots and Battle-Wagons).

I should have some more photos this next weekend. I am almost finished with this unit of Heavy Great-Goblins, and I have started on two units of Rohirrim (One of Heavy Cavalry, and one of Light Cavalry - 18 figures on 6 bases for the former, and 12 figures on 6 bases for the latter).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
The Axemen look pretty good.
And... I don't know what this fixation with standards and musicians for each unit is about.
That is one of the aspects of the whole GW game-design philosophy for mass combat that is a bit flawed.
Typically, individual units were not really that affected by standards, and the standard and musician were used for communication, not morale purposes. They did help to establish cadence for drill, but then ONLY in units that were drilled.

You're over-thinking it from a "reality" perspective. The fixation with musicians and (especially) standards in fantasy games is simply due to their visual appeal. They look good, they make units stand out and they often provide a little showcase for some nice freehand painting or nice painting onto a drawn or sculpted template. Sashimono on Eldar and Elves (see what I did there?) and personal standards on character models. It's all aesthetics.

But... Back to the Axemen.
They look good, even with the Red Sash. It is minimal enough to not really be that big a deal to the colors.
And... The red stripe on the leftmost Axemen was noticeable, but probably would not be inside a unit.

Thank you, and happily, it's basically invisible inside the unit.

As for saving Blue for Dol Amroth.
There are other shades of Blue, and Morthond Vale is explicitly in Blue, as would be the Troops of Erech, the seat of the Fief of Morthond. They would be a darker blue than would Dol Amroth, which would probably be slightly greener than the colors used by GW (more of a blue, blue-green).
And Lamedon is supposed to be dressed in Blue and Green.
Gondor's armies are effectively Black-Silver, Blue, Green, and a few Green-Brown in color.
Sort of like a Roman Army from the Early Imperial Roman period being mostly Red, Green, and Yellow (with a big emphasis upon red).

I might look at some Sea Blues for DA, though if I did so, I'd want to keep Lamedon away from greens. I'm looking at perhaps doing my Black Numenorians in a deep sea green after seeing these on ToR.

http://s36.photobucket.com/user/joshuar_au/media/1_1.jpg.html

On top of that, I'm already painting my Dark Elves in the blue-green spectrum, with lots of Aqua, Turquoise, Sea Blues and Sea Greens. - a Bright GW-style blue for DA wouldn't look too close to either of the other forces I've described.

 Paradigm wrote:
Cool stuff! I'm not sure whether or not I regret not getting any of the non-Dol Amroth Fiefdom stuff; on one hand, they are some cool models (although a fair few I don't like), but on the other, they look easy enough to make from Historicals should I ever fancy trying them.
U
That, and I've never liked 2-handed weapons in SBG

BeAfraid wrote:

Yep... Considering the Axemen of Lossarnach are supposed to be, in effect, Anglo-Saxon Axemen with two-handed axes, they are dead easy to finds Historical proxies for (just make sure that any shields the have are round).

I'm in two minds about whether to make additional axemen, and if I do so, whether to kitbash ones similar to the official figures I already own, or more "realistic" ones.

BeAfraid wrote:

The only troops that I can think of that might be a problem are the Archers of Morthond Vale, as they are the only others Longbowmen in the Late-3rd Age Gondor Armies, but English Longbowmen would be wholly inappropriate for them (the styles of the armor and clothing are far too distinct).
I had already suggested using the Late-2nd/Early-3rd Age Numenorean Archers, with a head swap with a WoMT figure to create the Archers of Morthond Vale. Morthond Vale is supposed to be the wealthiest Western Fief of Gondor, as the Western Fiefs are substantially poorer than the Eastern Fiefs, but Morthond is a legacy troop, and a large agricultural center.
But that would be a LOT of work to produce 12 - 24 Archers for a unit.
MB

I'm using my ranger-type figures as Rangers of Ithilien to go with Faramir, etc rather than Blackroot Vale (regardless of what the blisters say). I've got a few Rangers of the North figures coming as well (and a couple in hand) but I'm not sure whether to paint them as the Grey Company, given that they were so few and I might not have a regiment of 12 worth of models, or just blend them in with the others, or even to supplement them with metal "Faramir's rangers" models to bulk them up to a regiment size.

