The life expectancy of a model/range...

[Overread]

What orks need is to bring back the Rock n Roll and Metal of Fantasy into AoS Help it get it back to its roots nestled in the power of the 80s whilst being mixed with the epic magic of modern day fantasy! 

 

Seriously the land of fire is like playing in the world from Double Fine's "Brutal Legend" game. Orks fully embody that and I think can carry it forward easily; perhaps losing a little of their jovial side along the way, but not all of it. I think orks can do it if they are a touch more serious. This might mean that we start to see things like female orks and goblins as they are fleshed out and made more than just spores that sort of just do stuff. 

[amysrevenge]

I think with Destruction they are actually taking baby-steps down the right track, and just need to spend some narrative resources on it.  The Narrative through-line in the Path to Glory supplement (with the Boneplitters boss) is pretty great, and we saw him again in Malign Portents.  And it's subtly different from the humourous "let's crump our way across the Old World" style from the 90s.  It's still funny, but not in that turned up to eleven 4th-wall-breaking way that Orcs of the past were (and 40k Orks still are).

There's plenty of narrative space for a realm-hopping Waaagh! where the right boss could start rolling up everyone all at once.

[paul7926]

3 minutes ago, JPjr said:

Yeah, funnily enough my 2nd question of the day that I never got round to posting was pretty much all this. I just thought no one needs a double dose of my nonsense in one day but essentially it was...

 

At the moment, of the 4 factions, Destruction seems to be the poor relation and you can't throw a stick in this forum without hitting someone grumbling about how hard done by they are.  Now do we think the relative lack of love, perceived or otherwise, is just a matter of scheduling and their time will come or is it symptomatic of a bigger problem with Destruction finding its place in AoS? 

It feels like the forces of Order, Chaos & Death (and their sub-factions) now all have very clear-cut objectives, motivations and goals that helps drive the wider narrative forward, puts them central to the story and helps define their place in the mortal realms. 

Whereas the various Destruction forces feel like they  haven't really found their role yet and certainly Orks are still stuck in the same comedy, football hooligan turned up to 11 mode they have been in since the 80s, which with Chaos as the big bad essentially from mid 3rd edition on has kind of relegated them to the side.

With the 'World That Was' as it was at least a vaguely recognisable planet with countries and the like you could at least create a story for them, endless battles for territory in the mountains and caves with Dwarves etc.

One problem, as I see it, is the shift to high fantasy with AoS has also made it more about philosophical battles (and yes I know this is an incredibly pseud's corner thing to say about plastic model fighting each other), ORDER vs. CHAOS, yes that conflict was always there in the old world but it was more grounded, whereas here it is actual gods playing with armies like they're toys to advance their belief systems.

DEATH has it's own take on this, with Nagash attempting to create a sterile form of order where 'All is Nagash, and Nagash is All' which gives them some flavour. But how does 'DESTRUCTION' fit into this, without just being CHAOS without the weird stuff. 

Certainly there seems to be very little, if any, substantial fiction dealing with them (and I can imagine writing 300 pages of Ork speak to be even less fun than reading it) but is that holding them back? Narratively I'd say yes of course but how much influence does that actually have on the game side of things (battle tomes, new models etc)? Personally I assume fairly little but it would at least give a new lease of life.

Do they need some kind of big event, some necroquake style shenanigans to give them more purpose other than smash stuff, eat stuff and repeat. Or is that their sole purpose and in terms of the actual lore they'll always be a side-show to the main event now, so just wait patiently for a battletome to drop?

Or do Orcs and Goblins as a kind of comedy relief not make sense anymore, I love their ramshackle craziness but you could swap out any bit of orc fluff from 1988 with today and I dont think it would show, there's been no evolution and maybe that's holding them back.

 

In game terms there is nothing stopping GW making more models and battletomes.  In reality if they do that then all destruction forces start to feel the same but with different models to represent them.  I've read people moaning that Beasts of Chaos are just newer better Ironjawz and Ironjawz are just newer better Orcs.  It's because they are all just "we fight coz we like it" clones with different skins.

