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.

Deadnight wrote:


Will it though? 1500pts of x meets 1500pts of y in the wild, roll scenario and 'go'? Fine for a pick up game, and necessary for a tournament. But not all games are pick up games or tournaments. What if I want a scenario, or a campaign. Or a themed mission that isn't out of a tournament packet.

How is having a point-based system not giving everyone what he wants?

Deadnight wrote:
'Don't be a dick' goes a long way...

But without any semblance of balance, it's very easy to screw over your opponent without trying to be a dick. You bring a fluffy list that turns out to be totally overpowered? You're going to steamroll your opponent. in the same vane if you bring a fluffy list that turns out to be totally useless, you're going to get steamrolled. Neither option is fun for either player.

Herzlos: You do not recall correctly though, like I said (I have the book in front of me) on page 176 and 177 are points and army construction guidelines for Ancient Britons and Romans.

I agree though, the game is put forward as best played without points and with a GM and narrative scenarios, and many cool examples of this are given. However, the game also acknowledges that many players like to play pointed games, and so provides a schema for doing that as well.

If GW had provided a similar appendix to Age of Sigmar, we'd not be having half of these conversations.

Thanks. I suspected there were but remember someone else saying it didn't. I've only played it once and given it a quick read through so I'm no expert. I know the army lists have points as I have some of them too.

 Talys wrote:
@keezus - I completely agree with you. The Imperial Knight is a far superior and technically difficult to tool model. It's also newer and more expensive.

Anyone who has looked at sprues of the two side by side would agree that the IK has much more detail on it and cost GW more to tool.

Try inserting: Kastellan Robot into the arguement instead of Wraithknight since you totally missed my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On an aside, the Age of Sigmar terrain has some elements that are of interest to me. They seem to have reduced the quantity of Skulls but amped up all the other ridiculous gargoyle / wings imagery. Hopefully these are separate pieces and we'll have some multi-use generic terrain that we can use to bulk up our tables.

While the realm gates and crazy altar things are pretty cool looking and well sculpted, they're pretty useless in non AoS games as they seem intended as placeholders to confer random buffs as opposed to dedicated things you can climb/scale, block movement and/or LOS.

I would imagine that a company that makes nothing but big Robot models would be more efficient at making big robots than one that doesn't.

The other on also has European manufacture rather than Asian and a retail arm to support that make the product itself viable.

 notprop wrote:
I would imagine that a company that makes nothing but big Robot models would be more efficient at making big robots than one that doesn't.

The other on also has European manufacture rather than Asian and a retail arm to support that make the product itself viable.

But the subject and overheads are irrelevant - it's the method of production that's in play.

The fact that they can make pre coloured pieces, mould detail on both sides of a single large piece etc has no relation to what they're doing it for, they could be making replicas of popular household appliances for all that it matters.

GW could probably have machines capable of this, but they gave all their truly surplus cash to the shareholders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

To tell the truth, I've been through that fire myself, so don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. Why you would wish this on someone else knowing what it is like. Wow.

Why not say that in the first place rather than bang on about how other people you know have been through it?

Either way, I'm not wishing it on anyone, you have yet again read something in a post that wasn't there, I've said (twice) that the staff who weren't in a place to make decisions and who would merely be caught in the fallout if GW went under would have my utmost sympathy, and that there would be worse times than now to lose your job.

If you can find anywhere I've said "I really want GW to go under" please quote it back to me, as I can't remember any occasion where I've said such a thing. I've said that if they did, it would be their own fault, but that isn't remotely the same thing.

My criticism of GW is not borne of hatred or a desire to see them fail, it is out of frustration at seeing them fail to do basic things which would make an immeasurable difference to them as a company, such as taking over two decades and 15 (?) editions of the their two key systems and still fail to address key issues, or simply substitute those issues with others.

Azreal13 you should know by now, critique is hate

But hey if i say the sigmarines box is the same price as the terminator, but the terminators have weapon options. then i am hating
Did they change the size to increase the price?
At least scibor miniatures will be the right size now.

I just saw the price on the new terrain kits... ouch. Its unfortunate that the Baleful Runegate is a double gate kit making it kind of pricy at $70CDN. IMHO, it would have made more sense for it to be one kit, which can be assembled with different gribbles and you could buy one Runegate for $40.

The archway isn't a bad deal, but seems to be unsalvagable if you want to have a non Age of Sigmar themed table.

