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.

 Bat Manuel wrote:
New tangent

PP has better cosplayers!






PS- If any of you are in these pics, they all look pretty well done.

I fixed your image tags, though the flickr one still doesn't work D:

 Bat Manuel wrote:
New tangent

PP has better cosplayers!

PS- If any of you are in these pics, they all look pretty well done.

Oh it is on!




Would show more, but images are too large.

To be fair:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Vendetta is great,

The vendetta is one of the worst aircraft designs I had seen in my life up until when the stormraven came out.

Imperial tanks are great

In that way that the room is a great movie because of it's flaws, not despite them.

Carnifex is great etc

They take a lot of work to make look not dumb. It's doable, but it's hard.

I love Imperial tanks and all the mixing of WW I/ WW II designs with sf weaponry, see nothing dumb in Carnifex (like more dumb than pulp fantasy/sf in general) and Vendetta in my book beats even the dropship from Aliens design - wise. Also I don't consider searching for design logic in 40k a worthy endavour, it's so obviously OTT that Carnifex unable to walk without failing is the least of the problems if you try to go reasonable with the setting. In fact pissing all over physics and explainable is part of what makes 40k great, imo.

I'm fine with you not liking them though, to each their own.

Have to agree about Stormraven, I'm not nitpicking about the shape or question of being flyable though but only about the front - if it is modded to resemble the one of Thunderhawk, I'm fine with it as a flying brick.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

in 40k rule of cool>all and I'm fine with it. The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic.

So your argument boils down to "I forgive the flaws of the things that I like because I like them, but the flaws in things I don't like are unforgiveable because I don't already like them."

That's kinda what it seemed from the beginning to be honest, it's just nice that you up and admit it.

Yep it's the matter of my subjective taste, this is what I claimed from the beggining. 40k things ussualy fit my taste, WM things don't - simple. I was asked about a particular model/ models and tried to describe my impression, I'm not saying it's the ultimate one or that my taste is better or sth.

Mattman154 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic.

It's not a werewolf, it's a dragonspawn.

It does not need to breed, it is spawned. It does not need to evolve, evolution happens like Tyranids, the next batch has improvements. As for senseless, I can't remember how they explain it, but they see without using eyes.

Ok I know it's not werewolf, I used the word to identify it because I don't know the fluff behind it and wasn't sure about its name. Anyway I didn't mean sensless like can't exist or can't be explained, I meant those muscular arms, dragon wings and wolf nose just don't fit together aestheticaly, for me.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Can you explain how a Vendetta, Leman Russ, and Carnifex are great? I own all three of these models, and my Russ looks bulky and and like a juice box with an extra large straw. My Carnifex model was converted so it was standing up taller, because I'm not intimidated by anything hunched over, and this includes old people, and bell ringers in France...

Hunched over is what differentiates the model with your usual Alien queen ripoff and it adds to the creature odness and offworldness, it's part of what makes it great for me. Leman Russ is little boxy but I love it too unless it's the one with a short barrel. Vendetta/ Valkyrie is the flier properly fit to the Imperium aesthetics and mood, not to mention great on it's own, looks heavy, rough, agressive, don't know I'm not really good at explaining such things.

Anyway I don't analyse it too much. I like this dislike that, taste you know - hearing new song that I like doesn't result in me instantly trying to explain why I enjoy it. Dark, totalitarian, deadly, menacing, sick to name a few just ussualy work for me so I like 40k.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'm glad you are giving enough effort to tell people why you dislike a model without knowing anything about the aesthetic of the range. Your "shark guy" that you would convert into a 40k daemon is from the same army. Both are eyeless beasts, so saying you like the Carnivean but not the Archangel doesn't make sense. Both of them take advantage of the same artistic styles, and in the game world are created the exact same way.

Yes it does. From the same army in 40k there are models I like and models I can barely stand. I know that both the shark and the other guy are from the same army and I checked a majority of them I think when searching for something that I could use in 40k. The shark looks vicious and crazy, the Archangel looks silly (for me), those two are like examples of good and bad usage of animalistic theme for models, imo.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Please explain how his arms would not be able to move? His wings are far enough on the back to not interfere with the movement of its arms.

You read that wrong, I didn't claim his arms wouldn't move. Might have been my fault with the way I write, sorry if that was confusing.

