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.
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures..
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures..
lol, we're less than a year in the release.
This notwithstanding, how many big, costly books have been already released? And I dare to say that to describe with enough depth a whole setting, a single big book is enough. RPGs do it the whole time, and they must include loads of other useless stuff like... rules.
Again, compare with the current core of warmachine
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/04 13:13:11
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
GW did see Warmachine, a CEO said "look they have bigger minis in proportion, and free 4 pages rules. That's why they are gaining ground. Do something like this. Do it NOW do not worry about the quality - they will buy it anyway because we are the best on the market. Ah, add something spacemariney to it. Horus Heresy is selling like hotcakes, is not because FW gives a flying disk about rules and bg, it must be because of the marines. Add moar marines we cannot go wrong. Get rid of this low fantasy stuff, look at Warcraft this is what kids want nowadays".
I can say with certainty that GW had absolutely no intention of copying Warmachine.
The fact that AoS is the polar opposite of WMH in basic terms - no composition and non-competitive play - should be enough evidence that this wasn't the aim.
As for the Stormcast - according to Gav Thorpe, the idea of getting the space marine trope into WFB has been around since 6th edition - well over 8 years ago.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/04 13:17:54
GW did see Warmachine, a CEO said "look they have bigger minis in proportion, and free 4 pages rules. That's why they are gaining ground. Do something like this. Do it NOW do not worry about the quality - they will buy it anyway because we are the best on the market. Ah, add something spacemariney to it. Horus Heresy is selling like hotcakes, is not because FW gives a flying disk about rules and bg, it must be because of the marines. Add moar marines we cannot go wrong. Get rid of this low fantasy stuff, look at Warcraft this is what kids want nowadays".
I can say with certainty that GW had absolutely no intention of copying Warmachine.
The fact that AoS is the polar opposite of WMH in basic terms - no composition and non-competitive play - should be enough evidence that this wasn't the aim.
As for the Stormcast - according to Gav Thorpe, the idea of getting the space marine trope into WFB has been around since 6th edition - well over 8 years ago.
But they copied the superfical elements; this is what I say in my (absolutely tongue in cheek) "essay". Not negating your points, be sure.
Mind tha this could be because of an erratic management or misguided, unmotivated designers. I just have an hypothesis. Nothing else.
About what Mr. Thorpe said.... eeeeeeuuuuugh
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/04 13:24:23
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
There's also a nugget where some people require a lot of complex rules to feel that the game is good and complicated enough to allow strategies and tactics, and there are other people that don't want to have to learn a large complicated ruleset, and those people will typically never see eye to eye.
I read similar arguments between fans of pathfinder (who typically seem to love complex rules and lots of them) and fans of 5e D&D (who seem to favor simpler rules).
But they copied the superfical elements; this is what I say in my (absolutely tongue in cheek) "essay". Not negating your points, be sure.
Mind tha this could be because of an erratic management or misguided, unmotivated designers. I just have an hypothesis. Nothing else.
Okay, I'm calling you on that; what did they 'copy'?
After all, above a certain threshold of detail, a wargame is a wargame is a wargame, i.e. 'move miniatures around board, roll dice'.
But they copied the superfical elements; this is what I say in my (absolutely tongue in cheek) "essay". Not negating your points, be sure.
Mind tha this could be because of an erratic management or misguided, unmotivated designers. I just have an hypothesis. Nothing else.
Okay, I'm calling you on that; what did they 'copy'?
After all, above a certain threshold of detail, a wargame is a wargame is a wargame, i.e. 'move miniatures around board, roll dice'.
Increased size of the models and base size, more "cartoonish" features of the minis, 4 page free rules (missing the point completely on why those are good), skirmish, warscroll as rules-in-a-page, formations: after Warmachine did tiers for Warcasters since a long time (but again, GW did it only to justify spamming unit X, not to make specific themes work).
In a very shallow way, and again, missing the point of what's good in the Warmachine game, but to me it looks like a superficial, albeit quite pathetic, attempt to imitate a competitor. I would not say actually "copy", because they just are not able to go in depth. Mimicry is better perhaps?
