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.

nudibranch wrote:
Those drawing have also been around for a long time. I think the 3rd ed. Imperial Guard book had them? Anyway, they are designed to show off proposed colour schemes in an understandable way. They're not designed to be pretty pictures, just illustrative tools.

They could be done a hell of a lot nicer though, like the FW books do.

They look like the pics in my forge world books...

barnacle111 wrote:
Weird that the guardian are covering it?!

The Guardian have long since past any sort of sanity with some of their reporters so this is hardly unexpected. I'm calling it now there will be a follow on piece by a certain reporter there.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They look like the pics in my forge world books...

They're a lot worse.

 ImAGeek wrote:

nudibranch wrote:
Those drawing have also been around for a long time. I think the 3rd ed. Imperial Guard book had them? Anyway, they are designed to show off proposed colour schemes in an understandable way. They're not designed to be pretty pictures, just illustrative tools.

They could be done a hell of a lot nicer though, like the FW books do.

Some of the books detailing Napoleonic uniforms are magnificent. Wish I could remember the name of the publisher, but always eyeing them up and stopping the wallet from opening.

*edit* http://www.histoireetcollections.com/en/uniforms-equipment/2837-la-garde-imperiale-t1-9782915239775.html

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

nudibranch wrote:
Those drawing have also been around for a long time. I think the 3rd ed. Imperial Guard book had them? Anyway, they are designed to show off proposed colour schemes in an understandable way. They're not designed to be pretty pictures, just illustrative tools.

They could be done a hell of a lot nicer though, like the FW books do.

Some of the books detailing Napoleonic uniforms are magnificent. Wish I could remember the name of the publisher, but always eyeing them up and stopping the wallet from opening.

Osprey? yeah they are a great set of stuff. And pleasant to deal with. the Heraldry books are GW's attempt at a version.

The pics are pretty standard fare I think. The Heraldry books that they released for Skaven and Empire look much the same. I bought the Skaven book and have 0 regrets on that.

barnacle111 wrote:
Weird that the guardian are covering it?!

Looks like GW are pushing their PR stuff a bit more aggressively now. They probably invited the Guardian guys over to do a quick filler piece.

 streamdragon wrote:
The pics are pretty standard fare I think. The Heraldry books that they released for Skaven and Empire look much the same. I bought the Skaven book and have 0 regrets on that.

Same but the Osprey books have much more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 prowla wrote:

barnacle111 wrote:
Weird that the guardian are covering it?!

Looks like GW are pushing their PR stuff a bit more aggressively now. They probably invited the Guardian guys over to do a quick filler piece.

Or paid

Then hat article would have to have the fact that it is an advertising feature in it I believe.

It is news though; ending the Warhammer universe, albeit by the niche standards of the hobby.

I'm not surprise the web version of a national picked this up, I would be very surprised it if ever made it to print though. That would be something.

migooo wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

nudibranch wrote:
Those drawing have also been around for a long time. I think the 3rd ed. Imperial Guard book had them? Anyway, they are designed to show off proposed colour schemes in an understandable way. They're not designed to be pretty pictures, just illustrative tools.

They could be done a hell of a lot nicer though, like the FW books do.

Some of the books detailing Napoleonic uniforms are magnificent. Wish I could remember the name of the publisher, but always eyeing them up and stopping the wallet from opening.

Osprey? yeah they are a great set of stuff. And pleasant to deal with. the Heraldry books are GW's attempt at a version.

These ones, but Osprey are very good too. Wish there was a set for the British army in as much detail. Perry Miniature often come with a flier with extracts of this sort of book detailing different uniform choices

http://www.histoireetcollections.com/en/uniforms-equipment/2837-la-garde-imperiale-t1-9782915239775.html

His Master's Voice wrote:I see people still cannot distinguish between "bad" and "I don't like it".

I see people still think that because someone likes an idea, that it can't be a bad idea.

His Master's Voice wrote:I see people still cannot distinguish between "bad" and "I don't like it".