 Alfndrate wrote:
The uninspiring and characterless model, do you see how imposing that thing is? The height of the model, the command of it as it perches on the small mountain? Give me a stock carnifex that has even an ounce of the same character and I'll stop right now and start playing games workshop games again.I realize that not everyone has the same tastes in models, but to say that the archangel is characterless is ignoring the talent that went into sculpting it. It's certainly no Razorboar or that Sister model with a case of man face.

It's exactly what I think, that the sculptor made a characterless creature, it doesn't look menacing, doesn't amaze me, no positive impression of any kind and there is no mountain in the world to put underneath it that could change my mind, at least unless we were talking about the mountain itself. I'm not saying that the sculptor is talentless but for me the Carnifex sculptor did a much better job, in the end I'm not insulting a PP guy or sth just don't like his model.

I won't give you "stock carnifex that has even an ounce of the same (Archangel's) character" because you already consider Fex worse than the Archangel. We're talking about taste here, I'm not trying to change yours just trying to explain mine and for me a basic out of a box Carnifex have tons more of a character than the Archangel.

See the problem here is that when you look at these and think, " Yeah, I kinda like that." You're staring at dudes! There aren't a lot of 40k female cosplayers and the ones that are.... are usually armored from chin to toes....kinda ruins half the fun of costly

silent25 wrote:

 Bat Manuel wrote:
New tangent

PP has better cosplayers!

PS- If any of you are in these pics, they all look pretty well done.

Oh it is on!




Would show more, but images are too large.

you're not really explaining it. Unless you've been in 40k for a month or so, anyone should be able to explain why they do or do not like something.

I can tell you that I like Giger's Alien aesthetic, but the Carnifex has issues moving. It has to use it's Scything Talons or Crushing Claws as support, and then it must use its support limbs to attack.

You're not really explaining why you like what you like, and when you're talking about artistic styles, you have to be able to explain that.

I personally feel that GW is retreading the same path so heavily that all of the new models for its established ranges are entering the realm of self parody. The last two 40k releases that had mostly postive new sculpts were Necrons and Dark Eldar.

Most space marine re-releases are just the same old retreads with more purity seals, imperial icons and miscelaneous bling added to the sprues. The latest wholly new space marine models have been very hit or miss. IMHO, scout landspeeders and scout bikes (not that new) are pretty good. The Ironclad is a downgrade from the normal dreadnought. The veteran dreadnought is merely passable and the chibi-hawk and the storm talon both leave a lot to be desired when built in stock configuration.

Then we get to the Chaos re-release. The studio doesn't seem to have any vision. The helldrake suffers from being overdetailed for the sake of having details - IMHO, the model would look 10x better without the extra crap on the wing panels. The Forgefiend looks like the old metal Juggernaut's biggersized special needs brother... and don't even get me started on the Mutilators... where they took a terrible concept and expanded it to its terrible conclusion.



The static worldview of GW's products really does their designers a disservice as it stifles innovation in the product design cycle, and IMHO, they've pretty much mined the existing material dry.

The chaos models release really... really... turned me off. When PP releases a model that is 'off', like the Sons of Bragg or the new Pyre Troll as examples, I can go 'I see how this could have been really cool, but the execution was just off'. In other words, I can understand the vision.

With the Chaos models specifically, I have no idea what the vision is. The Helldrake; when exactly did flying dragon robots become a common weapon in Horus' traitor arsenal? Why are there flying dragon monsters... period? The execution is brilliant but it's like professional detailing on a Buick LeSabre. Same with the Mutilators, and the mutant Battle Rhino with Plazma Handz! (tm). Everything is getting more warpy and skullz-ey? Is that the point here?

 Alfndrate wrote:
you're not really explaining it. Unless you've been in 40k for a month or so, anyone should be able to explain why they do or do not like something.

Please point me to the what is not explained (or if it's everything, point me to what is the least explained). I don't feel like touching it all again.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I can tell you that I like Giger's Alien aesthetic, but the Carnifex has issues moving. It has to use it's Scything Talons or Crushing Claws as support, and then it must use its support limbs to attack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75I86Jb621Y looks convincing enough for me.