To me they look like clumsy moves dictated by fear. They just underestimate the need of a good ruleset, because people bought their cool minis for their bad rulesets for years. But with time the quality of rules reached a critical (lower) threshold and the minis just did not keep up. They just do not get that, say, is pointless to pump out big monsters for storm of magic if the basic ruleset is dumb or, more often, the army books are so imbalanced that people just refuse to play out of frustration. Or that after you spent time and money to convert a Chaos Dreadnought to have sonic cannon, you are really disappointed when next codex annihilates all your time and effort.
Is superficial, cosmetic. The words, not the music.
Or perhaps, they understood it too late, and now came out with the schizophrenic idea of a lighthearted premium product because hire competent people or pay more the ones they have now is too difficult to explain to the bean counters.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/04/04 15:22:12
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
Well. I didn't design it so I can't speak for those who made this but all I can give is my own opinion. You like it or you don't. I've yet to meet a dwarf collector with more and a wider range of dwarf models that I have from many many lines so I feel quite comfortable with my own take on my models. Are they better than the previous slayers or 8th Ed dwarf releases? IMO no. Having assembled and painted a few boxes of these this one model you linked is the closest to what I think you are calling tippy toes. Even then, I don't think I'd call it that. I'm happy to have plastic slyaers and have modeled them in a way I like, so I'm content. Could they have been better? Absolutely! the crest looked odd in the pics but works out just fine in person. These studio pics were unfortunate. But I've seen many painters so far work the flesh tone design just fine and make they look great.
In short, I disagree with you on this one. The crest and poses worked out fine. I don't see tippy toes as you do. And I'm really not sure where you are getting this whole "masterpiece" thing from. It's unfortunate you dislike all the AOS stuff, I hope your gaming experience is enjoyable and you fight many epic battles But I really hope you don't actually think the staff at GW, or really any company, is out to get its customers and muhahahaha, monies!! That last part is...just absurd.
What can I say? As people above said, more power to you. And I suppose modelling (helped by the plastic material) solves some of the posing issue. I do not like the big weapons and I am appreciating the small maces on my lotr orcs right now, but that's high fantasy and behind this there is a common design paradigm present in Warmachine, too.
I cannot explain the pricing, anyway. Of course a company will want money from customers, is how they work. What I question is the offer in base of the money asked.
But you too have fun converting and painting man (or woman)! Enjoy and thanks!
One note: I do not want to pick on designers that much. I do not think that people working in GW now are exceptionally talented (the comparison with former employees, even people dangerously creative like Mr. Ward, author of so much crap but of so much brilliance as well), but my guess (just my guess, mind it) is that many game designers or miniature artists are doing hasty jobs because they are overworked and undermanned. Bean counters in GW, I think, just do not believe in investing in people.
GW did see Warmachine, a CEO said "look they have bigger minis in proportion, and free 4 pages rules. That's why they are gaining ground. Do something like this. Do it NOW do not worry about the quality - they will buy it anyway because we are the best on the market. Ah, add something spacemariney to it. Horus Heresy is selling like hotcakes, is not because FW gives a flying disk about rules and bg, it must be because of the marines. Add moar marines we cannot go wrong. Get rid of this low fantasy stuff, look at Warcraft this is what kids want nowadays".
The problem is that, like psychopaths, GW knows the words but not the music. Behind the skirmish rules of Warmachine there is a careful process of testing and dialogue with the gamers. This is not perfect (Pistol Wraith uber-nerf, anyone? ) but the framework created allows for a tight ruleset that can be then well represented in few pages. Then any model comes with rules on the box and this is the reason warscrolls exist. We will see them in the boxes. because Privateer does and must be the cool thing to do - disregarding all the context around such rules in the box.
Same with the setting. Albeit the stereotype behind Warmachine is a cutthroat gaming environment, the setting is rich. The Iron Kingdoms are born from a DnD 3rd edition campaign setting; there is heart and creativity poured in it, with typical and untypical fantasy tropes applied ad hoc. Hell, even basic elements very DnD-esque, like energy damage (fire, frost, acid.. ) are maintained. Nothing of this is compared to the Cosmic Blandess of AoS.