As for the others, I don't mind grabbing a few more eBob heads, but I'm not willing to go to any significant amount of work for the Feifdom troops. I'm really looking forward to bringing Gondor to a close, at least temporarily so I can work on other armies more intensely. Any significant expansions to the small 1-unit Fiefdom contingents would be after finishing a few more forces to a point where I'm satisfied, and even then pretty much only ones that are easily achieved.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nerdfest09 wrote:
Yo Az :-) looking damn good mate! I really rally like the way you did all the wooden things! such a great rich colour on everything! and I'm absolutely awestruck by the sheer amount of, well, stuff in your hobby room! it's beautiful :-)

Thanks Damo! Those Dwarves I got off you are on my hitlist for this year. I'll also continue working through the undead as well. Just got to clean (finish off) all the crap clogging my desk first...

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Azazel- I think you may have a problem lol. That's a nice big ol' pile of "To Do" haha

Yeah, I think there might be a touch of the OCD involved. Ah well, best I can do it try and get as much of it painted as I can!

 Azazelx wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
The Axemen look pretty good.
And... I don't know what this fixation with standards and musicians for each unit is about.
That is one of the aspects of the whole GW game-design philosophy for mass combat that is a bit flawed.
Typically, individual units were not really that affected by standards, and the standard and musician were used for communication, not morale purposes. They did help to establish cadence for drill, but then ONLY in units that were drilled.

You're over-thinking it from a "reality" perspective. The fixation with musicians and (especially) standards in fantasy games is simply due to their visual appeal. They look good, they make units stand out and they often provide a little showcase for some nice freehand painting or nice painting onto a drawn or sculpted template. Sashimono on Eldar and Elves (see what I did there?) and personal standards on character models. It's all aesthetics.

I can completely understand Aesthetics.

I am all about Aesthetics.

But they seem to have rules regarding them that make no sense.

Sashimono on Elves would be heretical though.

As for saving Blue for Dol Amroth.
There are other shades of Blue, and Morthond Vale is explicitly in Blue, as would be the Troops of Erech, the seat of the Fief of Morthond. They would be a darker blue than would Dol Amroth, which would probably be slightly greener than the colors used by GW (more of a blue, blue-green).
And Lamedon is supposed to be dressed in Blue and Green.
Gondor's armies are effectively Black-Silver, Blue, Green, and a few Green-Brown in color.
Sort of like a Roman Army from the Early Imperial Roman period being mostly Red, Green, and Yellow (with a big emphasis upon red).

I might look at some Sea Blues for DA, though if I did so, I'd want to keep Lamedon away from greens. I'm looking at perhaps doing my Black Numenorians in a deep sea green after seeing these on ToR.

http://s36.photobucket.com/user/joshuar_au/media/1_1.jpg.html

OMG! Those Morgul Knights look freaking awesome. I will have to save this photo for when I go to paint my own (I only have 12, but that is about as small a unit as one would have for Morgul Knights).

In the rules I use, that would be the smallest normal unit (4 bases of Knights). The only other option would be for having them as a special troop type, such as a double-based (an 80x120mm double-deep cavalry base) unit in Wedge, which were used by some Medieval Cavalry, where I would only use ten Knights on two bases, arranged in wedges of ten knights on each base, instead of the four of normal knights.

BeAfraid wrote:

The only troops that I can think of that might be a problem are the Archers of Morthond Vale, as they are the only others Longbowmen in the Late-3rd Age Gondor Armies, but English Longbowmen would be wholly inappropriate for them (the styles of the armor and clothing are far too distinct).
I had already suggested using the Late-2nd/Early-3rd Age Numenorean Archers, with a head swap with a WoMT figure to create the Archers of Morthond Vale. Morthond Vale is supposed to be the wealthiest Western Fief of Gondor, as the Western Fiefs are substantially poorer than the Eastern Fiefs, but Morthond is a legacy troop, and a large agricultural center.
But that would be a LOT of work to produce 12 - 24 Archers for a unit.
MB

I'm using my ranger-type figures as Rangers of Ithilien to go with Faramir, etc rather than Blackroot Vale (regardless of what the blisters say). I've got a few Rangers of the North figures coming as well (and a couple in hand) but I'm not sure whether to paint them as the Grey Company, given that they were so few and I might not have a regiment of 12 worth of models, or just blend them in with the others, or even to supplement them with metal "Faramir's rangers" models to bulk them up to a regiment size.

As for the others, I don't mind grabbing a few more eBob heads, but I'm not willing to go to any significant amount of work for the Feifdom troops. I'm really looking forward to bringing Gondor to a close, at least temporarily so I can work on other armies more intensely. Any significant expansions to the small 1-unit Fiefdom contingents would be after finishing a few more forces to a point where I'm satisfied, and even then pretty much only ones that are easily achieved.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why they do not just produce some additional, proper Archer figures that are not Minas Tirith Warriors (Caras Maedhrym - City Warriors).