Anyway add another torso to him and the 5 meters long horn, I might still like it. Looking at William Blake's pictures people see a lot of anatomical errors, I don't. I see the countnance, the meaning, the depth. Don't now why maybe it's amaeurish or sth, don't really care. Also 40k is the last place to nitpick on anatomy imo especialy if the topic is an alien beast that is hardly explained, also there are orks talking like footbal hooligans who have engineering written in genome and are really fungus, I mean wtf. The universe is grimdark serious and its own parody the same time, also go to the rules everyone has 1/6 of a chance to survive direct Lascanon hit. I don't care whether the tank could work, where is the crew, where do they keep ammo etc, wrong place for such questions. Looks like a tank and awesome for me so I'm fine with it.

 Alfndrate wrote:
You're not really explaining why you like what you like, and when you're talking about artistic styles, you have to be able to explain that.

Two questions

Do you know any foreign language?

Now, go discuss art in that language. How was it?

My dictionary is lacking. Also at times especialy when drunk, hangovered or sleep deprived I'm not even certain whether I'm readable or not.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
you're not really explaining it. Unless you've been in 40k for a month or so, anyone should be able to explain why they do or do not like something.

Please point me to the what is not explained (or if it's everything, point me to what is the least explained). I don't feel like touching it all again.

and

Looks like a tank and awesome for me so I'm fine with it.

You say things like that, you say the tank is awesome. Why do you find it awesome? I find the Archangel awesome (a model for an army I dislike because I don't like the mutated aspect and "we're dark evil like elves", but the Archangel is my favorite model in the range because it's awesome. Why is it awesome? The height of the model and the length of the wings accurately portray the scope of a Gargantuan. The reptilian features are very distinctly draconic (having aspects of dragons), and it properly shows just how large dragons are in the Iron Kingdoms world, and represents an imposing figure on the battlefield.

I understand that English isn't your first language, but you should still be able to to say, "I like the Leman Russ model because it gives this feeling of being the armored behemoth that it is supposed to be on the battlefield, I like the design of the treads...

Maybe you said this, but as it stands, I'm done arguing this. I was looking for clarification and felt I was getting vague answers this entire time.

Anyway add another torso to him and the 5 meters long horn, I might still like it. Looking at William Blake's pictures people see a lot of anatomical errors, I don't. I see the countnance, the meaning, the depth. Don't now why maybe it's amaeurish or sth, don't really care. Also 40k is the last place to nitpick on anatomy imo especialy if the topic is an alien beast that is hardly explained, also there are orks talking like footbal hooligans who have engineering written in genome and are really fungus, I mean wtf. The universe is grimdark serious and its own parody the same time, also go to the rules everyone has 1/6 of a chance to survive direct Lascanon hit. I don't care whether the tank could work, where is the crew, where do they keep ammo etc, wrong place for such questions. Looks like a tank and awesome for me so I'm fine with it.

That's intellectually lazy and leads to the designers of this game making gak models because they get a free pass. If something looks bad because of history (like the dreadnaught or leman russ) that is one thing. If the proportions are bad because the entire line has always had bad proportions and it's impractical for them to update 100% of their lines to realistic proportions that's one thing. Saying "It doesn't matter because things are already goofy" isn't a good excuse. This community is already permissive enough and GW already rapes his customers for every last penny while delivering bad games because of it. When people don't even expect quality from their art of models that's pretty telling of the way the 40k community wants to be treated.

Two questions

Do you know any foreign language?

Now, go discuss art in that language. How was it?

My dictionary is lacking. Also at times especialy when drunk, hangovered or sleep deprived I'm not even certain whether I'm readable or not.

Than you should probably take better care to point out that your terminology is questionable because it's unfamiliar. What you've been doing is expressing opinions, implying their dominant, but refusing to back them up. You can't say "I'm right", which you have been doing, and without explaining why. Whether the reasoning is couched in artistic terminology or not it still needs to exist.

 keezus wrote:
I personally feel that GW is retreading the same path so heavily that all of the new models for its established ranges are entering the realm of self parody. The last two 40k releases that had mostly postive new sculpts were Necrons and Dark Eldar.

Most space marine re-releases are just the same old retreads with more purity seals, imperial icons and miscelaneous bling added to the sprues. The latest wholly new space marine models have been very hit or miss. IMHO, scout landspeeders and scout bikes (not that new) are pretty good. The Ironclad is a downgrade from the normal dreadnought. The veteran dreadnought is merely passable and the chibi-hawk and the storm talon both leave a lot to be desired when built in stock configuration.