GW just fails to understand why certain mechanics or setting elements in Warmachine reach the heart of the customer. Like psychos, GW sees a normal "person" (Privateer) interact and have depth, plans, content but the only thing that GW can do is mimicry the behaviour of the neurotypical dude because has no depth by himself. From a superficial analysis it looks like the same behaviour but is not. Is a mimicry devoid of the inner understanding of why certain behaviours are implemented. The words, but not the music.
Calm down, I am aware of the exaggeration of this hyperbole. Is indeed veeeeery daring (but I am not the first person that compares a company to a person, and even not the first one to attribute to a company a psychopathic behaviour).
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures. There is not a visible and coherent plan in the release, at least one that the customers can envision (there is not empathy for the customer, no understanding that he would want to plan for his expensive hobby. There is no concept of planning, just impulsivity). . Ruthlessness. Goodbye bretonnia, goodbye khemri. Pathological lying ("we are not going to squat anything anymore").
And going outside AoS, just think how easily GW becomes a bully when thinks that can get away with it. does anyone remembers the Space Marine lawsuit? I mean that is impossible, arrogant, and unrealistic. Something only a psycho can conceive. The facade drops, and you see the true face of the psycho.
And you, like the friends or relatives of the psychopath, remain there baffled, bewildered and unable to understand this guy, his plans, his incoherence, his shortsightedness, and his ultimate tendency to self destruction.
Very well said, but is it true? That is how I see it as well. Does it matter if it is true though? If this is what I and many other people perceive that GW is, then GW has a problem. If they don't consider this a problem on how we perceive them, that to me would me they are content to where they are. In the black making only a few millions and not worrying about growing and making more money. (Yes I know as a publically traded company, I can't see that sitting very well with the share holders and since GW hasn't been taken to court or anyone charged with fraud and not helping out the shareholders my thinking can't be true either. Again it's a perceived thing.) That being said, it does look like it is a problem with GW and they are making changes where last year we would have never even thought of GW doing what they are doing now.
Just wondering about the "Pathological lying ("we are not going to squat anything anymore")" you have said. Did GW actually say this, or is this from a rumour monger who said GW said this in the board room. I don't recall GW telling us nothing would be squatted. I recall reading this in 40K rumours but not for AoS. Are we getting them mixed up now?
Again, well said, sadly that is how I perceived what GW is doing with AoS.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
Just wondering about the "Pathological lying ("we are not going to squat anything anymore")" you have said. Did GW actually say this, or is this from a rumour monger who said GW said this in the board room. I don't recall GW telling us nothing would be squatted. I recall reading this in 40K rumours but not for AoS. Are we getting them mixed up now?
If I got it wrong, my apologies, but I hope my (hyperbolic) point comes across anyway.
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
In a very shallow way, and again, missing the point of what's good in the Warmachine game, but to me it looks like a superficial, albeit quite pathetic, attempt to imitate a competitor. I would not say actually "copy", because they just are not able to go in depth. Mimicry is better perhaps?
Yeah, what you've done there is confuse similarities with copying. Even less the fact that I don't think anybody those aspects are unique to Warmachine either, so this is a rabbit-hole best avoided...
In a very shallow way, and again, missing the point of what's good in the Warmachine game, but to me it looks like a superficial, albeit quite pathetic, attempt to imitate a competitor. I would not say actually "copy", because they just are not able to go in depth. Mimicry is better perhaps?
Yeah, what you've done there is confuse similarities with copying. Even less the fact that I don't think anybody those aspects are unique to Warmachine either, so this is a rabbit-hole best avoided...
I am sorry, but these are all rushed implements to the substitute of a game that died, and make such substitute more similar to one current strong competitor.
Maybe I am too suspicious and too malicious (because I am) but doesn't this raise some suspect? I mean no offence given but isn't a bit naive think that is all a coincidence?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: There's also a nugget where some people require a lot of complex rules to feel that the game is good and complicated enough to allow strategies and tactics, and there are other people that don't want to have to learn a large complicated ruleset, and those people will typically never see eye to eye.