But... It is GW we are talking about, who would not know a thing about proper historical or mythical representations if it bit them on the A**.

Come to think of it.... I have no use for the Rangers of the North figures I have.

I'll dig them up if you want them. I think I have 8 - 12 of them... I am sure that there is something I need for trade (maybe Easterling Cataphracts - the plastics - or Morgul Knights).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:

I can completely understand Aesthetics.

I am all about Aesthetics.

But they seem to have rules regarding them that make no sense.

Sashimono on Elves would be heretical though.

I thought you'd like that one. They could work on WHFB-style elves in some circumstances, though. Anyway, the new version of KoW is streamlining removing rules for non-magical standards and musicians, and they will become an optional thing for those who wish to model them onto their units.

OMG! Those Morgul Knights look freaking awesome. I will have to save this photo for when I go to paint my own (I only have 12, but that is about as small a unit as one would have for Morgul Knights).

In the rules I use, that would be the smallest normal unit (4 bases of Knights). The only other option would be for having them as a special troop type, such as a double-based (an 80x120mm double-deep cavalry base) unit in Wedge, which were used by some Medieval Cavalry, where I would only use ten Knights on two bases, arranged in wedges of ten knights on each base, instead of the four of normal knights.

That they do. There are a bunch of other photos at the url under that pic with other angles, more figures, etc of the Knights.

BeAfraid wrote:

For the life of me, I cannot understand why they do not just produce some additional, proper Archer figures that are not Minas Tirith Warriors (Caras Maedhrym - City Warriors).
But... It is GW we are talking about, who would not know a thing about proper historical or mythical representations if it bit them on the A**.

That one's easy! GW are way past the point where they give two gaks about the Tolkien licence, and only just renewed it to keep anyone else from getting it.

Come to think of it.... I have no use for the Rangers of the North figures I have.
I'll dig them up if you want them. I think I have 8 - 12 of them... I am sure that there is something I need for trade (maybe Easterling Cataphracts - the plastics - or Morgul Knights).

It's a kind offer, but it might be hard for me to find anything that I have which you're interested in that I'm also willing to part with. I've got both Cataphracts and MKs on my own shopping list at the moment! Have a think about what else you might be interested in, and I'll let you know what I have once the two batches of figures with RotN models arrive and I've had a chance to see exactly what I have.

i just thought of another reason why Unit Standards bug me.

Because the General's Standard should be the most obvious on the battlefield, and the Unit Standards would be:

1) Much smaller than the General's Standard
2) Different from the General's Standard.
3) And the miniature companies don't seem to make Unit Standards that are different from the General's Standards save for Guals and Romans.

This is one of the things that I have liked about the GW LotR miniatures, that they offer several standards for each force.

For smaller skirmish level games, this works well for "unit" standards (but there are no formed units in a skirmish game, and the standard here would be something that existed for morale purposes.

And for mass combat, this has offered a variety for Army (General's) Standards, for which most rules require 3 - 4 Generals (roughly how many standards exist for each nationality).

It always blew my mind that GW did not push for a more Warmaster/DBX styled mass combat game, where each army was 200 - 300 figures (and, in the case of forces like Hithaeglir Goblins/Orcs, up to 700 figures, like you would find in a Gallic or Early German Army).

They apparently are REALLY BAD at optimization math to know that selling 200 - 300 figures at ¼ of their current price, plus the 50 - 100 figures for a skirmish game would net them more money than selling just 50 or so figures per gamer (per nation) at their current prices.

Plus, units look better when the figures are based for Units, and not individuals.... But I digress...

The standards they make are all really Army Standards, and not Unit Standards.

If you look at the Roman Armies from 300BC to 300AD, the size and type of the Army and Unit Standards did not change much.

In the Maniple/Cohort styled armies, each Maniple or Cohort had a standard that was 8 feet tall, with a cloth with the Maniple or Cohort number on it (and Legion Number).

The Army Standard was always an Eagle, and then another Animal for each Legion (armies were typically Four Legions each), plus the Signifer, all of which were 9 to 12 feet tall. each General would be accompanied by the Animal Standard for his legion.

One can see a similar arrangement in the Ancient Greeks and Alexandrian Armies.