Then we get to the Chaos re-release. The studio doesn't seem to have any vision. The helldrake suffers from being overdetailed for the sake of having details - IMHO, the model would look 10x better without the extra crap on the wing panels. The Forgefiend looks like the old metal Juggernaut's biggersized special needs brother... and don't even get me started on the Mutilators... where they took a terrible concept and expanded it to its terrible conclusion.



The static worldview of GW's products really does their designers a disservice as it stifles innovation in the product design cycle, and IMHO, they've pretty much mined the existing material dry.

A few days after seeing the new Chaos releases I distinctly remember remarking to my friends at the FLGS how they reminded me of the early 90s idea of making things better by adding more bling to it.

I think the idea of "self parody" is very close to how I see the new releases: I can respect that many lines are rather baroque, they are intended to represent a civilization in decline, that doesn't invent, they just layer crap on top of crap to make things bigger and more impressive because they don't understand it. But, why is Chaos where this is taken to the nth degree?

It's like the idea is that Chaos forces have simply been hanging out in the Eye of Terror for millenia, just gluing bits of crap to their armor to pass the time. Oh, and inventing robot dragons, I suppose... unless that's something all the legions had, and we just forgot about it. Or something.

Is there an upgrade kit coming to add spinning rims to a rhino? Maybe a grill for Abaddon? Maybe some fairy lights, or glow sticks...

 Alfndrate wrote:


You say things like that, you say the tank is awesome. Why do you find it awesome? I find the Archangel awesome (a model for an army I dislike because I don't like the mutated aspect and "we're dark evil like elves", but the Archangel is my favorite model in the range because it's awesome. Why is it awesome? The height of the model and the length of the wings accurately portray the scope of a Gargantuan. The reptilian features are very distinctly draconic (having aspects of dragons), and it properly shows just how large dragons are in the Iron Kingdoms world, and represents an imposing figure on the battlefield.

All of which is completely subjective. As fun as it is that you and ShumaGorath have made this your personal gak on GW thread, no-one but you is faulting anyone else for being unable to convince you that models you don't like are actually really good. Just like you aren't going to convince anyone that doesn't like the Archangel that it's actually really good just because you write a grade school English class paper explaining your opinion in a way that you apparently feel makes it more objective.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
you're not really explaining it. Unless you've been in 40k for a month or so, anyone should be able to explain why they do or do not like something.

Please point me to the what is not explained (or if it's everything, point me to what is the least explained). I don't feel like touching it all again.

and

Looks like a tank and awesome for me so I'm fine with it.

...

You say things like that, you say the tank is awesome. Why do you find it awesome?
I understand that English isn't your first language, but you should still be able to to say, "I like the Leman Russ model because it gives this feeling of being the armored behemoth that it is supposed to be on the battlefield, I like the design of the treads...

Maybe you said this, but as it stands, I'm done arguing this. I was looking for clarification and felt I was getting vague answers this entire time.

My last post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I love Imperial tanks and all the mixing of WW I/ WW II designs with sf weaponry

...

Vendetta/ Valkyrie is the flier properly fit to the Imperium aesthetics and mood, not to mention great on it's own, looks heavy, rough, agressive, don't know I'm not really good at explaining such things.

where what I say about the Vendetta could be applied to Leman Russ. I understand that you see it vague but awsome is an impression, I'm not certainly sure where does it come from per every model I like, I never thought about Leman Russ too much. Tanks mixing elements from World War I/ II in an SF settings are great idea and I like how GW executes it, they seem in place in Imperial guard and are crude and simple. Crude and simple works for me as far as military stuff go so AK47 or Mi 24 for example are high on my best looking list.

Also I don't really want to argue, rather try to explain myself and discuss. I'm never dismissing the possibility that you for example may be right and I may be entirely wrong, whatever that means in discussion about taste for models.

 Hulksmash wrote:
But you can generally wave things away with 40k models because it's sci-fi. Can't do that as easily with steam punk

i disagree. firstly, 40k isnt sci fi. its a port of a traditional fantasy setting, except in space and with laser guns. but its still fantasy... in spaaaace. that said, sci fi has even less right to have the "a wizard did it" kind of attitude, as sci fi is based in hard, gritty reality. 40k, a galaxy summed up by a tank driver screaming "get closer so i can him with my sword!" is not gritty sci fi. its not sci fi. period.

secondly, warmachine isnt steampunk. it has some elements, but in the same way, 40k can be considered a game based on "anime" because of eldar aspect warriors.