I read similar arguments between fans of pathfinder (who typically seem to love complex rules and lots of them) and fans of 5e D&D (who seem to favor simpler rules).
Except that 5e is a complete ruleset. You know exactly how many slots of spell a Wizard has at level 5. The Manual does not say that they are how many it feels right.
Of course you can houserule it, and this is even simpler because DnD is an RPG. And you can houserule a wargame with a point system as well, and ignore half f the rules, and create a game with characters only. But if you need a quick and dirty framework, the designers implemented it. They bothered to do that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/04 16:25:48
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
I am sorry, but these are all rushed implements to the substitute of a game that died, and make such substitute more similar to one current strong competitor.
Maybe I am too suspicious and too malicious (because I am) but doesn't this raise some suspect? I mean no offence given but isn't a bit naive think that is all a coincidence?
It doesn't raise any suspicions, because - again - you're seeing similarities, deciding that's copying, then working backward through a chain of reasoning where every point confirms your initial assumption.
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures..
lol, we're less than a year in the release.
The whole of Lord Of The Rings (three volumes) was published in a year, during austerity when paper was rationed.
I am sorry, but these are all rushed implements to the substitute of a game that died, and make such substitute more similar to one current strong competitor.
Maybe I am too suspicious and too malicious (because I am) but doesn't this raise some suspect? I mean no offence given but isn't a bit naive think that is all a coincidence?
It doesn't raise any suspicions, because - again - you're seeing similarities, deciding that's copying, then working backward through a chain of reasoning where every point confirms your initial assumption.
I claim no definitive proof, mind it; not sure about it but I think that the element I listed along with the timing, along with the role of Privateer as rival, along with the urge of rebooting, along with more element in the whole GW content production context*, are enough to raise more than some suspicion. I would not be so hasty in dismissing it.
*An example of this? The background of WFB and 40k were often accused of being stagnating. Accuses I actually never understood, because I want a setting - if I wanted a story I would have searched a book, as stated. Now we have this continuous (albeit shallow) updating for the AoS books, and the current updates for 40k are these "campaign mode" books with formations. Now compare this with Warmachine and the expansion books with new minis, advance of the story (meh) and new incarnations of warcasters (some of them even change faction, especially if Cryx catches you). Ok can be a coincidence but is in a moment in which the market expands but GW does not grow at the same rate. Impossible they did have a look to what other are doing, and answered with their usual "subtlety"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/04 19:46:22
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
In a very shallow way, and again, missing the point of what's good in the Warmachine game, but to me it looks like a superficial, albeit quite pathetic, attempt to imitate a competitor. I would not say actually "copy", because they just are not able to go in depth. Mimicry is better perhaps?
Yeah, what you've done there is confuse similarities with copying. Even less the fact that I don't think anybody those aspects are unique to Warmachine either, so this is a rabbit-hole best avoided...
I think you are both partially right. Innovation will breed imitation. And to be fair, everybody will do it. All companies will imitate from each other; if one does a good idea that picks up traction, expect everyone else to follow suit. Perfect example being privateer press' Los rules in how a model occupies a precise 'volume of space' which is a column of a specific height, drawn from its models base. Corvis belli ripped it, almost verbatim for infinity n3.
Warmachine isn't entirely 'unique' either. Cover being a defense modifier was seen in 40k second ed. unit by unit activations has been there for ages. The combo/synergy nature of the game is similar from a lot of ccg's (and Matt Wilson was involved with magic and l5r.)
But with regard to gw, they have made their own take on a lot of things pp have been doing, and they've done it for longer than folks realise. Ironically, most of 40k itself is ripped from various other ip's- moorcock, heinlein, 2000ad, dune, lovecraft and 80s pop culture and satire.
Back in 2011-2012" when warmachine mk2 was really starting to kick off, and the game was generating a lot of steam, privateer press were the mover and shaker in the industry. A lot of the things they were doing was ahead of the curve for ttg's - world wide betas being the biggest example. But I noticed, even back then, how gw was not so subtly aping their 'character-centric' approach amongst other things. It was no surprise to me how 'characters' started to become such a huge thing in 40k at that time. Specific characters were even required if you wanted to play specific lists (5th edition dark Angels: if you wanted to play deathwing, you had to take Belial, if you wanted ravenwing, you had to take sammael for example) and armies were defined by the characters that led them - Vulcan hestan, shrike, Khan etc. Almost like how characters in warmachine define their armies too.
