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.

 Just Tony wrote:
Unless they are $30+ each, I'm all in for Helga and the BSB.

Apparently they've said that only the queen is being sold solo, so we can probably assume the rest will be in bunches, as they are in the images (groups of 3,4 or 5).

 Just Tony wrote:


How the hell can generic battlefield terrain be obsolete?

If a (much) cheaper and (arguably) better substitute exists, the more expensive and worse product is obsolete. Not in the sense that it is useless, but because it doesn't make sense to buy it.

Cyel wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:


How the hell can generic battlefield terrain be obsolete?

If a (much) cheaper and (arguably) better substitute exists, the more expensive and worse product is obsolete. Not in the sense that it is useless, but because it doesn't make sense to buy it.

Well then it was obsolete the 1st time it came out....

A female dwarf?!

GW has gone all wokity, woke, woke!

What next male elves?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


A female dwarf?!

GW has gone all wokity, woke, woke!

What next male elves?

I'm fairly sure you're just joking, but for anyone reading who isn't aware, this is actually a classic 5th edition sculpt by (I think) Colin Dixon.

It was originally intended to represent Queen Helgar from The Grudge of Drong campaign pack, but I think it was ultimately released as a generic, unnamed Dwarf Queen.

I am have indulged in a bit of mockery of current internet controversy.

I could already tell it was an old sculpt. No face veil.

 Return_to_Bretonnia wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


A female dwarf?!

GW has gone all wokity, woke, woke!

What next male elves?

I'm fairly sure you're just joking, but for anyone reading who isn't aware, this is actually a classic 5th edition sculpt by (I think) Colin Dixon.

It was originally intended to represent Queen Helgar from The Grudge of Drong campaign pack, but I think it was ultimately released as a generic, unnamed Dwarf Queen.

She was still listed as Queen Helgar up until GW removed their Bitz service in circa 7th or 8th Ed

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Anyone else getting flashbacks of Elmer Fudd?

Lord Zarkov wrote:
She was still listed as Queen Helgar up until GW removed their Bitz service in circa 7th or 8th Ed

Bizarrely, it looks like she was originally released as a generic Dwarf Queen in 5th edition (with an acknowledgement that she was designed to represent Helgar) and was only officially listed as Helgar later.

http://www.solegends.com/citcat1998/1998P040-00.htm
http://www.solegends.com/citcat1998us/c1998usp090-00.htm
http://www.solegends.com/citcat1999/c1999p0366-00.htm
http://www.solegends.com/citcat2000/c2000p177-00.htm
http://www.solegends.com/citcat2004us/c2004usp0593-01.htm
http://www.solegends.com/citcat2010/c2010p0046-00.htm

Cyel wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:


How the hell can generic battlefield terrain be obsolete?

If a (much) cheaper and (arguably) better substitute exists, the more expensive and worse product is obsolete. Not in the sense that it is useless, but because it doesn't make sense to buy it.

Y'know, some people might actually just like the look better.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


A female dwarf?!

GW has gone all wokity, woke, woke!

What next male elves?

What's funny is lady dwarves have been around since the start Good old Queen Asabelle Dragonsmiter from the Dwarf King's court



This may or may not be an excuse to talk about old minis as I'm want to do 😛

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:


How the hell can generic battlefield terrain be obsolete?

If a (much) cheaper and (arguably) better substitute exists, the more expensive and worse product is obsolete. Not in the sense that it is useless, but because it doesn't make sense to buy it.

Y'know, some people might actually just like the look better.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh. Don't interrupt "Gw Is BaD bEcAuSe Gw Is BaD!!!1!!@!!!!" in action or else you'll REALLY get that poster going...

 Return_to_Bretonnia wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:
She was still listed as Queen Helgar up until GW removed their Bitz service in circa 7th or 8th Ed

Bizarrely, it looks like she was originally released as a generic Dwarf Queen in 5th edition (with an acknowledgement that she was designed to represent Helgar) and was only officially listed as Helgar later.

That was true of many (all?) of the minis sculpted for the 5th ed campaign packs.