40k gets its "hand waves" because its fans give GW a free pass, because of the "rule of cool", and for no other reason. its not "better", nor is it more deserving of a handwave than another genre. i also suspect PP comes in for extra criticism from these people for the simple reason that its not GW.

PP have plenty misses. kayazy. prime vlad. the children sized black 13th. but they put a serious amount of time, thought, and effort into their world, and they have a style that they, and plenty of their fans do like. the recent chaos codex on the other hand was goofball.inc if you ask me.

 plastictrees wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:


You say things like that, you say the tank is awesome. Why do you find it awesome? I find the Archangel awesome (a model for an army I dislike because I don't like the mutated aspect and "we're dark evil like elves", but the Archangel is my favorite model in the range because it's awesome. Why is it awesome? The height of the model and the length of the wings accurately portray the scope of a Gargantuan. The reptilian features are very distinctly draconic (having aspects of dragons), and it properly shows just how large dragons are in the Iron Kingdoms world, and represents an imposing figure on the battlefield.

All of which is completely subjective. As fun as it is that you and ShumaGorath have made this your personal gak on GW thread, no-one but you is faulting anyone else for being unable to convince you that models you don't like are actually really good. Just like you aren't going to convince anyone that doesn't like the Archangel that it's actually really good just because you write a grade school English class paper explaining your opinion in a way that you apparently feel makes it more objective.

I just want people to justify their reasoning, as soon as you guys start justifying your opinions in any way at all beyond simple fandom and personal preference It'll stop being our personal whatever thread. As for gaking on GW, I'm not. I'm just trying to get you people to act like adults who have reasons for their opinions. The first thing they teach you in art class is to understand composition, color, and artistic intent. To express what about and why you like something. When you throw your hands up and say that "I like it because I like it and that's all I gotta say" it's juvenile. It's a bad excuse, especially when expressing a preference of one thing over the other like Plumbumbbarum has done repetitiously.

That's not your call to make Shuma. No one has to justify anything to your satisfaction, or explain their preferences in any way beyond personal if they don't want to. You don't get to dictate to other users how to carry on a conversation here. If they are breaking the rules of the site, you hit the Mod alert button, and we deal with it. If they aren't, you are spamming this thread by hanging it up repeating your personal views.

And that would be against rule #3.

Now, since this isn't a one sided conversation everyone please cool off and be respectful of other users. All of them. Also if you have been posting in this thread multiple times per page for a few pages, then it is time to give it a break and let other people use the thread, if you haven't accomplished getting your points across by now, then you probably won't.

Thanks -

I am in agreement with Shuma here. In the realm of models, I want to know WHY you like a model. If you like Carnifexes because they remind you of the Giger-esque aliens, then say it that way. Saying "I like this better, so therefore it is from the better company" Telling me you like a model because of a specific influence, not "textbook artistic terms", then let me know.

What I want to see is a more commonly understood way of understanding why a given person enjoys a particular set of models over another. If you hate comic books, and a particular game's models remind you of comics, use THAT as your reason, not I like these other things better so therefore they are.

The point is, subjectively speaking, that is all they have to say. If you cross over into telling someone else what they should or shouldn't like, that is a different story. But if the question is simply 'What model do you like better' and the answer is 'That one'... if you then ask why, if the answer is 'I just do' it is in fact legitimate.

Lacking depth? Sure. Not particularly convincing? Absolutely. Wrong? No.

I would prefer a higher end discourse too, and I think it fair to say most of the answers given have in fact been more substantive than alluded to by some.

Regardless, even if it was true most answers were simple 'I just like it'(s), not everyone is educated in art history, varied techniques or critical deconstruction. It is what it is guys, if you can draw someone into a civil debate, by all means do so. But you cannot dictate that people discourse at a certain level only you can judge in order to participate . It just doesn't work that way, at least, not here.

If any person, whatever they are saying, just keeps posting over and over and over the same points to the point it becomes barking, that is also spam guys. Hit the Mod alert button, if it is out of hand we will act.