Wang isn't wrong either. There are a lot of things in Aos that scream 'these things work for other people, let's follow their lead and implement those systems ourselves" I'm surprised they don't use cards for their units stats etc, and it's almost a tick box exercise in terms of 'systems we've seen before'. Aos isn't innovative. It doesn't do anything new. It forces you to approach the game building in a specific way, that's about it.
I'm not denying that there are similarities between AoS and other systems.
Just the suggestion that AoSset out to be a copy of WMH.
Because if that *was* the idea, they hit the details but none of the high-level stuff.
It's like Boeing tried to make a car by adding a sunroof, anti-lock brakes and an airbag to a plane.
RoperPG wrote: I'm not denying that there are similarities between AoS and other systems.
Just the suggestion that AoSset out to be a copy of WMH.
Because if that *was* the idea, they hit the details but none of the high-level stuff.
It's like Boeing tried to make a car by adding a sunroof, anti-lock brakes and an airbag to a plane.
This is my point: they tried but either they have not the skill, or some executive meddling forced the designer to avoid, say, put 0-1 choices (stupid example, just to understand) because (say) that would forbid people to buy more stuff. So because of time restraints, lack of inspiration, meddling and Tzeentch knows what they came out with something that is.. how do you say in english? Neither flesh nor fowl?
And more than set out, something like "put this [warmachine element], too, for other systems works (see above).
Ah, and I do not want to say that ripoffs are always negative. Often are not: the Zerg-Tyranids loop between Blizzard and GW is a great one IMHO. Just, must be done with the intent of an homage, or even a well planned, evil copycat - maybe something good comes out anyway (see Zerg-Tyranids). But not under panic.
@Deadnight: good catch about the characters and the themed army around them. Yes. Definitively yes.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/04/04 20:22:09
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
To be fair, the basic concept of abstract determination of LOS dates at least from Panzer Leader (Avalon Hill, 1974), so while Infinity may have borrowed the idea from Warmachine, it isn't a new idea in itself.
auticus wrote: There's also a nugget where some people require a lot of complex rules to feel that the game is good and complicated enough to allow strategies and tactics, and there are other people that don't want to have to learn a large complicated ruleset, and those people will typically never see eye to eye.
I read similar arguments between fans of pathfinder (who typically seem to love complex rules and lots of them) and fans of 5e D&D (who seem to favor simpler rules).
I think the best bet is a simple core ruleset with a the ability to have a lot of granularity and depth in actual units themselves.
I don't think there's too many people who actually like unnecessarily and excessively convoluted rules, but I'm sure there's a lot who appreciate a lot of depth in the units which make up the game.
RoperPG wrote:I'm not denying that there are similarities between AoS and other systems.
Just the suggestion that AoSset out to be a copy of WMH.
Because if that *was* the idea, they hit the details but none of the high-level stuff.
It's like Boeing tried to make a car by adding a sunroof, anti-lock brakes and an airbag to a plane.
It didn't set out to be a copy of WMH - let's face it, gw are not stupid. WMH is an excellent competitive-focused game, and has a lot of that niche cornered, if not sown up. Gw are a company that have never really been either competent/focused enough, nor interested in, designing a competitive focused game of thst calibre. Even if they did want to do this, look at what they're going up against. Privateer press is the young punk - they're lean, mean, eager, focused and frankly, they're bloody good at what they're doing. If gw went after them, their game, or their niche with something similar, there's a very good risk all they'd get out of it is a bloody nose. Their game could too easily fail against established rivals. It's really not worth the effort, especially when gws main thinkers and designers entire exposure, thinking and vision of wargames comes, essentially from a historical-based perspective where things like home brews, eyeballing things, and a focus on playing the game for the story, for laughs and to hang out with mates, rather than a focus on winning the game are the order of the day. There is a reason that gw are targeting the niche that they are targeting. For a variety of reasons. In a way, Aos is no surprise to me. It's gwfinally being honest, and finally presenting a game whose entire focus reflects their vision, and is steeped in their 'way' of playing wargames. Frankly, it's a fun approach, but I rather get my kicks out of thst approach with historicals (and lotr!)