In the Dark Ages, one can see different arrangements, where rather than units, it became Feudal Lords who carried standards, and the units were only really accompanied by a musician, used for signaling, and a small flag on a spear, save for the Generals or Lords commanding the army or one of its wings.

BUT...

If GW were to make decent unit standards for units, instead of army standards, then I would be all over putting standards in each unit.

I may think about doing some conversions of some of the Hithaeglir Lesser Goblin Sculpts I am working on to be used for Unit Standards, since I am sure that there will be people who will want to use the figures for skirmish gaming, and it would also allow for dressing up units in mass combat games.

Only.... Most mass combat games are going to see Orc Armies with about four to eight units of the Lesser Goblins (if they are mixed roughly 50:50 for Lesser:Greater Goblins/Orcs).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
i just thought of another reason why Unit Standards bug me.

Because the General's Standard should be the most obvious on the battlefield, and the Unit Standards would be:

1) Much smaller than the General's Standard
2) Different from the General's Standard.
3) And the miniature companies don't seem to make Unit Standards that are different from the General's Standards save for Guals and Romans.

Again. Over-thinking a 30 year-old Fantasy game that only has vague connections to "realism" and is above all else, a game rather than a tactical simulation and doesn't pretend to be anything else.

It always blew my mind that GW did not push for a more Warmaster/DBX styled mass combat game, where each army was 200 - 300 figures (and, in the case of forces like Hithaeglir Goblins/Orcs, up to 700 figures, like you would find in a Gallic or Early German Army).
They apparently are REALLY BAD at optimization math to know that selling 200 - 300 figures at ¼ of their current price, plus the 50 - 100 figures for a skirmish game would net them more money than selling just 50 or so figures per gamer (per nation) at their current prices.

Nah, despite their endless missteps over the past couple of years, they're very clever (or were, in any case). By dropping the number of figures (and raising the prices) they made armies affordable yet achievable. Then they forgot the former part and have gone into an ugly spiral.
Still, let's look at your examples that you admit will take forever for you to paint. Look at my collection that I'll never paint. More sane people would give up, given these numbers, but by making armies much, much smaller and actually achievable (to complete) they get more players with more armies.

Plus, units look better when the figures are based for Units, and not individuals.... But I digress...

Generally speaking, I agree. I find the utility and practicality of individual bases outweigh the negatives. Theoretically, individual square bases woul dbe a good compromise, but I've hated those compared to the rounds since I started collecting miniatures that had slottabases (though I don't mind them for larger figures and models for some reason - maybe due to a longstanding fondness for Ogres who only came on those) and I'm in a phase of my life where not giving a feth about stuff like that works well for me.

The standards they make are all really Army Standards, and not Unit Standards.
...
If GW were to make decent unit standards for units, instead of army standards, then I would be all over putting standards in each unit.

Again, over-thinking it and over-caring about what GW makes. Really, mate, who gives a feth what GW make? It's a simple enough thing to make small banners, pennants and standards for individual units. Brass rod and foil from a tube of cream, or champagne bottle, or greenstuff. I'd make more myself if I weren't so lazy with too much of a backlog to make me care about converting models.

I don't thin it is over thinking things if one considers what kind of game one wishes to play.

Yes, you can says "It's only a game."

But if that is the case, why are we not just playing dice, or checkers? These are "games" which have abstracted out most representations. They are not intentional representations of some facet of the world which is attempted to be recreated.

Thus, what the figures represent is important, as is how they are represented.

As I pointed out before, a collection of 100 individuals is not really an "Army." Such a collection is just a band of men, who probably are not even acting as a collective unit.

Bands of men behave differently than formed units.

The band of men is a group of individuals, acting individually (many acting as many). Yet the formed unit is a group of individuals, acting as a collective whole or unit (many acting as one).

Thus the means by which an army is represented is important for how a game depicts its nodes of behavioral representation (at the level of the individual, or the level of the unit).

Some people, most primarily historical players, for instance, have made a pretty deep study of the history of warfare, unit behavior, and the effects of an individual as that individual works to affect the unit's behavior (usually to no effect at all).

Most fantasy players I have encountered tend to be unaware of these distinctions, or even why they are important (I was rather surprised to discover that Rick Priestly, even, was largely ignorant of many of the facets of large scale warfare when play testing the expansion of Warmaster Historical).

Thus, it is rare to find, either in games or in reality, a situation where the individual and the unit are both consequential to the outcomes of a game that is intentionally trying to depict armed conflict. Only with the advent of gunpowder did an individual become consequential enough to affect battlefield outcomes.

