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.

PhantomViper wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Does SpaceHulk count as a board game? People seem to like it, at least it sells well from what I hear. I've only played the version of SpaceHulk that came on 3.5" disks with a D-Rok soundtrack so I have no experience with the board game version.

Yes, Space Hulk counts as a board game and a pretty good one at that.

It is also a re-release of a 20+ year old game that the current crop of "developers" at GW had absolutely nothing to do with.

Debatable since one of the Old Guard still runs the design studio.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Does SpaceHulk count as a board game? People seem to like it, at least it sells well from what I hear. I've only played the version of SpaceHulk that came on 3.5" disks with a D-Rok soundtrack so I have no experience with the board game version.

Yes, Space Hulk counts as a board game and a pretty good one at that.

It is also a re-release of a 20+ year old game that the current crop of "developers" at GW had absolutely nothing to do with.

Debatable since one of the Old Guard still runs the design studio.

He must be the one responsible for the attitude of "take everything that was good before and make it suck."

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
@Vermis: My feelings about kings of war seem to be alot like yours. I would be more interested if every other sculpt wasn't so bad.

I've never understood this sentiment. Like GW models? Play KoW using those. Unlike GW, Mantic's official stance is "please enjoy using whatever models you like, even at a competitive level".

KoW is an amazing ruleset (about to get even better), that gives the WHFB minis you own a wonderful second life, IF WHFB really does morph into something unrecognizable.

This is exactly what happened with me. I started playing Warhammer Fantasy in 4th edition. 6th edition was my favorite period - though 7th edition had better base rules (codex creep, however, ruined any balance... 7th ed rules w/ 6th ed codices = best). 8th edition drove me away because it is an absolutely terrible ruleset and people who defend it are wrong. I believe fans of 8th literally have no other frame of reference for good rules design. Kings of War is nearly everything I want in a ruleset - fast, tactical, huge battles. Games with twice as many models as the largest WHFB6 battle are done in half the time without that weird Warhammer headache you'd get after a long game.

And I use whatever models I want. Gamezone Dark Elves, GW Empire, Red Box Games Helsvakt, Mierce monsters, etc.
Actually, my Kings of War armies look way better than Warhammer armies because I have been picking and choosing the models I want to use, so look infinitely better than pure Citadel armies.

I feel that people that say "I would be more interested if the models weren't bad" are just trying to be diplomatic about not wanting to play a new ruleset. Everyone knows Kings of War is a better game but there's some weird hypnosis that some players have where they don't want to try it because it's not stamped with the "Games Workshop" logo - despite being designed by someone who a few years before had been a GW employee. Alessio wrote Mordheim and Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game... am I missing something? Are those not nearly universally heralded as the greatest things GW ever did?

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
@Vermis: My feelings about kings of war seem to be alot like yours. I would be more interested if every other sculpt wasn't so bad.

I've never understood this sentiment. Like GW models? Play KoW using those. Unlike GW, Mantic's official stance is "please enjoy using whatever models you like, even at a competitive level".

KoW is an amazing ruleset (about to get even better), that gives the WHFB minis you own a wonderful second life, IF WHFB really does morph into something unrecognizable.

Because I need people to play kings of war with, and the bad models makes people think it's a bad rule set. Sadly unlike my Friday knights I can't play with myself.

As much as people praise Mantic, I don't think their policy of "please enjoy using whatever models you like" is a choice but rather a necessity. They're not the big dog or the 800lb gorilla in any of the genres that they service (other than maybe futuristic sports combat games... mainly because they're the only choice). The key will be if Mantic ever does become a market leader in the hobby for a major genre with a full and diverse line of figs whether they enforce an "our models only" rule. That isn't a dig on mantic but rather reality since when companies get to that position they traditionally do enforce that type of rule (see FOW). They've traditionally been running on the "alternative to GW" ticket and the refugee crowd they've catered to won't generally stand for another evil Nottingham overlord so soon.

 Lockark wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
@Vermis: My feelings about kings of war seem to be alot like yours. I would be more interested if every other sculpt wasn't so bad.

I've never understood this sentiment. Like GW models? Play KoW using those. Unlike GW, Mantic's official stance is "please enjoy using whatever models you like, even at a competitive level".

KoW is an amazing ruleset (about to get even better), that gives the WHFB minis you own a wonderful second life, IF WHFB really does morph into something unrecognizable.

Because I need people to play kings of war with, and the bad models makes people think it's a bad rule set. Sadly unlike my Friday knights I can't play with myself.

There are exceptions - and it might help if those exceptions got more exposure.

Ogres - good minis, and they aren't marching in lock step with the GW designs for ogres.

Undead - There are a fair number of folks in my area that play Kings of War with GW figures, but there are also a fair number of people that play WHFB with Mantic Undead.... Possibly the best looking army in their line.