To answer your point though, your comparison of Boeing making a car from a plane by attaching a sunroof and whatnot doesn't really work. it's not gw trying to make Aos a copy of WMH. It's gw aping a lot of the systems (such as 4 pages of rules, 'card' equivelants defining a unit, world of Warcraft aesthetics, combo/synergy based mechanics, even if it's homeopathic warmachine, formations/tiers, etc) and the approaches that privateer press used, that made their game such a huge success and hoping, essentially,That lightning strikes twice, and that the systems used are themselves enough to sell the game, though their aiming the gun at a different niche and hoping that they can pull it off.
Kaiyanwang wrote:
This is my point: they tried but either they have not the skill, or some executive meddling forced the designer to avoid, say, put 0-1 choices (stupid example, just to understand) because (say) that would forbid people to buy more stuff. So because of time restraints, lack of inspiration, meddling and Tzeentch knows what they came out with something that is.. how do you say in english? Neither flesh nor fowl?
I think the designers have the skill, but they're not the shot callers in the company. I have saved a quote from Pete Haines thst describes the meddling of the 'higher powers' in gw, and that, essentially, although the designers might get their faces in white dwarf, it's marketing, and nothing more, and they have very little really power. It's a working department, not a creative workshop I'm afraid, you're given a project brief, you're given a deadline, and all too limited resources, and you don't step out of your brief. You're job is to do what they tell you to do, and if that is make a centurion, even if that is against all of your gut instincts, you do it, because the other option is to be kicked out on the street (they're a hire and fire company, Where job security is the Privilige of those above the glass ceiling, and where essentially, there are a hundred nerds waiting to take and do your job for less money. Oh, and as a bonus, you get your name put in gw's 'little black book' and you never work in the industry again).
I did hear that jj brought various proposals for the 'engine' to run Aos, including point based options and essentially it was rountree who greenlit the pointless, and minimum-investment-to-rules approach. It would not surprise me.
Kaiyanwang wrote:
And more than set out, something like "put this [warmachine element], too, for other systems works (see above).
Yup. But as was said, every company will do this. It's up for discussion as to whether gw understands 'why' those elements work, or if it's simply mimicry. I'll lean towards they understand why but aren't really interested. Gw fans will get it (double meaning, or rather, triple meaning here is intentional).
Kaiyanwang wrote:
@Deadnight: good catch about the characters and the themed army around them. Yes. Definitively yes.
I've been bleating on about things for years, no one listens to me though. *grumble*
Maybe I should write a blog.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/04 21:48:26
I've been bleating on about things for years, no one listens to me though. *grumble*
Maybe I should write a blog.
I am a fresh new user! I couldn't know
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures..
lol, we're less than a year in the release.
The whole of Lord Of The Rings (three volumes) was published in a year, during austerity when paper was rationed.
Started in the 30's and published in the 50's, not really quite the same league. And it still didn't provide a point system, plonker.
Well. I didn't design it so I can't speak for those who made this but all I can give is my own opinion. You like it or you don't. I've yet to meet a dwarf collector with more and a wider range of dwarf models that I have from many many lines so I feel quite comfortable with my own take on my models. Are they better than the previous slayers or 8th Ed dwarf releases? IMO no. Having assembled and painted a few boxes of these this one model you linked is the closest to what I think you are calling tippy toes. Even then, I don't think I'd call it that. I'm happy to have plastic slyaers and have modeled them in a way I like, so I'm content. Could they have been better? Absolutely! the crest looked odd in the pics but works out just fine in person. These studio pics were unfortunate. But I've seen many painters so far work the flesh tone design just fine and make they look great.