There is plenty of stuff to have solid debate on here, and hopefully that is what can happen, just be good to each other and be tolerant of people who have other opinons or ways of expressing themselves.

Locking this thread for a cool down period...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok guys, re-opening here - let's keep it civil please, remember the rules -

So just to detour away from GW vs PP for a moment of distraction, How about GW specialist games vs other company "specialist" games or their games in general? GW has pretty much all but abandoned their games, but companies like PP are bringing out little side games. PP just released Sector 7 I think it's called? And has shown a continued interest in making these little side distractions. Mean while, the Judge Dredd Kickstarter just finished up and that' pretty much a Mordhiem/Necromunda alternative, but it's supported and awesome. What be the community's thoughts?

Deadnight wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
But you can generally wave things away with 40k models because it's sci-fi. Can't do that as easily with steam punk

i disagree. firstly, 40k isnt sci fi. its a port of a traditional fantasy setting, except in space and with laser guns. but its still fantasy... in spaaaace. that said, sci fi has even less right to have the "a wizard did it" kind of attitude, as sci fi is based in hard, gritty reality. 40k, a galaxy summed up by a tank driver screaming "get closer so i can him with my sword!" is not gritty sci fi. its not sci fi. period.

Sci-Fi isn't based in hard, gritty reality. In fact, it's generally pretty campy as a whole. There is an aspect of Sci-Fi that tries very hard to ground itself as much in reality as possible but 40k isn't part of it. However 40k is sci-fi.

secondly, warmachine isnt steampunk. it has some elements, but in the same way, 40k can be considered a game based on "anime" because of eldar aspect warriors.

Warmachine is a game that seems to an outsider to be primarily about giant steam mechs beating each other. Does it have other aspects to it? Sure, but several Warmachine and even 1-2 Hordes factions have a steam punk vibe and certainly the steam mechs can't really be classed as anything else. The inclusion of hordes shifted things I'll grant you but it's still very steam punky to me personally.

40k gets its "hand waves" because its fans give GW a free pass, because of the "rule of cool", and for no other reason. its not "better", nor is it more deserving of a handwave than another genre. i also suspect PP comes in for extra criticism from these people for the simple reason that its not GW.

You do like to tar entire waves of people don't you. I give a free pass on things like the Storm Raven because unknown tech could make them work. I don't spend a lot of time though scrutinizing models and dimensions though. I'm a nutter for a lot of GW products due to them being plastic and extremely customizable. I can build an army to match ideas in my head. It's something that PP doesn't bring to the table for me so I am probably more forgiving due to my passion for conversion and modelling. As for PP getting more criticism for not being GW it's possible. But I feel that many people who don't play 40k or collect the models and have moved onto many other systems do enjoy tearing new GW models here on Dakka. I almost never see people diving on new PP models to tear them down.

PP have plenty misses. kayazy. prime vlad. the children sized black 13th. but they put a serious amount of time, thought, and effort into their world, and they have a style that they, and plenty of their fans do like. the recent chaos codex on the other hand was goofball.inc if you ask me.

There is no doubt that PP has plenty of people that enjoy their product. I can understand why without sharing that enjoyment. The models are enough for me not to want to even play the system. Granted, if I was a teenager again and just getting into wargaming and playing just to play I might have considered PP games. But for me the universe and modeling opportunities provided by GW and hopefully some others like Sedition Wars keep me away.

As for the Chaos codex I like it. I like the models and feel the book is gorgeous and well thoughtout.

Overall I think we'll agree to disagree.

 Surtur wrote:
So just to detour away from GW vs PP for a moment of distraction, How about GW specialist games vs other company "specialist" games or their games in general? GW has pretty much all but abandoned their games, but companies like PP are bringing out little side games. PP just released Sector 7 I think it's called? And has shown a continued interest in making these little side distractions. Mean while, the Judge Dredd Kickstarter just finished up and that' pretty much a Mordhiem/Necromunda alternative, but it's supported and awesome. What be the community's thoughts?

I already commented on why these side games come out from PP. Though GW's abandonment of the specialist games was sad. Mordheim in my opinion was one of the best games and the best gateway game to warhammer fantasy. While they were pushing that game, you saw some real unique ideas coming out of the studio. Just remember one studio members army in WD and the conversion ideas were awesome! Absolute nutter kitbashing at its best. Sadly those days are gone.

