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.
2015/12/21 18:44:11
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
This is a fallacy. Look at typical of the Army of the Month in Visions. A lot of them are totally impractical to play, both in composition and sheer number of model. You'd need 10 hours a turn and an 80 foot table, and the Ultramarines in Visions 23, you'd need a five ton truck, too. Most they have a LOT of repetition; you'll see multiple knights, lots of ground troops, etc.
Collectors who only want to model single models will buy one of each, but collectors who want to model armies will build, model, and paint either armies that are representative of battle forces described in codex and fluff, or armies that don't quite fit the rules, but look cool together. One of the things that make armies look good is a large number of similar units. For example, a space marine with a bolter looks good, but 10 look better, and 100 look much more impressive.
OK, these typical AotM forces are better or worse than my Guard army from 2009? Yes, it's impractical to play the entire lot, due to the composition and sheer volume (not to mention growth from 2009 to 2015/2016). I've never played the entire lot, and don't ever expect to. But I can and do play pieces and portions from time to time. But it'd problably be less than an hour a turn, and could deploy on a 12-16' table. Transport would be a couple duffel bags, plus a backpack - or a rolling suitcase, at most. And yes, there's quite a bit of repetition, with lots of vehicles and ground troops.
But it has become more of a collection than a strict playing force. I don't flat out need anywhere near that much stuff to play a game of 40k. 2,000 pts is plenty, and 3,000 pts is overkill. But I've collected far more than that, because it's stuff that I thought was cool. And a couple hundred infantry models is indeed a sight to see!
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
Would that really be any different to what they do already?
Quite, without the rules they will have to rely solely on the strength of the IP and the willingness of their buyers to purchase said forces, for display purposes only, or to play with their own home-brew system.
2015/12/21 19:31:19
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
But then that would require acknowledging the existence of other companies who write compatible rulesets to be used with Warhammer miniatures, and they'd have to lift restrictions on people playing those games in GW stores. because otherwise, what the feth would people have to play?
And that is something that Kirby et al are loathe to do.
This is a company that sells branded paint brushes, paints, sand, glue, clippers and even fething water pots because its leaders want to completely insulate their customers against the existence of other companies and games. They do not cooperate with 3rd parties.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/21 19:38:40
2015/12/21 19:37:07
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
Considering how poor their games are, that woudn't be a bad thing. GW could apply a radical streamlining to 40k and the game would be far better for it.
Talizvar wrote: I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
This is a fallacy. Look at typical of the Army of the Month in Visions. A lot of them are totally impractical to play, both in composition and sheer number of model. You'd need 10 hours a turn and an 80 foot table, and the Ultramarines in Visions 23, you'd need a five ton truck, too. Most they have a LOT of repetition; you'll see multiple knights, lots of ground troops, etc.
This is the confusion I was getting at: why would a collector go to such an extreme volume of models unless some rule-set gives incentive? I met a guy who had 60,000 miniatures for Napoleonic armies but they were 10mm, there are exceptions to the rule but again, at least it was for a game.
Collectors who only want to model single models will buy one of each, but collectors who want to model armies will build, model, and paint either armies that are representative of battle forces described in codex and fluff, or armies that don't quite fit the rules, but look cool together. One of the things that make armies look good is a large number of similar units. For example, a space marine with a bolter looks good, but 10 look better, and 100 look much more impressive.
They look more impressive when they have purpose.
Parade formation, a diorama, a company of marines, some reason for a bunch of models to be lumped together.
Sure this gives a reason for having more than just one, but there would be few instances you would want 6 groups of 10 marines unless you have a force organization you are trying to meet.
A space marine with a bolter is an easy and fun thing to focus on and paint very well.
Ten you can assembly line paint and see if you can make them different enough from each other to be interesting and you can really get into the groove painting.
One hundred, yeah it is cool but REALLY starts looking like work.
I assembled and painted 100 Imperial guard grunts in one go, it was a "fun" challenge but boy was I happy getting it to a tabletop standard.