Orcs - I know folks that use Mantic Orcs for running a Lord of the Rings game using Kings of War....

Personally... I have to admit that I like the much maligned Dwarfs and Elves by Mantic. Dwarfs are my main army in Kings of War, and my army is shared with my girlfriend.

***

Back on Topic:
I rather expect that the rumors about resizing bases is false - or at least being exaggerated. We will see a few things on round bases, but mostly the old bases will be kept.

I first read the first edition WHFB - but first played the second edition. (The first game that I played was The Tragedy of McDeath - which was a hoot and a holler.)

I... have not been happy with what GW is doing with the setting since 4th edition. (Back when Karl Franz was a weakling placed on the throne because the Elector Counts felt that they could manipulate him. Not a super hero mounted on a gigantic griffon....)

But 8th was the first edition that I have skipped entirely - and that was because of the rules, not because of changes to the setting. The randomization of so many, many things.... Randomization favors the less tactically minded - the best plans can be hosed by random charge distances.

More than anything else, this is what led to my area switching to Kings of War (mostly using GW miniatures).

I do not think that this new post-End-Times edition is going to fix the problems - I have no confidence in the current crop of game designers that GW employs.

I am also less than optimistic about the current crop of miniatures designers - I really do not like a lot of the most recent miniatures - from the treeman to Nagash. (Alright... much as I dislike the current Nagash... he is a huge improvement to the metal Muppet of Doom that was the original....)

I think that GW needs somebody with a clue club, to whack them upside the head when they decide that an eagle with a trailer hitch is a good idea....

The Auld Grump

migooo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I have yet to see any requirement for people to have to re-base the models they already have.

I imagine it will end just like the 32mm 40k uproar. GW just wanted the minis to look cool so used different bases...

It is possible. But I remember having to replace weapons on figures before.

Yeah, every edition and every codex change, some weapons change. Clipping off some power fists and adding power weapons is different than rebasing your whole army.

 pretre wrote:

migooo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I have yet to see any requirement for people to have to re-base the models they already have.

I imagine it will end just like the 32mm 40k uproar. GW just wanted the minis to look cool so used different bases...

It is possible. But I remember having to replace weapons on figures before.

Yeah, every edition and every codex change, some weapons change. Clipping off some power fists and adding power weapons is different than rebasing your whole army.

Beastmen Ungors would like to speak. ;_;


(I realize they're likely not someone's entire army, but they went 20mm -> 25mm -> 20mm I believe?)

 agnosto wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Does SpaceHulk count as a board game? People seem to like it, at least it sells well from what I hear. I've only played the version of SpaceHulk that came on 3.5" disks with a D-Rok soundtrack so I have no experience with the board game version.

Yes, Space Hulk counts as a board game and a pretty good one at that.

It is also a re-release of a 20+ year old game that the current crop of "developers" at GW had absolutely nothing to do with.

Debatable since one of the Old Guard still runs the design studio.

He must be the one responsible for the attitude of "take everything that was good before and make it suck."

Every ruleset his name has been attached to does seem to love randomness.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Like GW models? Play KoW using those. Unlike GW, Mantic's official stance is "please enjoy using whatever models you like, even at a competitive level".

If Mantic ever becomes successful, expect them to pull a BattleFront and push to get rid of competitor product (bulk PSC).

OK I haven't read all the thread but I just went to download Lizardmen FAQ and it's not on their website!
Is it secretly hidden in the stars or perhaps there are no mistakes or issues in the army book..that would be a first...is it logical to assume that the Lizards have no further place in this world and are indeed off to another spawning pool on another planet.
Any help would be appreciated if someone has a link to the FAQ's as they used to be
Cheers

Korinov wrote:

I understand what you mean, and I have something for you. Here:

Spoiler:

I hope you're feeling better now

You git. I was expecting a pic of a nicely painted Pathfinder dragon.

In any case I agree the whole fantasy miniatures market seems overpriced if you start comparing it with historicals. It's not just the Perrys, plastic 28mm historical infantry is always (or almost always) under the 1€/mini price. I just don't see why the fantasy manufacturers truly need to charge more for products that many times just don't deserve it.

Agreed with what you say, though I can (partly) understand a bit of 'fantasy tax' on some plastic minis if 'heroic' scales*, poses and masses of bits reduces the number of actual bodies you can fit on a sprue... though that's certainly not to excuse GW's prices, just that I wouldn't mind stretching to €1/£1 per fantasy plastic, depending on what it was and how it looked.