And thus, you have the distinctions that are important concerning things like Standards, basing of units/figures, ground scales (movement distances and missile weapon ranges), time scales for turns, and morale effects.

These are all very, very different at the level of the individual (or a band of a few hundred individuals) or at the level of a unit (many hundreds to thousands of individuals, mostly similar in arms/armament, in the company of other units of similar size).

Trying to force behavior from one level of scale onto another level of scale creates outcomes that are aberrant. Things that would just not happen, or could never happen.

That might be, to some, considered "Over thinking," yet it is exactly the sort of thing that the vast majority of Historical Gamers tend to ponder as a matter of course. It is the norm there.

And Middle-earth is more just another Historical Period than it is a "Fantasy" world (not that this should make any difference).

The warfare is described in the same fashion one sees in historical epics or accounts of warfare. The tools are identical to historical warfare of the Dark Ages/Medieval periods.

So... Why should thinking about its representation in a game be any different than thinking about the representations of Medieval/Dark Ages warfare?

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
I don't thin it is over thinking things if one considers what kind of game one wishes to play.
Yes, you can says "It's only a game."
...
That might be, to some, considered "Over thinking," yet it is exactly the sort of thing that the vast majority of Historical Gamers tend to ponder as a matter of course. It is the norm there.
And Middle-earth is more just another Historical Period than it is a "Fantasy" world (not that this should make any difference).
...
So... Why should thinking about its representation in a game be any different than thinking about the representations of Medieval/Dark Ages warfare?

MB

No, Middle Earth is not "more another historical period". It is indeed a fantasy world. Please stop conflating your favourite series of books as being as important as or equal to real battles and the real world. Like many fictitious works, it might be based on aspects of the real world with real history, but that hardly makes it unique or even more important in any way than any other fictional world or piece of work.

So anyway, you're over-thinking it. Bemoaning why Warhammer Fantasy and its ilk are not like historical simulations is the wrong question. You're getting upset because Call of Duty is not a realistic simulation of Modern Warfare, and asking why Activision don't do it properly. The answer is because it is what it is, and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. They're not doing it wrong, you are. At this point, Middle Earth is another licence. It's another IP. It might be more than that to you, but that's actually all it is. It's like Star Wars, or Star Trek, or the Avengers. It's just a fantasy thing that now has many sets of hands on it. Like Roddenberry's Trek or Lucas' Star Wars. GW didn't make the game you want(ed) Middle Earth to be, and PJ didn't make the film that you wanted to see. Complaining that GW's unit standards in WHFB are "wrong" means you've missed the point. You're complaining that these Lemons aren't sweet and aren't coloured Orange. They're superficially the same, and have some of the same DNA, but they're very different things.

If it's not the game you want them to be, you'll have to make your own. Which obviously won't have the licence or traction that a big company like GW can bring, but if you enjoy it, more power to you. What you desire probably can't easily be represented on a tabletop. Certainly not in 28mm. It's actually probably better suited to a computer game, where scale can scale.

I am making an equation of importance.

I am pointing out that Middle-earth's humans (and most other races) behave according to the same rules that govern human behavior otherwise (within constraints of the fact it is a Chivalric Romance, for the most part, but that aspect only concerns a few individuals, and not the population in general of Middle-earth).

The fact that it is not unique is my point.

And the issue of whether things like WHFB is a "historical simulation" is missing the point of what it is intended to be.

And, claiming that something is "just fiction" is an avoidance of the fact that the world's created operate according to pretty fixed rules, and that one cannot simply make up anything they wish about them.

I really don't even think people know what they mean when they point out something is "just fiction." It seems to be a means of avoiding thinking, which is no crime to do.

There have been very few things that have gone wrong because someone tried to think too carefully about an issue.

Do I take Middle-earth more seriously than most?

Absolutely. And for very good reasons.

And it is only "just another license" for solely the properties purchased by Saul Zaendtz, which will not last forever.

I tend to be on the Tolkien Estate's side about what has been done with that license.

Neither I, nor they are against the portrayal of Tolkien's work in any media.

What we have a problem with are the "it's just fiction" attitudes people have about it, as that is insulting to the creator of a work of fiction. And most insulting to works like Middle-earth which occupied Tolkien's entire life, and which concern subjects most people might do well to think on a bit more.

MB

So, about the banners I am sending you for your LOTR guys...did Middle Earth have a Texas?