I hold out hope that there will be a temple and/or ruined walls kit (Looked like there were some spoiled in the publicity shots, unless they are non-production masters) - preferably with the Age of Sigmar iconography to be glued on instead of sculpted right into it. The denser plastic they use for terrain makes de-skulling or in this case, de-Sigmaring the terrain a PITA.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I would imagine that a company that makes nothing but big Robot models would be more efficient at making big robots than one that doesn't.

The other on also has European manufacture rather than Asian and a retail arm to support that make the product itself viable.

But the subject and overheads are irrelevant - it's the method of production that's in play.

The fact that they can make pre coloured pieces, mould detail on both sides of a single large piece etc has no relation to what they're doing it for, they could be making replicas of popular household appliances for all that it matters.

GW could probably have machines capable of this, but they gave all their truly surplus cash to the shareholders.

The product, geography and specialisation are incredibly relevant to manufacturing costs. Historically an hours wage for a Britton has been far in excess of that of a typical Asian worker. Historically the Asian worker will also be more productive.

I can't speak for details of Gundum models but a production line set up to make just them by team that has allot of experience in making them will be far better at it than one set up to make another product. I think you have look beyond the fact that they are both made from plastic.

It's quite likely that the Gundum Team could repurpose the GW line to make Gundums without much problem but that would be a result of their knowledge. GW may simply not have this knowledge to be able to compete in the same way. It's possible that the Gundum methods are entirely inappropriate to GWs products. As I say both being plastic doesn't make them interchangeable given my (our) limited knowledge beyond generalisations.

Also GWs reinvestment in production but I guess there's only so many plastic spamming machines you need in one place.

GW do pay dividend you're right, but they are still cash rich so that is not really relevant to why they don't do what they may or may not need or be capable of.

The discussion is about the technology not the costs.

If we were trying to make an argument about the viability of GW starting to make kits using some of the same tech that the likes of Bandai can be seen to be employing, then your points would be valid, but right now it's a question of who is capable of the most tricks when making new plastic toys.

I can't conceive of any reason why Gundam methods wouldn't be appropriate, they're just HIPS kits the same, the limited number I've owned could have been repackaged in a GW box and while they'd raise eyebrows for all sorts of reasons, the type of material etc wouldn't be one of them.

@notprop.
If GW plc keep dishing out more money on dividends than they are making profit, how much longer will they be cash rich?

I am sure If T.Kirby was not so close to retirement age, he might be looking at growing the business long term.Rather then chasing short term profit over long term growth.

But the cost of developing new production methods is not really the issue.
Its the fact GW plc state they make the best minatures in the world, when it can be argued they do not use the latest technology to back up this claim.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The discussion is about the technology not the costs.

If we were trying to make an argument about the viability of GW starting to make kits using some of the same tech that the likes of Bandai can be seen to be employing, then your points would be valid, but right now it's a question of who is capable of the most tricks when making new plastic toys.

I can't conceive of any reason why Gundam methods wouldn't be appropriate, they're just HIPS kits the same, the limited number I've owned could have been repackaged in a GW box and while they'd raise eyebrows for all sorts of reasons, the type of material etc wouldn't be one of them.

It's a business, cost is intertwined in every decision. You can't make a decision without knowing your cost position. So that really is very relevant especially when we may be talking about a capability that may cost a huge sum to obtain if for example you are a small medium sized company from the middle of England rather than a bigger toy multinational in SE Asia.

The discussion was why Gundum would be cheaper than a IK. Bandai have size and years of experience in making their Robots in plastic, GW doesn't.

If you have a manufacturing facility you are not going to want to look outside to make stuff, and if you can (or won't) buy in the expertise then you will have to develop it. It would seem GW have gone the latter route.

@ Lanrak, you can't bemoan a company for being run by Accountants (GW PLC Grrrr! ) then suggest that they are going to arbitrarily piss the money up the wall without a thought for the consequences. G do have issues with falling turnover but not terminally so.

It is not the tech used that would result in the best miniatures in the work it would be the design and skill that went into using it and the results obtained. Whether it is or isn't the best in the world is in the eyes of the be(share)holder.

Bandai's factory is heavily automated. Their setup looks pretty similar to videos I've seen out of the Lego factory. Their injection and molding technology can also product details down to 40 microns. GW's HIPS quality is good, but I've never seen .04 mm details on any of their kits.