In my opinion Orcs absolutely must shed the "football hooligan in clown clothes" image they gained in the 80's and become more purposeful and serious.  I mean you could take them in several directions.  Just off the top of my head...  They could become the "violent organised crime" faction.  Perhaps for some reason Chaos in any form can't taint them or use them so they gain influence and power by grabbing and transporting slaves (or magical artefacts or whatever) and selling them to the highest bidder transporting them from realm to realm. (same works for Nagash & Stormcast as in the lore Chaos, Death and Stormcast seem to mostly be about humans not the other races).  When a superpower wants something but doesn't want the world knowing it was them, use the Orcs.  They could become the "proud savages" who have genuine lore and belief systems that are being assaulted by the infux of Chaos and the Stormcast and are fighting to preserve their way of life and the conservation of the worlds as they know them.  Almost anything would be better than being the comedy relief who just get to have the straight guys throw mud in their faces for a laugh when there is quiet part in the main story. 

[Luke82]

Putting such a change on Orcs would be akin to squatting them. Anyone who has an Orc army is already going to be keen on the lore as it is so changing it would be a bit of a kick in the ghoulies for an already neglected player base.

I like this view of Orcs;

http://theleadpile.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-campaign-for-real-orcs.html?m=1

If they must have some story progression then some sort of great waaaaagh under an infamous boss a would be better than any great change in my opinion.

 

 

[paul7926]

3 minutes ago, Luke82 said:

Putting such a change on Orcs would be akin to squatting them. Anyone who has an Orc army is already going to be keen on the lore as it is so changing it would be a bit of a kick in the ghoulies for an already neglected player base.

I like this view of Orcs;

http://theleadpile.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-campaign-for-real-orcs.html?m=1

If they must have some story progression then some sort of great waaaaagh under an infamous boss a would be better than any great change in my opinion.

 

 

The great Waaaagh is the more traditional route to go and is a perfectly viable one if done correctly.  

I disagree a little with your assumption that Orc players like the current lore for two reasons.  I don't really think there is any current lore and secondly I play (and love Orcs) more because it's a fantasy setting and I don't want to be playing a human army rather than actually liking the Comedy and Random direction that they have taken over the years.  However those are personal reasons so I'm happy to be wrong about them if there is a large player base that likes where they are at the moment.  

I don't want to take away something that others hold dear, I just wish there was more to, what certainly feels to me like, an entire Grand Alliance that has no real identity or purpose.

[Luke82]

I certainly agree that there’s a real lack of Big Narrative for the Destruction factions at the moment, I guess for me it doesn’t matter all that much... I’ve always preferred a smaller scale to my lore as I find it easier to match it with what I see on the table, the big stories never really interest me all that much as I can’t put my head around Nagash leading around 40 odd minions as an army!

As you say it will always boil down to personal preferences, i quite like my Orcs being thuggish bullies but that is probably because I always view them through the lense of the Old World.

5 minutes ago, paul7926 said:

The great Waaaagh is the more traditional route to go and is a perfectly viable one if done correctly.  

I disagree a little with your assumption that Orc players like the current lore for two reasons.  I don't really think there is any current lore and secondly I play (and love Orcs) more because it's a fantasy setting and I don't want to be playing a human army rather than actually liking the Comedy and Random direction that they have taken over the years.  However those are personal reasons so I'm happy to be wrong about them if there is a large player base that likes where they are at the moment.  

I don't want to take away something that others hold dear, I just wish there was more to, what certainly feels to me like, an entire Grand Alliance that has no real identity or purpose.

 

[Greyshadow]

15 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Personally, I believe that all models for a given system that were released as part of an army should be given rules pretty much in perpetuity. ...the fact that models themselves last forever and become little works of art for those who paint them, I just don't accept them leaving the system.

I was go to say something different but when I read this... I think the status quo is pretty close to this. The compendiums allow me to field my collection of out of production models and I intend to do so. Don't care that they aren't going to be game breaking.

Having this support means that any new player can feel confident that when they buy a new box set they will always be able to use it and that is important.

[Kyriakin]

Some people like "we like to fight for the lulz" armies, while others prefer armies with more complex aims and methods.