*Although, I actually have a couple of Mantic elves beside me here, an old sample I got years ago. Even then I didn't realise how teeny they are. The details are pretty good and sharp too. I just wish they were... different details.

 judgedoug wrote:
I feel that people that say "I would be more interested if the models weren't bad" are just trying to be diplomatic about not wanting to play a new ruleset. Everyone knows Kings of War is a better game but there's some weird hypnosis that some players have where they don't want to try it because it's not stamped with the "Games Workshop" logo - despite being designed by someone who a few years before had been a GW employee. Alessio wrote Mordheim and Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game... am I missing something? Are those not nearly universally heralded as the greatest things GW ever did?

Cavatore was involved with MH, but Tuomas Pirinen gets the main credit. As per the credit page of MH...by Tuomas Pirinen with RP and AC.

Cavatore was a bit mixed as a designer, IMO. He was the guy pushing stripped-down, basic codicies in mid 4th edition 40K. That's why the CSM and CD codicies were such snooze-fests. If that was all in the name of balance, fine...but his track record on that was a little mixed too. Some of those codices had notable internal balance issues. And then you have his Skaven army book.

It's also completely asinine to suggest that anyone who hasn't embraced KoW is being stubborn or is somehow bamboozled. People like what they like, for their own valid reasons.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
@Vermis: My feelings about kings of war seem to be alot like yours. I would be more interested if every other sculpt wasn't so bad.

I've never understood this sentiment. Like GW models? Play KoW using those. Unlike GW, Mantic's official stance is "please enjoy using whatever models you like, even at a competitive level".

Well that's what I've been moaning about! Mantic prices good, Mantic quality/designs hmm. GW quality/designs good (mostly), GW prices y'wha...!?!

Granted, I've pulled a fair amount of skaven, uruk-hai etc. off ebay, but sometimes it's not as easy as often made out. (Currently looking for and failing to find the last metal screaming bell among listfuls of plastic ones, which are currently looking for and failing to find a £100+ sale.) It'd be a lot easier if some people in Lenton woke up from their delusions of grandeur.

No worries about my ability to separate minis from rulesets, too...

KoW is an amazing ruleset (about to get even better), that gives the WHFB minis you own a wonderful second life, IF WHFB really does morph into something unrecognizable.

Mayhem isn't too bad either. (The writer's an Origins award nominee, y'know...)

Alessio was pushing for balance because IIRC he was the Italian Warhammer Grand Champion for a few years before he got hired by GW. So it's no surprise he wanted a solid set of rules that fostered competitive play.

 judgedoug wrote:


This is exactly what happened with me. I started playing Warhammer Fantasy in 4th edition. 6th edition was my favorite period - though 7th edition had better base rules (codex creep, however, ruined any balance... 7th ed rules w/ 6th ed codices = best). 8th edition drove me away because it is an absolutely terrible ruleset and people who defend it are wrong. I believe fans of 8th literally have no other frame of reference for good rules design. Kings of War is nearly everything I want in a ruleset - fast, tactical, huge battles. Games with twice as many models as the largest WHFB6 battle are done in half the time without that weird Warhammer headache you'd get after a long game.

And I use whatever models I want. Gamezone Dark Elves, GW Empire, Red Box Games Helsvakt, Mierce monsters, etc.
Actually, my Kings of War armies look way better than Warhammer armies because I have been picking and choosing the models I want to use, so look infinitely better than pure Citadel armies.

I feel that people that say "I would be more interested if the models weren't bad" are just trying to be diplomatic about not wanting to play a new ruleset. Everyone knows Kings of War is a better game but there's some weird hypnosis that some players have where they don't want to try it because it's not stamped with the "Games Workshop" logo - despite being designed by someone who a few years before had been a GW employee. Alessio wrote Mordheim and Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game... am I missing something? Are those not nearly universally heralded as the greatest things GW ever did?

This post gave me hyperbole cancer.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Alessio was pushing for balance because IIRC he was the Italian Warhammer Grand Champion for a few years before he got hired by GW. So it's no surprise he wanted a solid set of rules that fostered competitive play.

Yeah, it's no accident that post-Alessio Warhammer no longer had Crown of Command, Heart of Woe and Black Gem of Gnar in every single army list.

The one WD game was funny, remarking that there must have been a Tilean factory cranking them out en masse.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Alessio was pushing for balance because IIRC he was the Italian Warhammer Grand Champion for a few years before he got hired by GW. So it's no surprise he wanted a solid set of rules that fostered competitive play.

Yeah, it's no accident that post-Alessio Warhammer no longer had Crown of Command, Heart of Woe and Black Gem of Gnar in every single army list.

The one WD game was funny, remarking that there must have been a Tilean factory cranking them out en masse.

Perhaps, but to be fair, Alessio turned the single worst publication GW ever released, the Andy Chambers & Phil Kelly Chaos 3.5 Codex, into one of the best publications GW ever released, the Chaos 4.0 Codex, before it went back to Kelly's magical turn-gold-into-gak desk.