A cool run down of their factory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHbeasVraf4

I emailed them about the blight kings, just the typical cut and paste response though.

I'm afraid that at the moment we do not have any information about these products. With regards to existing products, if they have been removed from the website it means they are currently unavailable however we do not know whether they will return at this point.

All I can recommend at this time is keeping an eye on the web store and in White Dwarf for more information.

So no help at all, as expected I guess.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Azreal13 you should know by now, critique is hate

But hey if i say the sigmarines box is the same price as the terminator, but the terminators have weapon options. then i am hating
Did they change the size to increase the price?
At least scibor miniatures will be the right size now.

the Stormcast Eternals Liberator box, while being the same price as a Terminator box, actually comes with more weapon options, and more parts cut (i.e. legs) for better detail...

i don't get the question, "Did they change the size to increase the price?"...
SE Liberators are a new product...
GW could have charged $60 if i am reading your logic correctly, like the BA and DA Terminator boxes, but didn't...
i would say that is a good thing...

as to Scibor minis, they cost more than GW minis...
if you want to pay more for worse minis, then more power to you...
it does go to show how some of the critique against GW is skewed into the realm of an illogical dislike of the company...

to all the people still going on about Gundam, looking at the sprues, it looks like the different colored bits on the same sprue are actually various sprues slotted together...
is that correct???

cheers
jah

Herzlos wrote:

And that's what we're paying them for.

I thought people paid them for pretty models. Apparently, most gw collectors don't even bother,with the game.

Herzlos wrote:
I can't see a free for all doing anything but driving gaming styles further apart. With everything in the rules, you've got a good starting point.

I don't disagree, but bear in mind, there are as many gaming styles as gamers. A lot of people want something different. Your post implies, whether deliberately or not, that we should all be playing the same style. Thst diverging styles is a bad thing. I can't agree with that. Some of those styles are incompatible with each other. 'Play with likeminded individuals' is the most basic wargame advice any of us can get.

herzlos wrote:
It's much easier to make a narrative game out of a balanced one by dropping the balance, than it is to start with something with no balance.

In general, I am in full agreement with you herzlos. But this is gw we are talking about. Balance never rates all that highly. For right or wrong, I am simply suggesting a way of making the mess work.

Vermis wrote:
Funny how companies with a lot fewer resources (sometimes just one guy with a friendly local gaming group for playtesting. Playtesting! Imagine...) and sometimes with fairly large audiences of their own, manage to produce relatively tight and well-recieved games.

Funny that. I play those games too, and celebrate their achievement, and hold them up as examples of 'doing it right'. Warmachine hordes, infinity, dropzone etc.

Thing is, they're smaller, more focused and can just get on with the game. Not all of them have massive in house manufacturing, a massive retail arm that is essentially a worldwide thing etc. bigger company, more things to deal with.

insaniak wrote:
That's not giving everyone what they want.
That's giving the people who want half a game that they can finish themselves what they want .
It's the equivalent of going to the movies , and getting half an hour of scene-setting and then just a blank screen for the next hour so that people can imagine for themselves how everything turned out.
If I want to create a game myself, I can do that without giving GW a cent .

Isn't it?
Well unless you have a magic rules set that perfectly mutates itself for every gamer, the best you can do is a basic, open ended thing thst people can push in whatever direction they want.

You talk of movies, I can talk of kit cars and diy sets.

Blacksails wrote:.
Precisely.
Just the kind of work the largest wargaming company should be expected to put in for a flagship product.

A company that sees themselves as a model making company first and foremost.

Blacksails wrote:
That is not a contradiction. By removing all balancing mechanisms, it has to put it in the hands of the players because there's no way else to deal with it. What players decide to do isn't necessarily balance, and the base game has no outline for even an approximation of balance.

So the tool they use is the playerbase. And social contract. Seems there is a mechanism in place. As unsavoury as it is.

Blacksails wrote:
No, because a game that is easy to play, simple to understand, has little to no rule loopholes or vague wording, and has a tested method of determining balanced forces and an army building mechanism will work for any kind of play. No one will have to argue about what rule 'x' means, or that army 'Y' is horribly underpowered, because everything would be tested. You can still give players all the control they want and still provide a game that has frunctional rules with no ambiguity and a strong baseline to determine the relative strength of units.