I would suppose the people who have loved the bish-bosh Orc-type vibe for decades will continue to do so, and those that prefer the political intrigues of Aelven or human societies can simply choose not to do an Orc, Ogre, Beastmen, FEC (etc.) army, rather than trying to make every faction fit their narrow perception of what is "right"

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Greyshadow said:

I was go to say something different but when I read this... I think the status quo is pretty close to this. The compendiums allow me to field my collection of out of production models and I intend to do so. Don't care that they aren't going to be game breaking.

Having this support means that any new player can feel confident that when they buy a new box set they will always be able to use it and that is important.

I would like to agree, but there is an undercurrent of hostility toward the armies in the compendium, even in this friendly community.

That's why I mentioned that GW needs to be more clear that older and out of production models and armies should be acceptable to all, in all circumstances.

We should never, ever, be given the stink eye for trying to play at home or in an event with (for example) Tomb Kings.

[Bufkin]

Yes bring back tournament rules for:

Zoats
Fimir
Ninjas and samurais
Pygmis
Norse vikings
and so on....   

 

[Sharkbelly]

And Dogs of War!

[Sleboda]

Pygmies* became skinks. Slann (Jaguar Warriors, etc.) became Saurus.  Troglodons became Kroxigore. 

Basically, the 2nd/3rd ed Slann army and their loboromized slaves and pygmies got sanitized and turned into the Lizardmen army.

 

Norse became Chaos Marauders.

Zoats and Fimir are still around from FW, aren't they?

Cathay and Nippon mercenaries are easily still useful as free peoples.

 

 

* The less said of the pygmies and other similar ideas of the time the better.  Some of those things (including several unreleased units) would be company killers in today's cultural climate. GW has a, um, ahem 'colorful' past when it comes to some ideas they thought were just tongue-in-cheek fun.  

[JPjr]

4 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Zoats and Fimir are still around from FW, aren't they?

Fimir are, but no Zoats sadly.

& God I was desperate for a Cathay/Nippon army in ye olden days. So cruel the way that every now and then they'd just release some random models, ninjas, temple dogs or rocket crews & the like and then nothing.

I'm sure I read somewhere that right back in something like 2nd or 3rd edition there was a whole sourcebook planned that never came out for some reason.

14 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

The less said of the pygmies and other similar ideas of the time the better.

Indeed, you see some people come out with some ludicrous stuff trying to re-litigate those models. Never a good look. 

[Hollow]

I think it is just a matter of time. It wasn't long ago that if you came on here you would hear the moaning and groaning of Zombies (Death faction) about how they were falling behind the other Grand Alliances. Now they have received a much needed shot in the arm, I think we will see some cool things lore-wise happening for Destruction, although as others have mentioned, I quite like the fact that Destruction doesn't have some grandiose plan. I quite like having 'Henchmen' style baddies to go up against. 

[AGPO]

To be honest, after several decades in the hobby collecting most armies, I can count on one hand the number of times one of my armies lost support, and can't think of a single one where it became actually unplayable. I've played Tomb Kings, Brets and Chaos Dwarfs down the years and still do. The rules are still there and if they're ever not there's always counts as. Most models I've owned just get phased out of regular action when they look to dated or aren't up to my current painting standards. Some of Jez Gooodwin's 80s sculpts still look great amongst my Chaos army.

What is a far more frequent problem is other gamers. People have a go at people because they haven't shelled out the time and money to move their hundred odd grots from squares to rounds, or refusing to play because  their plaguebearers are on the 25mm bases they came with as opposed to the "official" 32mms even though GW have said repeatedly retro bases are fine. I've seen players tell newbies their prized new units suck in the current meta and they should buy the new hotness instead. Narrative players get stroppy if someone who painted their minis as one Stormhost before there were any rules wants to try out another one even if they're in the wrong colourscheme.

If anyone in Paris ever wants to try a Legends game or see how their Bretonians or Tomb Kings fare in 2.0 I'm more than game.

[Overread]

Base size changes were always going to be a messy transition - right now we are in what I'd consider the middle ground; ergo the really messy period where there's lots of classic and even square bases and lots of changes still coming out. I think give it a few years and the base size changes will end form GW's end and then steadily more and more will adapt to the new sizes so that in 5 or more years it won't be an issue unless you're buying on ebay or returning after decades away. 