My main point is the "incentive" to buy more models.
Trying to meet some force organization is a carrot/stick method to get more sold.
For the joy of just collecting more models is leaving things more to chance to that conflict of quality vs quantity of what = awesome.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2015/12/21 20:23:29
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
This is a fallacy. Look at typical of the Army of the Month in Visions. A lot of them are totally impractical to play, both in composition and sheer number of model. You'd need 10 hours a turn and an 80 foot table, and the Ultramarines in Visions 23, you'd need a five ton truck, too. Most they have a LOT of repetition; you'll see multiple knights, lots of ground troops, etc.
Collectors who only want to model single models will buy one of each, but collectors who want to model armies will build, model, and paint either armies that are representative of battle forces described in codex and fluff, or armies that don't quite fit the rules, but look cool together. One of the things that make armies look good is a large number of similar units. For example, a space marine with a bolter looks good, but 10 look better, and 100 look much more impressive.
OK, these typical AotM forces are better or worse than my Guard army from 2009? Yes, it's impractical to play the entire lot, due to the composition and sheer volume (not to mention growth from 2009 to 2015/2016). I've never played the entire lot, and don't ever expect to. But I can and do play pieces and portions from time to time. But it'd problably be less than an hour a turn, and could deploy on a 12-16' table. Transport would be a couple duffel bags, plus a backpack - or a rolling suitcase, at most. And yes, there's quite a bit of repetition, with lots of vehicles and ground troops.
But it has become more of a collection than a strict playing force. I don't flat out need anywhere near that much stuff to play a game of 40k. 2,000 pts is plenty, and 3,000 pts is overkill. But I've collected far more than that, because it's stuff that I thought was cool. And a couple hundred infantry models is indeed a sight to see!
I wasn't trying to say that people who game, whether fanatically or occasionally, don't buy or build large collections, only that there are some collectors who don't game, but build and model complete armies with more than one-offs.
I play relatively infrequently (less than 30 games a year) and model/build/add to my collection a lot. Most of my 40k pieces have seen a gaming table at least once, but a lot of models I don't even bother clear coating, because, for instance, I know Mephiston or Sanguinor will see exactly 1 game and otherwise be in a display case, so why bother? But I have many stormravens and many rhinos, for example, that are also collection pieces that rarely, of ever, get played. Why do I build it then? Well aside from it being fun, I like to assign dedicated vehicles to squads, so my command squad, for instance, has a specific drop pod, rhino, razorback, land raider and stormraven, even though the only vehicles I really use are the drop pod and razorback. The assigned models are not normally loaned to other squads in a motor pool fashion, unless i just want to try something and i need a model temporarily.
2015/12/21 20:23:38
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
Would that really be any different to what they do already?
At least we would all be clear about it.
No-one could attack GW for publishing rotten rules and no-one could defend them for actually being a model kit company not a game company if they did not publish rules. It would avert a lot of arguments.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
Would that really be any different to what they do already?
At least we would all be clear about it.
No-one could attack GW for publishing rotten rules and no-one could defend them for actually being a model kit company not a game company if they did not publish rules. It would avert a lot of arguments.
But by keeping up the charade they are able to milk both cows, as it were; they currently get collector and gamer money, albeit arguably less from both camps as proven by their financial records.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2015/12/21 20:59:06
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
This is a fallacy. Look at typical of the Army of the Month in Visions. A lot of them are totally impractical to play, both in composition and sheer number of model. You'd need 10 hours a turn and an 80 foot table, and the Ultramarines in Visions 23, you'd need a five ton truck, too. Most they have a LOT of repetition; you'll see multiple knights, lots of ground troops, etc.
Collectors who only want to model single models will buy one of each, but collectors who want to model armies will build, model, and paint either armies that are representative of battle forces described in codex and fluff, or armies that don't quite fit the rules, but look cool together. One of the things that make armies look good is a large number of similar units. For example, a space marine with a bolter looks good, but 10 look better, and 100 look much more impressive.