For instance, the Undead-themed Circle of Blood campaign pack was accompanied by metal minis for a "Wight Lord", "Wraith Champion" and "Vampire Lord". All three had notes in the catalogue saying they were originally sculpted to represent the special characters from the campaign pack (the Dark Knight, Banshee and Red Duke), but could be used as generic minis if you wanted.

The Wraith Champion was rebadged as a Banshee once those became a standard army list entry later in 5th ed, when the Vampire Counts book came out. (The skull-faced one with the sword. I know that mini well because she served for a time as a Farseer in my 40K Eldar army. It made sense at the time, I swear.)

Maybe the original plan for those campaign packs was to include metal miniatures in them (similar to the Warhammer Quest expansions), but there was some marketing-department drama behind the scenes that led to card-and-paper-only packs? I have no idea.


Also, I would like to state for the record that I'm highly scandalised and outraged by the existence of a female dwarf mini from GW without a beard. Have they no shame.


On the subject of the returning terrain, it's true the Arcane Ruins are way overpriced for a relatively simple and clunky kit, but it has more potential than it seems. I got seven separate pieces of scatter terrain out of one set years ago:

- Trilithon for a green grassy board
- Trilithon for a grey barren board
- Ruined temple for a grey barren board (the base of the Ruins with only the broken pillars on it plus heaps of gravel and sand)
- Obelisk for a desert board
- 2x small bits of rubble for a desert board (each half of an unassembled crosspiece, buried in polyfilla)
- Lone pillar (with old Chaos Warrior mini on top) as a statue

And I still had a few big skull/devil faces left over to stick onto cliffs and whatnot. I've always been on a tight budget when it comes to this sort of thing. That boring old Arcane Ruins kit stretched a lot further for my purposes than a single building, however pretty, would have. Really needs some texturing on the flat sides though, even if it's just textured paint.

WH Dwarf Women have no Beards, as most Fantasy Dwarf Females.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:


How the hell can generic battlefield terrain be obsolete?

If a (much) cheaper and (arguably) better substitute exists, the more expensive and worse product is obsolete. Not in the sense that it is useless, but because it doesn't make sense to buy it.

Y'know, some people might actually just like the look better.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh. Don't interrupt "Gw Is BaD bEcAuSe Gw Is BaD!!!1!!@!!!!" in action or else you'll REALLY get that poster going...

Cognitive dissonance hurts, eh? But yes, strawmaning helps with this feeling.

Of course somebody may like this better. I was specifically presenting my own opinion and answering this:

jullevi wrote:

Cyel wrote:
These terain pieces were pretty cool when released, agreed.

Now, in the age of 3D printing they are obsolete as far as my needs are concerned.

Maybe, just maybe, if they are really cheap, but I doubt it.

If you are not planning to purchase them, you are not the target audience. Fortified Manor and Arcane Ruins have been pretty sought after and sold for silly prices since they were discontinued - that is a good enough reason to rerelease them even if cheaper and/or better looking alternatives exist.

Underlined in case someone is still not very good at reading.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I am have indulged in a bit of mockery of current internet controversy.

Trying to be funny? On the internet?? Straight to jail for you Kid!

I can see the appeal for the terrain, they're big pieces. Even the best FDM print will have visible layer lines, and resin has issues with larger pieces warping.

The price point is identical to its original release with inflation factored in which is very welcome.

Looking forward to the skullvane manse and ruined tower too.

Cyel wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:


How the hell can generic battlefield terrain be obsolete?

If a (much) cheaper and (arguably) better substitute exists, the more expensive and worse product is obsolete. Not in the sense that it is useless, but because it doesn't make sense to buy it.

Y'know, some people might actually just like the look better.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh. Don't interrupt "Gw Is BaD bEcAuSe Gw Is BaD!!!1!!@!!!!" in action or else you'll REALLY get that poster going...

Cognitive dissonance hurts, eh? But yes, strawmaning helps with this feeling.

Of course somebody may like this better. I was specifically presenting my own opinion and answering this:

jullevi wrote:

Cyel wrote:
These terain pieces were pretty cool when released, agreed.