Competitive games will certainly push base sizes to be current standard (because it does affect gameplay and balance); whilst GW will just dodge the issue by not committing (which is sort of fair because GW isn't actually running any major competitive events)

[Sleboda]

23 hours ago, AGPO said:

. I've seen players tell newbies their prized new units suck in the current meta and they should buy the new hotness instead.

This is just so awful for two reasons.

1. No new gamer should ever be told that they thing they like (they bought it, so they must like it) suck.

2. No gamer, ever, should be exposed to the word "meta" used in this inaccurate way, especially new gamers.

 

I feel really bad for new players who are judged and taught to misuse language because it's trendy.

[Jetengine]

I feel it has to be measured.

Why do you want to play ? To win or to have fun? Even then there are some forces I'd suggest avoiding since their no fun and you never win.

I mean if your competetive then you'd get no joy out of Gitmob for example but if your into the narrative then enjoy your tiny green horde etc.

[AGPO]

The trouble with rebasing is that it's not limited to the move from squares to rounds and it's motivated by aesthetics for new models rather than gameplay. My flesh hounds have 'officially been on 25x50 rectangles, 40mm rounds, cylinder bike bases, 50mm rounds, 60mm ovals and potentially now 72mm ovals if these new minis are as big as some are saying. Likewise ungors went from 20mm squares, to 25mm, back to 20mm and are now on rounds. I'm now at the point where I'm refusing to rebase except for personal aesthetics because its sunk too much hobby time and funds I'd rather spend on painting new minis.

[BobbyB]

19 hours ago, Sleboda said:

This is just so awful for two reasons.

1. No new gamer should ever be told that they thing they like (they bought it, so they must like it) suck.

2. No gamer, ever, should be exposed to the word "meta" used in this inaccurate way, especially new gamers.

 

I feel really bad for new players who are judged and taught to misuse language because it's trendy.

I've seen you saying this several times, and have to assume it arises from a misunderstanding of the origins of the term meta.  It refers, correctly IMO, to the game within, or in reference to the actual game of age of sigmar (or whatever).   The meta game in this sense is the game of trying to predict how others will play the game (eg what lists they will use, what units will be common in this instance) and gain an advantage at this stage.

Yes people sound annoying when they use it, but are the using it incorrectly? I don't think so. Also language is fluid and it's quite clear what people mean when they use it in this sense so probably not worth working yourself up over?

[Sleboda]

In fairness, it's a language evolution sort of thing. Like how if something is used incorrectly enough times, we just sort of accept it into the language with a new meaning. It's wrong according to the actually, original usage, but, in a way, we just give up the fight to be right and accept the mass misuse as being right.

Think of words like hysterical. 

I'm just an old "get off my lawn" sort of guy when it comes to language.

The thing that annoys me about this one is that there is a perfectly good phrase that covers the situation without having to misappropriate a word. Just say "play environment" or even just "environment" and your fine!  You could even just say "popular" or "trends" and be fine. 

[amysrevenge]

There's the "usage drives language" thing for sure, but the term "metagaming" was invented out of whole cloth (as far as I know) for RPGs, especially D&D, literally decades ago.  It was invented as a way to describe players using out-of-game knowledge to affect their in-game choices.  Things like noticing the DM writing an initiative list with 2 more bad guys on it that you are aware of, and so preparing for additional combatants that the characters wouldn't know about.  Or playing a standard format Organized Play adventure where you know that for time/consistency there are never more than 3 battles, so on the third battle you over-commit your resources, knowing you don't have to hold anything back in reserve for another battle.

Dropping the "gaming" from "metagaming" is a pretty normal evolution for English.  So is borrowing a word from a related field where concepts are similar.

[Sleboda]

22 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Things like noticing the DM writing an initiative list with 2 more bad guys on it that you are aware of, and so preparing for additional combatants that the characters wouldn't know about.

But that's not "meta" anything. That's just planning a strategy based on being observant. Or maybe it's cheating (fair minded players, especially in a cooperative experience like D&D, should tell the GM what they have noticed).

Point is, there was, and is, no need to invent a term.