In short, I disagree with you on this one. The crest and poses worked out fine. I don't see tippy toes as you do. And I'm really not sure where you are getting this whole "masterpiece" thing from. It's unfortunate you dislike all the AOS stuff, I hope your gaming experience is enjoyable and you fight many epic battles But I really hope you don't actually think the staff at GW, or really any company, is out to get its customers and muhahahaha, monies!! That last part is...just absurd.
What can I say? As people above said, more power to you. And I suppose modelling (helped by the plastic material) solves some of the posing issue. I do not like the big weapons and I am appreciating the small maces on my lotr orcs right now, but that's high fantasy and behind this there is a common design paradigm present in Warmachine, too.
I cannot explain the pricing, anyway. Of course a company will want money from customers, is how they work. What I question is the offer in base of the money asked.
But you too have fun converting and painting man (or woman)! Enjoy and thanks!
.
co-host weekly wargaming podcast Combat Phase
on iTunes or www.combatphase.com
My big disappointment in the FyreSlayers was that they didn't go far enough. I wanted their helmets actually to have (little scale model) flaming braziers in the top, not just horsehair crests.
Trouble with Fyreslayers is that you can feel they tried to stick to the old Slayer paint schema. You can also see that with Free People of the Grand Order Army Book; it's almost as they wanted to say "hey people who were fans of the old universe, don't worry, Empire guys are still there! Look, they still can be painted the same!".
You can see GW is struggling between new players who are open to a totally new background and old players who still want to play the old miniatures with the same design they were so fond of. That's why you may sometimes feel something is a bit "off" in AoS and the new miniatures, IMHO.
About the rules...GW works the same than for 40k, adding contents gradually until you are flooded by supplements everywhere. Think of it as "game modules". Or DLC in video games, if you really want to be snarky.
Most of the "special rules" come from profiles and battleplans. And since there is an entry for almost every miniature, that makes a lot of profiles. Game is not that simple when you play with a lot of different units, you have to take a reminder for quite a lot of special rules sometimes.
I don't even talk about "fan made" profiles, to take into account some nice (and quite inventive) conversions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/06 11:05:17
You do certainly have a lot of rules to take account on in a big army in Age of Sigmar, especially since each faction tends to have different rules for what banners and musicians do. However, I found that after a couple games, you will have every rule in your army basically memorised, and so in practice it is much easier to remember and run your army's rules than in, say, 40k. Not having USPs helps a lot in this, since you do not need to flip between two books for one unit's rules. Of course, it does mean that there is not much consistency between units, meaning that it can be tough to remember what everything in the game does, but that is not such a big deal to me.
WHM has some basic differences when compared with AoS.
It has a tight rule set basically without gaps and loop holes, and there is well supported tournament format called steamroller.
There is no premeasuring allowed bar measuring the control zone of your caster.
Moreover, units activate serially. This requires different thinking.
These are two issues players have at the beginning when they come from GW games.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/10 06:24:02
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Kilkrazy wrote: My big disappointment in the FyreSlayers was that they didn't go far enough. I wanted their helmets actually to have (little scale model) flaming braziers in the top, not just horsehair crests.
Do you mean like the runemaster (Chaos Dwarf-ish dude from week 1 w/no moustache) holds in his staff? The fyreslayers all have their slayer mohawk coming from their helmets, so it's their own hair. My army is done with the Grimnir pic where his body is lava red and his mohawk and beard is actually fire. If I had bigger budget and the talent I'd find a way to make actual little jets of flame protruding from their heads that would not burn nor melt the plastic. Holograms maybe? Bah, oh well. They came together nicely as an army this weekend even if they were rush painted with only 10 pots of paint to choose from.
But modeling a smoking brazier like the runemaster has on the magmadroths is actually a pretty cool idea I may steal for magmadroth #2.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/14 12:19:48
co-host weekly wargaming podcast Combat Phase
on iTunes or www.combatphase.com
Yes, they should have a fiery bonfire brazier right on top of their helmets.
The Runemaster should have a pipestaff that uses fire and earth magic to reach down into the earth and tap a vein of magma, allowing him to shoot volcano lava and hot hail at the enemy.
But I really hope you don't actually think the staff at 