Now, in the age of 3D printing they are obsolete as far as my needs are concerned.

Maybe, just maybe, if they are really cheap, but I doubt it.

If you are not planning to purchase them, you are not the target audience. Fortified Manor and Arcane Ruins have been pretty sought after and sold for silly prices since they were discontinued - that is a good enough reason to rerelease them even if cheaper and/or better looking alternatives exist.

Underlined in case someone is still not very good at reading.

...



See?




Now, just for YOUR cognitive dissonance: BETTER AND CHEAPER ALTERNATIVES EXIST FOR LITERALLY EVERYTHING GW PRODUCES. Yet people still buy it. Why? Because they like it. It's the only explanation why the Spice Girls went platinum while better musicians failed to crack the top 100.


Preference is a thing. Underlined in case someone is still not very good at reading comprehension.

problem is, you won't find any plastic set that is cheaper than the Manor

unless you have your own printer, cheaper is not a thing (and there we just ignore the cost of the printer)

Cyel wrote:
Underlined in case someone is still not very good at reading.

The problem isn't reading comprehension - it's conflating personal opinion with objective fact.

Also, under £60 from Element is a very tasty price.

But I’m holding off for now. Still got plenty to paint, and moving house in the next year or so to what should be a forever home. So not the time to be buying and assembling large bits of scenery.

scarletsquig wrote:
I can see the appeal for the terrain, they're big pieces. Even the best FDM print will have visible layer lines, and resin has issues with larger pieces warping.

The price point is identical to its original release with inflation factored in which is very welcome.

Looking forward to the skullvane manse and ruined tower too.

The skullvane manse coming back would be cause for fanfare indeed. It is insanely expensive on the secondhand market and just about everyone in the hobby who doesn't have it wants it.

The cemetery of Morr would also generate a lot of hype I think, even if it hasn't been out of print for as long. I wish I bought another box while I had the chance for Vampire Counts unit fillers.

Skullvane mance was to big, over the top silly and just really bad taste when it first came out.
I got mine when they re-released it the first time, it was still cringe, and pretty bad design, but could almost bring some grounded sense of classic fantasy to the flimsy setting of AoS.

These days, it feels like a classic, and Im glad to have it. Great piece of scenery

 Fayric wrote:
Skullvane mance was to big, over the top silly and just really bad taste when it first came out.

It would actually be less weird to plop Castle Greyskull on the table than the Manse.

*gassssssssssp*

Hush your collective gums!

Despite a dodgy batch of plastic glue* knackering my Skullvand Manse? There is no more Warhammer Warhammer Scenery.

It is peak Warhammer. Therefore my opinion am fact and thus you are wrong.

*also wrecked a bunch of Necrons. Instead of doing its job, it sort of crystallised, but also penetrated the plastic and so went deep. I was less happy than a very unhappy thing indeed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
*gassssssssssp*

Hush your collective gums!

Despite a dodgy batch of plastic glue* knackering my Skullvand Manse? There is no more Warhammer Warhammer Scenery.

It is peak Warhammer. Therefore my opinion am fact and thus you are wrong.

*also wrecked a bunch of Necrons. Instead of doing its job, it sort of crystallised, but also penetrated the plastic and so went deep. I was less happy than a very unhappy thing indeed.

It would look fine teetering on the edge of a storm-wracked cliff, but not in the middle of a WFB table, IMHO.

Opinion fact. You wrong.

Probably. It’s not like I can be factual about this stance 🤣🤣

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Opinion fact. You wrong.

Probably. It’s not like I can be factual about this stance 🤣🤣

No, i can attest that you are 100% right. It is by far the most warhammery warhammer terrain. I absolutely love it. Bought it when it came out innn.....2011 i want to say?

I however managed to use the correct kind of super glue and have been using it on pretty much all my gaming tables ever since!

I wonder what the venn diagram of people who love the skull are manse vs people who hate TWW Kislev looks like. It would either reveal a lot of hypocrisy or indicate a rigid segmentation amongst the community