Metadata is data about data. Metagaming should be a game about gaming.

An observation about a game is not the same as a game about the game.

Your other example is another where you can just replace the meta idea with "sensible approach" or "strategy." 

A fine point: meta is not simply short for metagaming. People refer to "the" meta, as if it's a thing. If it's a thing (as opposed to an activity, like metagaming), then "environment" is there word they are looking for, not "meta."

[Thomas Lyons]

I think the litmus test will be the Swifthawk Agents faction.  Swifthawk Agents received a bundled starter repackage back in Jan 2016 (or was it late 2016?) that was discontinued when it sold out.  Since then, it has received no support and a majority of its models are no longer available for purchase.  So, to be clear, this is an army that went from having an AOS release and even matched play points later provided for the battalion, to basically being un-purchasable 2ish years later.  Only time will tell how long it "holds on".  I think it will be a good test for the potential lifespan of any given faction.

[EccentricCircle]

"Meta" literally means "Beyond" or "After" (Quoth Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta#Original_Greek_meaning)

Thus "Meta-gaming" can be taken to read "the part of the game that takes place beyond the game itself." In RPG circles it is generally used pejoratively, since acting on out out of game knowledge is kind of cheating. However it could be argued that the work a GM puts in to prepare a scenario is also part of the "Metagame". In competitive wargaming there isn't the same focus on roleplaying your general, so its appropriate to make army composition choices based on out of game knowledge. Metagaming is thus more mainstream, and the tools for doing it ( the games metadata if you like) are more available. I could see there being some circumstances though, where it would be fun to build lists "in character" and only take units which make sense for the general to have access to in game, but that clearly isn't the typical approach.

Back on topic, I have quite the fondness for old models, and am glad that GW continues to support them in some way shape or form. Using the current rules I can quite easily field my 90's era Lizardmen army (I just have to pretend that the skink's bows are javelins, or homebrew a different attack line for them.)

My Chaos Dwarves are slightly trickier, since my full army contains "Mutually incompatible" units, so that strictly speaking there is no one edition of warhammer where they all have rules. I tend to just use a counts as approach to run the vintage models as the closest forgeworld equivalent. But the fact remains that the rules are still there, and it is possible to do it. In that sense the line is still, effectively, supported.

Given how long a typical warhammer kit is sold for I don't think its possible to estimate the actual lifetime of the line. Newer stuff will be phased in, and older stuff more gradually retired, but its rare that a line gets completely replaced. I've seen some people comment that they don't see how the plastic kits can get "better" from where they are now. Some on this forum have speculated that GW might cease to replace their newer kits, since they can't "outdo" their previous attempts. However I don't think that we are at that point yet.

Many of the older sculpts aren't actually as "bad" as a lot of people seem to think. I have rather a fondness for the resin kits, and think that much of what is considered old or outdated is just out of fashion at present. Artistic trends change, in line with a sort of cultural "metagame". Movies, comics and every other visual medium all go through an artistic cycle, so it makes sense that the cutting edge miniatures will try to match that look and feel. Whether that art style will still be popular in 20 years time remains to be seen though.

Clearly some of the older kits don't live up to the dynamism of the newer ones. Some of the new kits are clearly more impressive, but I don't think that we've in any way reached the final word in terms of their actual utility. I was building some nighthaunt recently, and thinking that while the "easy to build" kits are great, they lack the ability to easily mix and match components. Many of the models are effectively monopose, and there is no way to easily put them together in different ways.

I think that this limits conversion potential. I can kitbash things with them, since I have years of practice, and I'm sure many of the denizens of the forums can and do. I'm not so sure that 12 year old me would have been confident chopping up the models and rearranging them though. Back then I used to have great fun mixing and matching components between kits, and trying to make as many spare orks as possible out of the random bits left on the sprue. I don't think I'd have been able to do that if I'd been trying to build a modern army, and that might have put me off from more adventurous conversions down the line. I think that until they can restore that potential for intermingling to the range, they still have a way to go.

The modern minis are great as works of art, but they need to both be great art, and adaptable model kits. Thus I would imagine that there is still a lot of space yet for GW to improve on what they are currently producing.