Oh I agree blacksails. In general, this is how I feel about things, and why I prefer infinity and warmahordes for my games. Then again, Considering some of the people I play against regularly, I'm quite open to the whole 'social contract' idea and co-operation as a means of affecting balance. Then again, it only really works with like minded friends. Which is, ironically, the target audience gw seem to be reaching for

Blacksails wrote:
Simple stuff. You can take a super ultra tournament game and play it like its mega casual, super lopsided, campaign/scenario driven truly beer and pretzels kind of game. You can't do it the opposite.

I dunno. I find the super symmetric scenarios in warmachine quite stifling for narrative missions. It's great for pugs and tournaments, and necessary, I would say. considering some of the missions and home brewed scenarios I play with my more casual friends, this wouldn't hold much interest.

Blacksails wrote:
Its not a fallacy. I see historicals thrown around a lot as a counter example. The issue is that some use a different method of 'army building', where the forces are either pre-generated for a specific scenario, or incredibly limited within a strict historical context. Playing historicals means that you're either re-enacting a specific example where the forces are already defined, or you're playing a 'what-if' scenario, but still using historical examples for what an army would have looked like in that day and age.
The same cannot be true for a fantasy game or sci-fi game. It just can't. Which means that line of thinking in the context of a fantasy or sci-fi game doesn't hold much water.

Why not? 'Lets play a themed mission, where my spec ops units are trying to infiltrate your skirmish line', or where 'my third company is going to affect a company scale drop pod assault on the government palace,like in imperial armour 3'.

My thinking is this: sure, you can take whatever you like. But should you? Does it make sense within the context of the mission, the narrative and story being told, and would it fit within the wider context of the universe it inhabits? For example, my captain Titus of the third company mentioned above might desire a space marine power build for his mission. Chapter commander deadnight shakes his head and explains the chapter has other responsibilities, other commitments, including three other strike forces, various garrison duties and so on. Titus has his third company, and select support from the first and tenth company. Vehicles make no sense for a drop pod assault. Off you go Titus...

For every user elite army out there, you have a dozen armies without any elite support. Such is the nature of conflict. Do as well as you can with what you have to hand being the operative word, rather than 'here, have the keys to the armoury, and take what you like'
It's not different for fantasy games.

I know where you're coming from. You feel you should be allowed to take whatever you like to the table, so long as it's withintherules, and obeys the army restrictions.for pugs and tournaments, I fully agree. I think player freedom is a hugely important thing. However, freedom isn't free. Great Freedom implies great responsibility. And like I said, outside of pick up gsmes, and within the context of specific scenario and narrative play, I feel the internal restrictions of that setting, and 'what makes sense' should take precedence over my 'right' to go off and take whatever the heck I feel like

Blacksails wrote:
So, points costs are therefore the best option for a game that offers the players plenty of customization and free reign to build forces within some constraints. A properly done system will be heavily tested to ensure as level a playing field as possible. From there, players can either play pick-up games with equal forces, or decide to play a scenario, where they elect to have unequal forces, also based on points.
The only thing that would a game rigid would be the player's inability to think outside the box. You are always free to ignore and change whatever you like in a ruleset. Having a well implemented points system allows for all kinds of play.

Oh I agree, one hundred percent. Bear in mind blacksails, when I'm talking here, I'm talking specifically within the context of gw games and doing the best I can to make them work.

Blacksails wrote:
I'm not seeing the issue or your point. Just go play the scenario you want. Ignore the points. You can do what you like with the rules.

Perfect attitude. hats off.

Blacksails wrote:
Making a good game also goes a long way.

Sure does. If anyone asks me my issues with aos, it's not the lack of points, it's the lack of 'interesting' rules, and 'interesting' game mechanics.

Deadnight wrote:
Isn't it?
Well unless you have a magic rules set that perfectly mutates itself for every gamer, the best you can do is a basic, open ended thing thst people can push in whatever direction they want.

A ruleset doesn't have to be basic and unfinished in order for players to do what they want with it.

As others have pointed out, if you want to play a scenario game with a pointed system, you can just ignore the points. Going the other way, though... that's much harder.


And that's the point here. The system that gives the most people what they want is a system that offers a complete, balanced, functional game system. Because the people who just want something that they can tinker with and alter to suit themselves can do that just as easily (if not more easily) with that system than they can with a system that just assumes you'll work it out yourself...

You talk of movies, I can talk of kit cars and diy sets.