At least PP's current side games are well thought out. For my derision of Level 7, at least it is suppose to have a decent game mechanic. Same can't be said for Dreadfleet.... Great miniatures, but mediocre game play. Think Level 7 could have made a bigger splash if they had put figs in it instead of paper chits.

Oh and @Bat Manuel, was trying to keep the thread wholesome, but fine, here comes the sexy...






Now lets all keep it civilized.

Or the Inquisition will be displeased...

@silent25
Yeah, comments tend to get lost in 14 pages of thread that's spent the last 2-3 bickering on minutiae of one argument. But PP isn't the only one out there pushing side games. Mantic is making it's Bloodbowl knock off to take more revenue from GW. Not that I have objections with kicking GW for abandoning it's IP to rot. Mongoose has 2 space games, one Star Trek the other is studio IP I believe to rival BFG. We have the X Wing game from FFG as well in that regard. Dreadfleet is woeful compared to the naval games out there. It just seems that many companies are putting more effort forward towards these types of games that GW could have had a stronger overall presence in but has let slide to the point of atrophy. That GW's focus on it's core games has become a reliability in as much as the effort they would need to put on these other projects would be significant to compete in an open market of ideas that they may not be able to do anymore.

Also, the inquisitor seems to have really stumpy arms thanks to the photograph.

Completely agree that GW not supporting the specialist games any more is a terrible shame; some of the company's most well designed and executed games are nestled away in that corner of the website, disregarded and not spoken of like that embarrassing Uncle who turns up at Weddings and gets drunk before taking his shirt off and trying to start fights before finally passing out while the slow music is playing.

I suppose we are lucky to still have them at all - I don't think any new players are getting into them, and it's amazing (also, quite sad) of how many times I have seen new users even on Dakka ask 'what is Epic?' etc., but at least it gives veterans who re-visit the game a chance to download rules etc. if they need them. I did hear that the entire range, rulebooks and everything was going to get scrapped. But, Jervis Johnson offered to take them under his wing, and keep the whole Specialist Games thing running (without pay, and in addition to his standard duties for the company). Absolutely top bloke if true, although I sometimes wonder if it would be better just to pull the plug rather than just keeping them 'alive' in their current vegetative state.

But the reason why these great games have been neglected? As has been said many times by people who have left the company (chiefly, Rick Priestly) GW regards itself as existing in a market place of 1 - they have no competition. Therefore, why sell games where people can have the 'tabletop experience' at a fraction of the price? Why spend all that money on games development and production, and logistics? Why confuse the parent coming into the GW store with a myriad of different choices and options? There is no need, and the only variation on re-releasing the same old and tired gaming systems, regurgitating older rules, year after year is with the occasional 'one off' game like Space Hulk or Dreadfleet. Customers hand their money over for that, then go back to spending hundreds on the core systems when that limited release is removed from shelves.

If Games Workshop (that name has started to get a hint of irony associated with it, I think - maybe Game Workshop would be better?) were the sole producer of tabletop wargames then it would make perfect sense. Unfortunately for GW however (although fortunately for the us) they are not the only producer - the rather large void left by the absence of specialist games, or any willingness at all to try something new and exciting, has let others fill that void. Mantic seem to be most on the button, with a company mandate that has left it open to criticism in some regards - releasing exactly the kind of stuff that GW once did, but no longer does; cheap large units of plastic soldiers, board games, and of course space dwarves Other companies have brought in radical new gaming mechanics and systems, taking the step-up off the back of some of the older gaming systems and making full use of new interactive technologies. Chief among them Infinity and Malifaux, although a large part of PP's appeal was the fact that it offered something new to a fantasy/sci-fi gaming public that was starting to get bored of playing the same games, and same game mechanics, for so many years.

Anyway I think it will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years; if the 'King' can pull its pants up, tighten its belt, and start to play Queensbury Rules with some of the upstarts that must undoubtedly be becoming more than a niggle now. No doubt a few of the smaller companies might then disappear, but hopefully many of the others will continue to grow to the point where the fantasy/sci-fi wargaming industry can move beyond its reliance on a single company, and the propensity of any company (when operating in a monopoly) to stagnate and stop being creative or trying to expand its horizons.