OK, these typical AotM forces are better or worse than my Guard army from 2009? Yes, it's impractical to play the entire lot, due to the composition and sheer volume (not to mention growth from 2009 to 2015/2016). I've never played the entire lot, and don't ever expect to. But I can and do play pieces and portions from time to time. But it'd problably be less than an hour a turn, and could deploy on a 12-16' table. Transport would be a couple duffel bags, plus a backpack - or a rolling suitcase, at most. And yes, there's quite a bit of repetition, with lots of vehicles and ground troops.
But it has become more of a collection than a strict playing force. I don't flat out need anywhere near that much stuff to play a game of 40k. 2,000 pts is plenty, and 3,000 pts is overkill. But I've collected far more than that, because it's stuff that I thought was cool. And a couple hundred infantry models is indeed a sight to see!
I wasn't trying to say that people who game, whether fanatically or occasionally, don't buy or build large collections, only that there are some collectors who don't game, but build and model complete armies with more than one-offs.
I play relatively infrequently (less than 30 games a year) and model/build/add to my collection a lot. Most of my 40k pieces have seen a gaming table at least once, but a lot of models I don't even bother clear coating, because, for instance, I know Mephiston or Sanguinor will see exactly 1 game and otherwise be in a display case, so why bother? But I have many stormravens and many rhinos, for example, that are also collection pieces that rarely, of ever, get played. Why do I build it then? Well aside from it being fun, I like to assign dedicated vehicles to squads, so my command squad, for instance, has a specific drop pod, rhino, razorback, land raider and stormraven, even though the only vehicles I really use are the drop pod and razorback. The assigned models are not normally loaned to other squads in a motor pool fashion, unless i just want to try something and i need a model temporarily.
Sure, sure, I was just noting that you may have exaggerated ever so slightly in your reply, and share that this is what happens when you field an army of such size.
I play about as often as you do, primarily board games, but I keep my vast 40k collection because we do play Apoc from time to time. Now that I see where the IG are going, it's easier to assign and group things together.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I said it earlier in 40k general, I'll say it again here.
I'd love to see GW become a real model company like they claim, but that means producing things in metal and resin, at different scales like 52 or 75mm, and make things like busts and dioramas.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2015/12/22 01:38:54
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
Can you imagine them trying to be a proper model company with their current offering?
Take their vehicles. The detail is poor relative to display models of similar pricing, they're not based on anything that exists or ever will, the design and technology they're supposed to employ often falls apart very quickly under close examination, GW actively litigates against companies that try and produce expansion and alternate bits for their kits, and the scale is terrible in relation to supposed function, and often in relation to other models from the same range.
Without at least the illusion of a game to support the purchases, the wheels will fall off the GW bus toute suite.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I'm pretty sure GW's opinion is that they need a game to draw people in, for something to strive towards, but in reality a lot of people don't actually end up playing it or play it and don't care if it's gak so they don't put any effort in to actually making the game itself any more than (an increasingly diminishing) structure in which you can build your army.
2015/12/22 02:00:07
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I'd love to see GW become a real model company like they claim, but that means producing things in metal and resin, at different scales like 52 or 75mm, and make things like busts and dioramas.
GW does / did all of that. 52mm Inquisitor scale 40k; 6mm Epic 40k / 10mm Warmaster scale Fantasy; Warhammer and 40k busts via Forgeworld. GW provided all of the components for dioramas as well, such as a Rourke's Drift homage using Praetorians & Savage Orks, with a full range of terrain and modeling supplies, etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I'd love to see GW become a real model company like they claim, but that means producing things in metal and resin, at different scales like 52 or 75mm, and make things like busts and dioramas.
GW does / did all of that. 52mm Inquisitor scale 40k; 6mm Epic 40k / 10mm Warmaster scale Fantasy; Warhammer and 40k busts via Forgeworld. GW provided all of the components for dioramas as well, such as a Rourke's Drift homage using Praetorians & Savage Orks, with a full range of terrain and modeling supplies, etc.