Kelly was on vacation when the final draft of the codex was made. From my understanding Jervis is the person who made several changes to it that Kelly didn't like.

Jervis is also the same person whose name seems to crop up a lot on projects that turn out to be utter drek.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kelly was on vacation when the final draft of the codex was made. From my understanding Jervis is the person who made several changes to it that Kelly didn't like.

Jervis is also the same person whose name seems to crop up a lot on projects that turn out to be utter drek.

Yeah, judging by the comments Jervis made in the rule writing for the Imperial Knights in a WDW, it seems most of his work in this area is creating a rough estimate/"feel" for where something should be and then leaving it at that.

Significant play-testing is for nerds!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kelly was on vacation when the final draft of the codex was made. From my understanding Jervis is the person who made several changes to it that Kelly didn't like.

Jervis is also the same person whose name seems to crop up a lot on projects that turn out to be utter drek.

Wasn't he behind BFG? That game was awesome.

Wonderwolf wrote:
Perhaps, but to be fair, Alessio turned the single worst publication GW ever released, the Andy Chambers & Phil Kelly Chaos 3.5 Codex, into one of the best publications GW ever released, the Chaos 4.0 Codex, before it went back to Kelly's magical turn-gold-into-gak desk.

Careful now...

And it was Pete Haines, not Kelly.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kelly was on vacation when the final draft of the codex was made. From my understanding Jervis is the person who made several changes to it that Kelly didn't like.

Jervis is also the same person whose name seems to crop up a lot on projects that turn out to be utter drek.

Wasn't he behind BFG? That game IS awesome.

Fixed that for you Hwang

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kelly was on vacation when the final draft of the codex was made. From my understanding Jervis is the person who made several changes to it that Kelly didn't like.

Jervis is also the same person whose name seems to crop up a lot on projects that turn out to be utter drek.

Wasn't he behind BFG? That game was awesome.

Pretty sure BFG was mostly Chamber's kid, although JJ is mentioned as the co-author along with Thorpe, right below Chambers.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kelly was on vacation when the final draft of the codex was made. From my understanding Jervis is the person who made several changes to it that Kelly didn't like.

Jervis is also the same person whose name seems to crop up a lot on projects that turn out to be utter drek.

Wasn't he behind BFG? That game was awesome.

Pretty sure BFG was mostly Chamber's kid, although JJ is mentioned as the co-author along with Thorpe, right below Chambers.

I believe Andy Chambers was the main guy behind BFG, and I believe he is writing the rules for a battle ship game for Hawk wargames.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
Perhaps, but to be fair, Alessio turned the single worst publication GW ever released, the Andy Chambers & Phil Kelly Chaos 3.5 Codex, into one of the best publications GW ever released, the Chaos 4.0 Codex, before it went back to Kelly's magical turn-gold-into-gak desk.

Careful now...

You hold him, I'll beat him.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
Perhaps, but to be fair, Alessio turned the single worst publication GW ever released, the Andy Chambers & Phil Kelly Chaos 3.5 Codex, into one of the best publications GW ever released, the Chaos 4.0 Codex, before it went back to Kelly's magical turn-gold-into-gak desk.

Careful now...

You hold him, I'll beat him.

Yeah. What the feth? The 3.5 Chaos book was the best. Jervis' 3.0 was utter garbage. What are you talking about?!?

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Kelly was on vacation when the final draft of the codex was made. From my understanding Jervis is the person who made several changes to it that Kelly didn't like.

Jervis is also the same person whose name seems to crop up a lot on projects that turn out to be utter drek.

Wasn't he behind BFG? That game was awesome.

Fixed that for you Hwang

Nope. Was. The self-appointed stewards of BFG have fethed it up to nerf things in direct contradiction to what the game designer specifically confirmed to be his intent.

I will be glad to play RAW BFG, but no way I'm playing the more recent houserule gak. When they decided to move BFG to house rules, I stopped paying attention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
Perhaps, but to be fair, Alessio turned the single worst publication GW ever released, the Andy Chambers & Phil Kelly Chaos 3.5 Codex, into one of the best publications GW ever released, the Chaos 4.0 Codex, before it went back to Kelly's magical turn-gold-into-gak desk.

Careful now...

You hold him, I'll beat him.

Yeah. What the feth? The 3.5 Chaos book was the best. Jervis' 3.0 was utter garbage. What are you talking about?!?

Nope. 3.0 and 4.0 CSM were the best. Clean and smooth.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope. 3.0 and 4.0 CSM were the best. Clean and smooth.

The knowledge that you are in a tiny minority is what keeps me sane DD.

Remember when this thread was about 9th edition? Ah, the good old days!