I think it's important to emphasize that everyone, even the most myopic of consumers who will only by a miniature with a single companies logo on the box, that we will all be better off with a variety of different companies producing miniature wargames and rules. Not just in terms of keeping prices competitive, but in moving the industry forward with development of new gaming systems and technologies and keeping it fresh and exciting. Speaking as someone who has dismounted at least 84,000 marines out of a rhino over the years (not to pick on GW, but its more a case of the era in which I came into wargaming) it has to be fun to have your infantry occasionally paradrop, fall out of an air-balloon or teleport using magic instead!

 Surtur wrote:
So just to detour away from GW vs PP for a moment of distraction, How about GW specialist games vs other company "specialist" games or their games in general? GW has pretty much all but abandoned their games, but companies like PP are bringing out little side games. PP just released Sector 7 I think it's called? And has shown a continued interest in making these little side distractions. Mean while, the Judge Dredd Kickstarter just finished up and that' pretty much a Mordhiem/Necromunda alternative, but it's supported and awesome. What be the community's thoughts?

I think that my short answer here is: "depends on the game". I mean, if we take BFG and compare it to, what is it Dystopia wars? those three "naval" based table top games. I have heard that they have decent rules, but tend to punish one player more than another for arbitrary things (I don't really know, just going off what I've seen here and elsewhere online) But, for the company that makes those games, they are the main games for the company, not a side project. If you are looking at story driven, skirmish scale games, I'd point to Malifaux, but again, that is Wyrd's main game, not a side project. Of course, Wyrd is branching out with Puppet Wars and Evil Baby Orphanage, and are talking about Kickstarting an RPG as well. I honestly wouldn't hold PP's Warmachine/Hordes to Mordheim/Necromunda simply because of them both being skirmish games, as most people compare WM/H to 40k/fantasy. I think that nowadays, we can find games that range from below "Specialist" levels (meaning they are probably not as good as some of the existing Specialist games from GW) to awesome games that, if you are a fan of will continue to pull you away from the GW specialist line. For me personally, Malifaux fits this bill perfectly. I really don't know why I'd ever play a game of necromunda or mordheim, beyond a "hey let's check this game out" thing, when I have discovered how awesome (personally speaking) Malifaux is.


I agree that it's a shame GW doesn't support games like BFG anymore. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily want new rules, because I think we can agree it wouldn't turn out too well. BUT, I think most can agree that they wouldn't mind seeing the support in the form of models at the very least. I'm not sure the level of model support Necro/Mord had when they were supported, but I'm sure most players would agree to the same as with BFG.

In total opposition to their origins, I don't think that GW is interested in developing anything in which they don't control every aspect of it (rules and models).

They are revamping Necromunda. Take a look at some of the gangs.

boyd wrote:
They are revamping Necromunda. Take a look at some of the gangs.

Woah there, I almost couldn't hear you from back there in 2003...

boyd wrote:
They are revamping Necromunda. Take a look at some of the gangs.

A few points on "offshoot games".

1. PP isn't particularily good at supporting its offshoot games either, though it does seem to be better about returning to them eventually (i.e. Infernal Machine got a reprint), and Monsterpocalypse got a bit of a revamp. PP is still young, but its obvious that they've put the majority of their resources around their core game.

2. As Grimtuff indicated, the "newish" Necromunda models themselves are old. The non-support that GW offers for Necromunda might be best characterized by the fact that the rulebook is not available on their webstore, nor is there a link to the PDF on the "Getting Started with Necromunda" link. I realize the aforementioned games are much beloved due to the customization possibilities offered - and in that vein are tremendous successes alowing hobbyists enormous lattitude to customize their gangs. I myself have lots of fond memories of Necromunda and Mordheim (had an Escher and Cawdor gang in the former, and a Beastman warband in the latter.) However, as rulesets, neither game are particularily sterling examples of good rules writing, with Necromunda being particularily clunky due to its basis in the 2nd Edition 40k ruleset. Both games tend towards unbalance at the higher gang ratings. As the ruleset itself is inherently broken, I think that GW has made the right decision with respect to those two games to offer only token "legacy" support, as proper ongoing support would require a "living rulebook" format and/or a full rewrite of the rules. IMHO Battlefleet Gothic and LOTR are the cleanest rulesets that GW has produced. Saddly, neither have much traction in most hobby circles.