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.

 azreal13 wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Do you think that it went like this?

GW Boss"Have you seen these new enormous models PP are releasing???!!!!??!!!"
Design minion "Yes master, I was thinking...."
GW Boss"I DON'T PAY YOU TO THINK, MAKE SOMETHING LIKE IT IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!"
Design Minion "But master, to do something on that scale would take months of development and planning..."
GW Boss "WHAT?!!! Just turn out any old crap, our idiot customers will eat anything we feed them. have it on my desk by the weekend!!!!"
Design Minion "Yes master, nice master."

I know you are being sarcastic, but to be fair, Warhammer always had large monsters, long before Privateer Press even existed. Back in the day, pretty much every army aside from Bretonnians could take monsters. Granted they weren't the size that they are now, but neither were infantry miniatures. Everything has gotten bigger I think, except for Night Goblins.

I remember when the Warhammer Giant came out, the accompanying White Dwarf article singing its praises stated that large scale monsters and such were the future. Sure enough, they've kept true to that promise, with the standard mixed results.

Dude, I remember when the Marauder giant came out. Yes, large models have always been a feature, but it's only latterly they've invented bigger and bigger bases to accommodate them.

I think you've got one too many 'biggers' in there. Since 4th edition 40k, the only new base size has been the oval base, and since about as far back in Fantasy, the only new base has been the large monster base. It's a bit deceptive with Fantasy, but a lot of the new 'big' kits have actually been on the extremely old Chariot base, with only a few moving to the 'Aracnorok' base.

 azreal13 wrote:
I do believe that they're now, knowingly or not, getting in a pissing contest with PP over who can introduce the biggest thing. The difference being that, to me, the PP Colossals are some of their best work, whereas the more ambitious GW seem to get the wider they get of the mark, IMO. I say that as a 40k playing, non WM player too.

It's more than both companies have progressed their respective technologiies to where large kits are cost effective (GW with plastic and PP with metal/resin). GW missing the mark and PP not are purely subjective opinions, however. I find PP's collosals rather silly, moreso than things like the big Fantasy monsters.

And to add to that, PP has a long way to go before they reach FW's resin models (yes, Forgeworld, they are a division of GW afterall). When I see a Reaver/Phantom/Manta sized model from PP, I'll put them on that level playing field with large resin models.

 Leth wrote:
PP and GW dont have to be adversarial in nature. I see nothing wrong with one seeing an interesting idea and incorporating it into their line.

Really? The two largest companies in a niche market don't need to be adversarial in nature?

Ha.

To each his own I guess.

I was talking about amongst the player base. You either have to be PRO GW or PRO PP. Its almost as bad as the GOP and DEMs going at it.

Shame we can't be pro "nice looking model" and anti "gakky cash grab model". Saves a lot on armour polish, bile and rose sunglasses.

 Leth wrote:
I was talking about amongst the player base. You either have to be PRO GW or PRO PP. Its almost as bad as the GOP and DEMs going at it.

Ah, I see.

In a perfect world that would be nice, but I'm afraid too many people feel the need to feel they made the right call on all the time and money they've invested. I expect the most verbal critics are probably mono system players, whereas the more philosophical posters are also more diverse in their gaming. Just a theory mind.

 Leth wrote:
I was talking about amongst the player base. You either have to be PRO GW or PRO PP. Its almost as bad as the GOP and DEMs going at it.

No, you don't.

I'd create another topic if you really want to discuss it though.

Well the cover art for the 40k codex is awesome at least. But not worth the steep price.

 Sasori wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I was talking about amongst the player base. You either have to be PRO GW or PRO PP. Its almost as bad as the GOP and DEMs going at it.

No, you don't.

I'd create another topic if you really want to discuss it though.

Sometimes the level of "missing the point" in the world seems like it's gonna reach a critical mass and reality will just collapse in on itself. But then we just wake up the next morning and do it all again.

the Faeit 212 inbox wrote:
I saw some people in the responses wondering about authors. I have the White Dwarf in front of me and Phil Kelly is mentioned as the designer of the Codex, and it isn’t explicitly stated but it seems like Mat Ward is the author of the Fantasy Army Book(there is a section in the back talking about a map that’s included, and that Mat took “a lot of inspiration from Liber Malefic.”

Thanks,
Zack

 lordofthegophers wrote:
Annoying that whoever is taking these pictures obviously has the WD...yet they can't tell us who's writing the damn books!