A DIY set is specifically sold as a DIY set.

Is there anything on the AoS box that suggests that players need to finish writing the rules themselves in order to have a finished product?


Frankly, the comments about players wanting to have their 'hands held' puzzle me. If I'm buying a game, of course I want the game's creator to tell me the 'right' way to play their game. That's why I bought their game!.

That doesn't mean that I can't alter that game to suit myself. My family has been playing Monopoly with our own house rules for more than 30 years, even though it comes with a complete set of finished rules in the box. A game doesn't have to be unfinished in order for players to tailor it to suit themselves. But publishing unfinished rules just means that those players who do just want a game that they can play without having to write their own rules are immediately excluded.

And the moment you're deliberately excluding a portion of your potential customer base, you're most certainly not crafting something that works for everyone...

 Rayvon wrote:
I emailed them about the blight kings, just the typical cut and paste response though.

I'm afraid that at the moment we do not have any information about these products. With regards to existing products, if they have been removed from the website it means they are currently unavailable however we do not know whether they will return at this point.

All I can recommend at this time is keeping an eye on the web store and in White Dwarf for more information.

So no help at all, as expected I guess.

Gone off sale to be re-released with round bases. I don't know why they won't just share that, but apparently that's why.

 JamesY wrote:

Gone off sale to be re-released with round bases. I don't know why they won't just share that,.. .

Because secrets are the best form of marketing.

Apparently.

 insaniak wrote:
Frankly, the comments about players wanting to have their 'hands held' puzzle me. If I'm buying a game, of course I want the game's creator to tell me the 'right' way to play their game. That's why I bought their game!.

That doesn't mean that I can't alter that game to suit myself. My family has been playing Monopoly with our own house rules for more than 30 years, even though it comes with a complete set of finished rules in the box. A game doesn't have to be unfinished in order for players to tailor it to suit themselves. But publishing unfinished rules just means that those players who do just want a game that they can play without having to write their own rules are immediately excluded.

And the moment you're deliberately excluding a portion of your potential customer base, you're most certainly not crafting something that works for everyone...

Exactly. The white knight brigade seems shocked that anyone would want the game they bought to function. Buying models purely to build and paint is fun; I've done it plenty of times. But if I'm purchasing a ruleset, I expect to play the game. Otherwise, I may as well dig out my action figures from when I was 8 and start making laser noises.

At best, Age of Shareholders is a terribly-executed ruleset. At worst, it's a shoddy document rushed out just so GW can claim that they still make more than one game. Just because some overly-dedicated fans can turn it into something roughly functional, that doesn't mean that it's a legitimate game.

I disagree that it is easier to balance historical rules because there is no difference between humans and humans.

There is a huge difference between a mediaeval knight on armoured horse, a peasant with a fire hardened stick, and a Roman Legionary. Not to mention the effect of "monsters" like elephants, camels and scythed chariots.

Wargames Research Group Ancients rules list 8 morale/training classes, 19 troop formation/armour classes, with five more variations for trained troops and camels, 15 weapon classes plus shields, and special rules for different field fortifications and biological weapons like bees and flaming pigs.

The amount of possible variation is huge, yet the rules were used successfully in tournament play for over 20 years and basically were the world standard.

It's true that not all historical games use points values. WRG uses a combination of points and army lists (a similar idea to the old FOC chart.) However it is extremely unusual for historical games to just let players take whatever forces they like.

In AOS balance is to be achieved by three mechanisms.

1. Scenarios.
The key assumption here is that GW will create balanced scenarios, which presumes they already have a balance system.
Any way, balanced scenarios are not much use for players who want to set up their own forces and scenarios.

2. The Sudden Death rule.
This is useless for several reasons:
A. All units are not equal, so just outnumbering the enemy is not necessarily a strong advantage.
B. If you outnumber the enemy by 33%, and grant them Sudden Death, you might as well go on placing units and outnumber them by 400%.
C. One of the Sudden Death conditions is crap anyway -- the one where you need to win by turn 4.

3. The table set-up phase in which you lay out terrain, pick an area, then alternate placing units until you have finished.
This actually is quite an interesting idea, though arguably it is just changing the army list creation to an on the fly method. Also, without knowing the relative strength of units, you can't be sure you are laying out a viable force.

 JamesY wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
I emailed them about the blight kings, just the typical cut and paste response though.