FW did busts once apon a time?
Huh.
Anyway yes, if they brought some of that back it would be great, except that all those other scales you mentioned were for other games....
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2015/12/22 02:15:57
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I'd love to see GW become a real model company like they claim, but that means producing things in metal and resin, at different scales like 52 or 75mm, and make things like busts and dioramas.
GW does / did all of that. 52mm Inquisitor scale 40k; 6mm Epic 40k / 10mm Warmaster scale Fantasy; Warhammer and 40k busts via Forgeworld. GW provided all of the components for dioramas as well, such as a Rourke's Drift homage using Praetorians & Savage Orks, with a full range of terrain and modeling supplies, etc.
That is so cool, why the hell can't GW do that these days when they are a 'model company'?
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2015/12/22 03:32:35
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
Azreal13 wrote: Can you imagine them trying to be a proper model company with their current offering?
Take their vehicles. The detail is poor relative to display models of similar pricing, they're not based on anything that exists or ever will, the design and technology they're supposed to employ often falls apart very quickly under close examination, GW actively litigates against companies that try and produce expansion and alternate bits for their kits, and the scale is terrible in relation to supposed function, and often in relation to other models from the same range.
Without at least the illusion of a game to support the purchases, the wheels will fall off the GW bus toute suite.
This is my opinion as well. Compared to Japanese robot and realistic military vehicle models, GW models look childish and chubby with bad detail.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2015/12/22 03:39:46
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
jonolikespie wrote: That is so cool, why the hell can't GW do that these days when they are a 'model company'?
The irony being they're widely available from recasters, suggesting they are still very much wanted.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW should just stop publishing games and only make kits and imaginary campaign books and novels.
I'd love to see GW become a real model company like they claim, but that means producing things in metal and resin, at different scales like 52 or 75mm, and make things like busts and dioramas.
GW does / did all of that. 52mm Inquisitor scale 40k; 6mm Epic 40k / 10mm Warmaster scale Fantasy; Warhammer and 40k busts via Forgeworld. GW provided all of the components for dioramas as well, such as a Rourke's Drift homage using Praetorians & Savage Orks, with a full range of terrain and modeling supplies, etc.
FW did busts once apon a time?
Huh.
Anyway yes, if they brought some of that back it would be great, except that all those other scales you mentioned were for other games....
People play / played 6mm 40k with the Epic minis. Same with WFB using the 10mm Warmaster minis. They look better, being closer to ground scale. And they're often cheaper.
Azreal13 wrote: Can you imagine them trying to be a proper model company with their current offering?
Take their vehicles. The detail is poor relative to display models of similar pricing, they're not based on anything that exists or ever will, the design and technology they're supposed to employ often falls apart very quickly under close examination, GW actively litigates against companies that try and produce expansion and alternate bits for their kits, and the scale is terrible in relation to supposed function, and often in relation to other models from the same range.
Without at least the illusion of a game to support the purchases, the wheels will fall off the GW bus toute suite.
The fact that they're things that don't exist, don't make an sense in terms of our understanding of physics, and their scale is exactly why some people like those vehicles. The guy who buys the Reaver (or a Warlord) is gets giddy at the thought of a robot model built at such a ridiculous scale. And really, giant robots of ANY type make no sense at all, any more than imperial walkers in Star Wars, or the relative usefulness of light sabers and likelihood of batting away projectiles moving faster than the speed of sound, much less the speed of light. My point.. not only does none of that matter ... that's the best part!
2015/12/22 05:34:23
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But then that would require acknowledging the existence of other companies who write compatible rulesets to be used with Warhammer miniatures, and they'd have to lift restrictions on people playing those games in GW stores. because otherwise, what the feth would people have to play?
They wouldn't play anything. They would collect the minis for the sheer joy of it, and after buying the latest releases would place them on a shelf (assembled and painted or otherwise).
2015/12/22 06:06:28
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
Azreal13 wrote: Can you imagine them trying to be a proper model company with their current offering?