Dwarves turning into avatars of fire and stone may not be the most original idea ever, but it's hardly something objectively bad, given it opens up some very interesting visual opportunities in a highly visual medium that miniature wargaming is.

The fluff for those flame dwarfs sounds like a load of nonsense but the concept of Dwarves with burning beards has so much potential. I am very interested to see the models and hope the scale is somewhat similar to the existing Slayers as they could be a lovely proxy for a Brotherhood of Grimnir unit!

prowla wrote:

barnacle111 wrote:
Weird that the guardian are covering it?!

Looks like GW are pushing their PR stuff a bit more aggressively now. They probably invited the Guardian guys over to do a quick filler piece.

Yeah you beat me to it. When I read the article some of the parts may as well have been pulled from a GW PR release!

 Vermis wrote:
I see people still think that because someone likes an idea, that it can't be a bad idea.

Of course one can like a bad idea. You just failed to explain why fire elemental dwarves are a bad idea.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
I see people still think that because someone likes an idea, that it can't be a bad idea.

Of course one can like a bad idea. You just failed to explain why fire elemental dwarves are a bad idea.

The inspiration for creating Dwarf slayers with firey beards obviously comes from the Slayer King Ungrim Ironfist becoming the Incarnate of Fire in End Times. However Ungrim died and the wind of Fire left him and went into Caradryan. Now in the continuation of the Warhammer world through AoS there are coincidentally going to be Dwarf Slayers whose bright red hair is now going to be on fire. It comes across as GW designers taking a concept (which I think is quite nice by the way) and deciding to awkwardly throw it in to the fluff and design of the background story. I think the models will look awesome and most people will ignore the unconvincing background story...

Neckbeards of fire. Not in MY army.

 Lt. Donomar StubbornBull wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
I see people still think that because someone likes an idea, that it can't be a bad idea.

Of course one can like a bad idea. You just failed to explain why fire elemental dwarves are a bad idea.

The inspiration for creating Dwarf slayers with firey beards obviously comes from the Slayer King Ungrim Ironfist becoming the Incarnate of Fire in End Times. However Ungrim died and the wind of Fire left him and went into Caradryan. Now in the continuation of the Warhammer world through AoS there are coincidentally going to be Dwarf Slayers whose bright red hair is now going to be on fire. It comes across as GW designers taking a concept (which I think is quite nice by the way) and deciding to awkwardly throw it in to the fluff and design of the background story. I think the models will look awesome and most people will ignore the unconvincing background story...

Ungrim Ironfist losing the Wind of Fire doesn't mean much considering that the Fyreslayers are dwelling in Aqshy, the Realm of Fire.

 Lt. Donomar StubbornBull wrote:


Looks like GW are pushing their PR stuff a bit more aggressively now. They probably invited the Guardian guys over to do a quick filler piece.

Yeah you beat me to it. When I read the article some of the parts may as well have been pulled from a GW PR release!

It really isnt. It mentions alternative games, specifically X wing by FFGand Mantics KOW and upcoming Warpath. That does not happen in a press release, they would be asking for their money back.

Its not an actual guardian article by one of its staff journalists, its by a community contributor. I assume its someone who plays games and writes articles on what interests them, some gets placed on the website if the editor thinks they are good and they get a bit of money.

 Lt. Donomar StubbornBull wrote:
I think the models will look awesome and most people will ignore the unconvincing background story...

Which is all that really matters, as far as GW is concerned. If the new models look good, and sell well as a result, one cannot begrudge GW for making that decision, or call it bad just because it does not align with one's expectations.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

migooo wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

nudibranch wrote:
Those drawing have also been around for a long time. I think the 3rd ed. Imperial Guard book had them? Anyway, they are designed to show off proposed colour schemes in an understandable way. They're not designed to be pretty pictures, just illustrative tools.

They could be done a hell of a lot nicer though, like the FW books do.

Some of the books detailing Napoleonic uniforms are magnificent. Wish I could remember the name of the publisher, but always eyeing them up and stopping the wallet from opening.