From http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/02/authors-of-daemon-codex-and-army-book.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Faeit212+%28Faeit+212%29

One of the big mysteries right now, is who is the author of the books? Well I wish I had a more definitive answer, but I received this email in the Faeit 212 inbox this evening.


His conclusions after reading his White Dwarf.....
Chaos Daemons (40k)- Phil Kelly
Daemons of Chaos (Fantasy)- Matt Ward


Here is his email, and hopefully we get something a little more concrete in the next day or so.


via the Faeit 212 inbox
I saw some people in the responses wondering about authors. I have the White Dwarf in front of me and Phil Kelly is mentioned as the designer of the Codex, and it isn’t explicitly stated but it seems like Mat Ward is the author of the Fantasy Army Book(there is a section in the back talking about a map that’s included, and that Mat took “a lot of inspiration from Liber Malefic.”

Thanks,
Zack


Edit: Ninja'd!

So ninja'd you.

I actually like both. Shocker I know ;p

Yeah so Natfka just leaked a rumor (almost confirmed) that Phil Kelly is doing the 40k Book and Matt Ward is probably doing the fantasy book.

Here if you don't believe me:

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/02/authors-of-daemon-codex-and-army-book.html


Wow... Ninja'd so hard it hurts

I would think it was the opposite. With Ward doing 40k and Kelly doing Fantasy due to their not normally doing the same book twice in a row but either way I'm ok with it.

thisisnotpancho wrote:

Wow... Ninja'd so hard it hurts

We can get you one of those donut pillows.

Ward doing Fantasy Daemons again?

Well; what's the worst that could happen, hey?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ward doing Fantasy Daemons again?

Well; what's the worst that could happen, hey?

2 wrongs make a right? Maybe it will break Fantasy so bad that it fixes it?

Thank you pretre. Here I was half-expecting you to say something like "What? His Daemon Army Book was fine. Stop bitching about Ward!".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Thank you pretre. Here I was half-expecting you to say something like "What? His Daemon Army Book was fine. Stop bitching about Ward!".

Well, to put this in context, I don't play Fantasy, but... I have heard that it broke Fantasy in ways worse than the 3.5 Chaos codex broke 40k.

Like I said before makes since to have him do it again. He probly knows all the problem areas he would like to tweek for better balance. Looking forward to the book.

I don't play Fantasy either, but I will admit I'm looking forward to hearing how the Fantasy book turns out. I'm really hoping its as bad as the last one, just to hear people justify it.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I don't play Fantasy either, but I will admit I'm looking forward to hearing how the Fantasy book turns out. I'm really hoping its as bad as the last one, just to hear people justify it.

Ugh.

Just wondering, has there been any rumours at all of Daemons getting a flyer of some kind?

 pretre wrote:
... than the 3.5 Chaos codex broke 40k.

Yeah, k, that never happened.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 pretre wrote:
... than the 3.5 Chaos codex broke 40k.

Yeah, k, that never happened.

Oh come on... It was hugely unbalanced.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Just wondering, has there been any rumours at all of Daemons getting a flyer of some kind?

Daemons have flying MCs like Bloodthirsters that, if the new stats are true, can take out land raiders with vector strike. In short, they don't need fliers.

 pretre wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 pretre wrote:
... than the 3.5 Chaos codex broke 40k.

Yeah, k, that never happened.

Oh come on... It was hugely unbalanced.

Say what you will about 3.5, but that book had a hell of a lot going for it when it came to customizing your force and Lord. Something that hasn't been seen in a codex since. There may have been balance issues but its 4th Ed successor was unjustifiable and the wrong way to address them.

Also these chariots and plague riders look like gak.

 Plokoone wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 pretre wrote:
... than the 3.5 Chaos codex broke 40k.

Yeah, k, that never happened.

Oh come on... It was hugely unbalanced.

Say what you will about 3.5, but that book had a hell of a lot going for it when it came to customizing your force and Lord. Something that hasn't been seen in a codex since. There may have been balance issues but its 4th Ed predecessor was unjustifiable and the wrong way to address them.

And the ludicrous number of potential combinations are part of what broke it, as it would've been impossible to give thorough playtesting to them all. Also, allowing someone to write a custom army list for their own sub-faction of CSM was a huge fething mistake.

By the by, if something is the next version, it can in no way be the predecessor...

Via commentator "Qui-Gon" on Naftka




So, it seems ward is in fact, doing 40k Daemons.

 Zachariel wrote:
Via commentator "Qui-Gon" on Naftka




So, it seems ward is in fact, doing 40k Daemons.

The plot thickens.