Take their vehicles. The detail is poor relative to display models of similar pricing, they're not based on anything that exists or ever will, the design and technology they're supposed to employ often falls apart very quickly under close examination, GW actively litigates against companies that try and produce expansion and alternate bits for their kits, and the scale is terrible in relation to supposed function, and often in relation to other models from the same range.
Without at least the illusion of a game to support the purchases, the wheels will fall off the GW bus toute suite.
The fact that they're things that don't exist, don't make an sense in terms of our understanding of physics, and their scale is exactly why some people like those vehicles. The guy who buys the Reaver (or a Warlord) is gets giddy at the thought of a robot model built at such a ridiculous scale. And really, giant robots of ANY type make no sense at all, any more than imperial walkers in Star Wars, or the relative usefulness of light sabers and likelihood of batting away projectiles moving faster than the speed of sound, much less the speed of light. My point.. not only does none of that matter ... that's the best part!
I'm pretty sure the scale comments were about their fictional "supposed function", like transports that aren't actually big enough to transport the number of people the game and the fluff says they should, or tanks who's track pod design means they could only be driven on a perfectly flat road surface, or vehicles equipped with weapons of such a ludicrously large calibre that you couldn't fit the ammunition for it inside the tank let alone plausibly load and fire the weapon.
Those aren't the "KEWL LAZORZ!" part of the setting, that's the psyker powers and handheld GMG-rifles and dark-yet-also-hilariously inefficient societal structures; they're the plot holes and commercially-driven quality compromises and lazy mistakes.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2015/12/22 06:44:06
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
@Yodhrin - The fact that 5 space marines can't fit into a drop pod, and 10 space marines can't fit into a Rhino, or that a Manufactorum should take up an entire 6x4 table is not an issue for 40k fans.
What size should a Rhino be? It should be bigger than a Space Marine. It should function on a game table as a representation of their transport. I should be able to easily pack a half dozen on a table. It should look cool. It should look small compared to a Lord of Skulls. It should be smaller than a Land Raider. Et cetera.
If they made a Rhino the actual size that a Rhino should be, a tree is the size that a tree should be, and a house is the size a house should be, the game would be unplayable. But much more importantly, the game table wouldn't be nearly as awesome.
I personally really like the scale of 40k, not because it's accurate but because soldiers are exactly the size I want them to be, the plastic quasi-titan centerpieces (Wraitknight, Stormsurge, Imperial Knight, etc.) are exactly the size I want them to be, and everything else is kind of scaled to fit in between. I like the sizes of buildings (particularly like cities of death), again, not because they're accurate, but because they work well for the sort of game that 40k is, and they're cool. I mean, what crazy person would build an office building just wide enough for 6 soldiers to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in?!
At the end of the day, the game is so ridiculously unbelievable and its science is so preposterous anyhow that the scale is the least of my worries Like I said, it's no different than a light saber bouncing off projectiles being ridiculous doesn't detract from my enjoyment of Star Wars, but enhances it. Or, like how Scotty in Star Trek just waltzed onto and around the super secret base, or how they HAD to capture Khan alive to save Kirk, even though there was a cargo hold full of enhanced humans with the same blood. As long as those plot holes and scientific deficiencies enhances what I want to enjoy most (the entertaining fiction), it's all good -- much like Rhinos and office buildings that are too small, but look good and fit well on a 6x4 table or the ridiculousness of 9/10 of the "science" of 40k.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/12/22 06:52:37
2015/12/22 07:41:05
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
GW has a full size Rhino at WHW. It works and is scaled to be the same size as a FV430 (as I understand they used that to make it).
Anyway what's with the hang up on Games Workshops previous statement suggesting (entirely accurately) that they are a model company. It has been true since the 1980s when Livingstone/Jackson sold to Ansell, you know, the Citadel minatures bloke. It's right there in the article that the thread hasn't been about for some time; Warhammer was designed to sell Miniatures. Why are knickers being twisted 30+ years later?