I'm afraid that at the moment we do not have any information about these products. With regards to existing products, if they have been removed from the website it means they are currently unavailable however we do not know whether they will return at this point.

All I can recommend at this time is keeping an eye on the web store and in White Dwarf for more information.

So no help at all, as expected I guess.

Gone off sale to be re-released with round bases. I don't know why they won't just share that, but apparently that's why.

Cheers for that, I was hoping they had not gone for good, you never really know nowadays !

Deadnight wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I can't see a free for all doing anything but driving gaming styles further apart. With everything in the rules, you've got a good starting point.

I don't disagree, but bear in mind, there are as many gaming styles as gamers. A lot of people want something different. Your post implies, whether deliberately or not, that we should all be playing the same style. Thst diverging styles is a bad thing. I can't agree with that. Some of those styles are incompatible with each other. 'Play with likeminded individuals' is the most basic wargame advice any of us can get.

There's no reason a good ruleset ties gamers down to a certain play style, in the way that something like AoS forces a super casual play style. With clear rules and reasonable balance, you can play it however you want.

Herzlos wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I can't see a free for all doing anything but driving gaming styles further apart. With everything in the rules, you've got a good starting point.

I don't disagree, but bear in mind, there are as many gaming styles as gamers. A lot of people want something different. Your post implies, whether deliberately or not, that we should all be playing the same style. Thst diverging styles is a bad thing. I can't agree with that. Some of those styles are incompatible with each other. 'Play with likeminded individuals' is the most basic wargame advice any of us can get.

There's no reason a good ruleset ties gamers down to a certain play style, in the way that something like AoS forces a super casual play style. With clear rules and reasonable balance, you can play it however you want.

Make no mistake herzlos. I'm pretty much in agreement with you. Thing is, there are terms and conditions. You said it yourself. 'A good rules set'. Gw games are not generally, and cannot be regarded as A 'good rules set'. theyre functional at best, if clunky, bloated and somewhat counter intuitive.
My whole position on aos (and like I said, I'm not a fan of it - it's simply not 'interesting') is based on how best to make it work. Which is more of a side step, and an approach to gaming from a different perspective and a different attitude, rather than 'make a better game', or 'but it should be a better game'. The latter two are true, and accurate, but also pointless (aos pun!). They won't happen. Gw simply isn't interested. i also believe, as gamers, it is partly our responsibility to be the architects of our own happiness with regard to our hobby.

Cheers

 Azreal13 wrote:
The discussion is about the technology not the costs.

If we were trying to make an argument about the viability of GW starting to make kits using some of the same tech that the likes of Bandai can be seen to be employing, then your points would be valid, but right now it's a question of who is capable of the most tricks when making new plastic toys.

I can't conceive of any reason why Gundam methods wouldn't be appropriate, they're just HIPS kits the same, the limited number I've owned could have been repackaged in a GW box and while they'd raise eyebrows for all sorts of reasons, the type of material etc wouldn't be one of them.

Heck, it's not even just Gundams. I've bought three kits of the Edelweiss (tank from Valkyria Chronicles), and the main gun barrel is a single piece. That's right, one piece, with an open gun barrel and details on it, and I didn't have to glue two halves together.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
The discussion is about the technology not the costs.

If we were trying to make an argument about the viability of GW starting to make kits using some of the same tech that the likes of Bandai can be seen to be employing, then your points would be valid, but right now it's a question of who is capable of the most tricks when making new plastic toys.

I can't conceive of any reason why Gundam methods wouldn't be appropriate, they're just HIPS kits the same, the limited number I've owned could have been repackaged in a GW box and while they'd raise eyebrows for all sorts of reasons, the type of material etc wouldn't be one of them.

Heck, it's not even just Gundams. I've bought three kits of the Edelweiss (tank from Valkyria Chronicles), and the main gun barrel is a single piece. That's right, one piece, with an open gun barrel and details on it, and I didn't have to glue two halves together.

My Dragon Company Tank kits where like that too. So many options and so many amazing detailed bits.

Tank barrel was drilled, one piece and had a nice curve in it.
I could use etched brass OR plastic for plenty of bits.
All hatches could be open or closed plus the gun could be full assembled inside the turret if I wanted complete with gun, sights and turret rotatory wheel.
Suspension that mean't I could change how the tracks sit on the wheels.
The tracks was this rubber stuff that fit perfectly and looked amazing.
Decals that looked perfect compared to GW ones which have too much of that clear stuff.