Osprey? yeah they are a great set of stuff. And pleasant to deal with. the Heraldry books are GW's attempt at a version.

These ones, but Osprey are very good too. Wish there was a set for the British army in as much detail. Perry Miniature often come with a flier with extracts of this sort of book detailing different uniform choices

http://www.histoireetcollections.com/en/uniforms-equipment/2837-la-garde-imperiale-t1-9782915239775.html

My father had loads. I was more of a fantasy fan though.

In regards to the guardian thing possible. But considering the amount of suspicious stuff that's on there now. I just lost faith in a free press.

 Vermis wrote:

His Master's Voice wrote:I see people still cannot distinguish between "bad" and "I don't like it".

I see people still think that because someone likes an idea, that it can't be a bad idea.

There are two different ideas at work here. The first is that a given thing is objectively good or bad. The second is that someone might like a given thing. These two concepts are not the same. For a start, 'Good' and 'Bad' are ultimately moral judgements, even if they have lost much of that flavour these days. Furthermore, I can say that I enjoyed Jupiter Ascending, without needing to defend it as 'objectively good', even as I can say that I find PP's models to look awful, without feeling the need to identify them as 'objectively bad'. The fact is that almost nothing can be described as 'bad' or 'good', really; all that you are saying is, in shortened language, 'I [dis]like it'. That's fine. Everyone has an opinion. But just because you [dis]like it does not mean that anyone else is wrong to either agree or disagree with you.

This may all seem to be labouring the point, but above you are conflating the two ideas, and suggesting that other people are wrong to like the firedwarves thing. Is this a 'bad' thing? No. You could certainly construct an argument to show that it is a bad thing from a certain perspective (e.g. 'in terms of originality, there is little to be found here; that makes them bad as an attempt to carve out a new and original niche') but simply saying, 'I don't like it, it is bad' is a conflation of two ideas in order to try and give your subjective opinion some kind of objective weight.

Dwarves with hair and beards of fire? How original!

....oh, wait. The Azer were in Monster Manual II, which appeared in 1983.

"Azer (Dungeons & Dragons)" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia.

Does someone at GW need a reminder of the rules of the OGL?

Impossible, GW's designers design everything in a vacuum!

Are you saying anyone who ever makes Dwarves with fire hair would need to use the Azer license? Yeah, no...

There's no such thing as complete originality, you can guarantee every 'new' idea has been expressed in some form or another somewhere before.

And I highly doubt many of the current design studio were around and gaming in 1983.

Who cares if someone else has done it before? Let them take it and run with it. I do not remember D&D Azers being slayers for hire. This excuse, "Simpsons did it", mentality is quite lame.

YouKnowsIt wrote:
And I highly doubt many of the current design studio were around and gaming in 1983.

That was just their first appearance. They've been seen in the Spelljammer and Al-Qadim campaign settings and the Monster Manuals for v3, v3.5 and v4 which was published in 2008.

Why would a race made of fire be interested in gold? What use would they have for it?

Sigmarshammer wrote:
Who cares if someone else has done it before? Let them take it and run with it. I do not remember D&D Azers being slayers for hire. This excuse, "Simpsons did it", mentality is quite lame.

I, for one, am a strong advocate for taking extremely common concepts and introducing them to proper HIPS plastic wargaming. That people came up with centaurs thousands of years ago is a strength and not a weakness in my mind. The reason GW gets a ribbing about is is because of their xenophobia. We are not the ones who threw away the "Imperial Guard" and "Stormtroopers" because they were public domain names. We are not the ones who tried to steal "Space Marine" for our own exclusive use. These are things Games Workshop did, which is why we mock them for their transparent attempts to pretend that their dwarves are their own exclusive intellectual property.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Slayers with beards and hair of fire is a laughably poor idea.

You're looking for reason and logic in a fantasy setting? Good luck with that.

And when did I say I was looking for reason and logic? I just said it was a poor idea.

Well done on conjuring up an imaginary statement from me. 10/10. Bravo Sir.

Then explain why you think it is a laughably poor idea.

Next time be specific.