GW sells £100M+ of product in a year 95% of that is probably plastic/resign the rest is material printed by some chaps in China for them. You can see why Tom Kirby would say they make models for a living.
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
2015/12/22 10:40:35
Subject: Re:Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
Talys wrote: @Yodhrin - The fact that 5 space marines can't fit into a drop pod, and 10 space marines can't fit into a Rhino, or that a Manufactorum should take up an entire 6x4 table is not an issue for 40k fans.
What size should a Rhino be? It should be bigger than a Space Marine. It should function on a game table as a representation of their transport. I should be able to easily pack a half dozen on a table. It should look cool. It should look small compared to a Lord of Skulls. It should be smaller than a Land Raider. Et cetera.
If they made a Rhino the actual size that a Rhino should be, a tree is the size that a tree should be, and a house is the size a house should be, the game would be unplayable. But much more importantly, the game table wouldn't be nearly as awesome.
I personally really like the scale of 40k...[snip]
It is good to see you can rationalize design flaws and tell yourself it is actually better that way. Good for you.
Us a little more critical thinkers assume "if they can churn out Banestorms, Knights and frikkin Titans, then making a rhino a proper size is both feasible and still practical. The famous "Building double-wide Rhinos" thread shows how to go into the right direction, easily. Forgeworld has some nice ideas as well (Crassus).
Of course that assumption could be challenged with actual plausible arguments like "yes, of course they are out of scale but GW would be stupid to change a generally accepted design - especially since it would cost them quite a lot to get rid of existing stock and create new moulds."
Our buildings are in scale, btw, as are our trees. (Although trees really do come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, you know?)
It really only is an issue for vehicles. And the size difference between Termis and Marines and Marines and normal people/IG.
- Seriously, they are supposed to be living titans...
So anyway, shall we stop the discussion here since you stated what you like? Because no one wants to take that away from you, especially since we know how much money you spend on the hobby!
EDIT: Got rid of the small ad hominem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/22 11:12:50
Currently playing: Infinity, SW Legion
2015/12/22 11:31:16
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
Talys wrote: @Yodhrin - The fact that 5 space marines can't fit into a drop pod, and 10 space marines can't fit into a Rhino, or that a Manufactorum should take up an entire 6x4 table is not an issue for 40k fans.
Careful, you're coming close to trying to speak on behalf of a whole lot of people and making sweeping statements about what we do and do not like.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2015/12/22 12:38:29
Subject: Rick Priestley Interview - 'Blood, Dice and Darkness'
The obvious implication of the small size of vehicles is that SMs must be a lot smaller than the propagands makes out. I had always imagined them being eight feet tall or so, but perhaps they are actually normal size and average about six feet.
Still, would it be that hard for them to create good looking kits for once? Is it really difficult to make a RH1N0 exploration vehicle big enough to fit a few Marines? Is it that hard to scale the Leman Russ's cannon barrel down to something that could actually fit within the turret and give it functioning suspension?
No, it is not hard. And do you know what is worse?
Their vehicles are only getting more and more fugly. Look at the Taurox for instance, it is a terrible design with horrible features, bad weapons placement and a track base that is rectangular. It is a terrible model, and it was only recently released.
GW are not a model company. Sure they produce the occasional good figure (Elizabeth Von Carstien) but for the most part their kits are terrible things that look like a childs toy. They fail to stand up to other producers by a long margin.
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
Like I said, it's no different than a light saber bouncing off projectiles being ridiculous doesn't detract from my enjoyment of Star Wars, but enhances it. Or, like how Scotty in Star Trek just waltzed onto and around the super secret base, or how they HAD to capture Khan alive to save Kirk, even though there was a cargo hold full of enhanced humans with the same blood. As long as those plot holes and scientific deficiencies enhances what I want to enjoy most (the entertaining fiction), it's all good -- much like Rhinos and office buildings that are too small, but look good and fit well on a 6x4 table or the ridiculousness of 9/10 of the "science" of 