All in a cool package that cost less than half the price of a Leman Russ. It was bigger, has more stuff, more options and more detail and nearly no mold lines. Honestly I think GW is falling behind. Other companies do amazing things with their models but don't cost nearly as much.

In a similar vein I have a Tamya Tiger that is almost as big as a baneblade, much better detailed, a much more complex kit, and cost me $50 aud compared to a $86ish aud leman Russ which really does look like a toy next to it.

GW really can't compete with historicals imo, ESPECIALLY once brass etch gets involved.

 jonolikespie wrote:
In a similar vein I have a Tamya Tiger that is almost as big as a baneblade, much better detailed, a much more complex kit, and cost me $50 aud compared to a $86ish aud leman Russ which really does look like a toy next to it.

GW really can't compete with historicals imo, ESPECIALLY once brass etch gets involved.

Plus they last a very long time.

So many of these kits we have today are from the 70s. Only the materials change but the designs aren't always new ones. For example I have some Frog 1/72 models from 1972 and they are exactly the same as the airfix kits purchased in 2012. I know a lot of my Napoleonic are very old models as well. Just the materials are changed as time goes on.

Sometimes they update, like I have the latest update of the British Waterloo command set coming which was re done for the anniversary so I look forward to seeing what they improve there.

Some historic kits are duds though, but I think most are way ahead of GW.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree that it is easier to balance historical rules because there is no difference between humans and humans.

There is a huge difference between a mediaeval knight on armoured horse, a peasant with a fire hardened stick, and a Roman Legionary. Not to mention the effect of "monsters" like elephants, camels and scythed chariots.

No whether there are humans or non-humans makes no difference. But the power levels between the weakest and most powerful unit does.

For example, balancing dwarves and humans? No problem. But when you're balancing a game where the weakest unit is an archer with a bow, and the most powerful unit is invincible machine the size skyscraper that isn't meant to be able to destroyed even by a million archers with bows (it could conceivably just step on all of them), then there is a problem balancing the game.

In the following scale image, should it be possible for any number of grots to kill the Warlord Titan? I think not.


The better question is: do you want a game where such disparities exist? Where there are fortresses with void shield generators and vortex missiles, in the same game as jetfighters, giant dragons, and essentially 20th century infantry equipped with laser rifles?

Is that just a stupid game? The thing with Warhammer 40k is there is a group of people who could care less about "balance" and would rather see the awesomeness of a titan (I'm talking about papa bear, not the little imperial knights) and quiver with excitement at the prospect of a 2' or 3' tall model in a game with 1" tall models; or they love flying jets and defending superfortresses that are by design "indestructible". They want Clash of the Titans -- epic tales of heroes and gods -- not re-enactments of the Hundred Years' War.

And then there are people who want to treat 40k as a more "serious" wargame, where the two sides are actually trying to play a futuristic version of a historical game. I think it's fundamentally impossible to have a game that makes both sides happy, and it's fundamentally impossible to put people from both camps on one table and say, "Enjoy!" They'll both think the other person is crazy.

Here's a parallel question: How would the battle of Marathon be balanced if the Persians were led by Mithras (the god of war and the sun), with Rostam, Ramsar, and Zoroaster as heroes, and the Greeks were led by Athena and Poseidon, with heroes of Odysseus, Heracles, and Pythia-- all written "to lore"? How would you balance Medusa's head -- instantly petrifying 1,000 Persians? How do you kill Heracles, when he just can't be killed?

The answer, of course, is that it would be a an "Age of Sigmar" type game the focus becomes the playground for the Gods and Immortals, rather than regimented battle. Because what's the point of a regiment, or indeed, a navy, when Poseidon can flick his wrist and sink all your ships? The whole idea of the heroes of myth, after all, is that a single hero is more powerful than vast armies. The allure of such games and hobbies is the escapism of controlling such awesomeness (and not everyone finds that alluring at all).

It's just what rocks your boat, and what you find "fun" in a game. Me? When it comes to the tabletop, the importance of strategy, tactics, and any semblance of "balance" of the units is just greatly overshadowed by the social aspects of oooing and ahhing at new models, a chance to socialize with buddies and move around neat toys and roll dice. In other words, I would gladly accept the unbalancing, silly stupid powerful model... as long as it were awesome enough.