Jump to content

Greybeard86

Members
  • Posts

    654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Greybeard86

  1. Well, the horde VS elite issue is also nasty in 40k. A first solution would be to limit the size of units. Do we really need 60 models of the same? Wouldn t sizes like 12/6/3 represent well the regiments? I mean, first thing we need to abandon is the 1 to 1 scale. A model should not be a trooper, they need to abstract from this. Smaller units are also more maneuverable, allow for more unit diversity, and look more fun on the table. Frankly, huge regiments in model count look more like a way to sell more kits than anything. Except that in the end it was just too much for anyone sensible to get into (so no need blood).
  2. I don't have a firm position on this, but this was one of the worst cases of bad faith argumentation I have seen in a long time. It is quite obvious that GW has a position of dominance (market power) in the miniatures / wargames market and that's what the poster meant.
  3. It looks like GW is getting this right. I think some people are so used to some of the more consumer "unfriendly" practices to the extent that they seemed to wanted lack of oldhammer compatibility (they have to sell minis, it is a business, it wouldn't be viable, etc.). I am glad they are accepting that some people will want to re-use minis, and then just adding re-sculpts and new models on top. So: 👌👍👍👍👍👍
  4. Is it missing, though, or just pushed to the side? Because those helmets from the conversions come current kits, great swords and demigryph knights. If I had to guess, they really like blocky only armor designs as they are, at a beginner level, just easier to paint. So it is easier to recommend as an entry point for the game (elite, easy to paint). For sure that's the case with marines, and sigmarines is a meme for a reason.
  5. Is there a reason to take Vargskyr over Blood Knights ? Aside from the thematic aspect.
  6. To me, the popularity of these types of conversions highlights the fact that there is a real demand for more "toned down" design. While I am sure some like stormcast sculpts, I know some of us are put off by the over the top design paradigm. I like some wacky stuff, otherwise I'd be playing historicals, but I like some semblance of "normality" too. Face masks or "everyone is Gelt now" has never appealed to me.
  7. I wanted to paint a GK army, but there is too much uncertainty over their future. Just because they haven't been primarized now there isn't any guarantee that it won't happen next edition.
  8. So how do you think they ll handle it? Few factions at a time? Re using kits?
  9. 4 would remove the grudge. Happy if 4. happens but they add more models and cross-compatibility with AoS. 30k is super stagnant and wouldn't want something like that.
  10. That'd be amazing. But the question is how they will expand, Is this AoS again, and old minis only "legal" until they release new stuff? Will they bring back old minis in the enterim as limited editions until they re-sculpt? It is clear that they need filler material until they can release more stuff. Cross-compatibility with some AoS units would be amazing.
  11. Apologies, I wasn't clear. I meant taking Radukar, Belladonna and the Avengori lord. I'd be excluding the dragon lords and mortarchs. I'll think about it, but I appreciate the feedback!!
  12. And without them? Something more Vykros heavy, with a concession for Avengori. I just don't like the current zombie / bonny dragon or similar based sculpts. Thanks for indulging me!
  13. Perfect, thanks! I was thinking of adding a variation to my planned Bretonnia / blood knights conversion based on wolves. My main issue is that I do not like the zombie wolves, so I'll use the fenrisian then. I assume someone has done a hero hammer + wolves list already? Belladona + radukar beast + ??? + wolves + maybe bats? I really dislike Vhordrai (as a model), so trying to avoid him.
  14. Quick question: I do not like zombie wolves, would rather get "normal but ferocious wolves". Does anyone know if the "fenrisian wolves" compare well, size wise, to soublight's new sculpts? Thanks in advance!
  15. I like “chorfs” as a term of endearment, as it sounds derpy, much like the beloved original iteration in WHFB. I am surprised anyone would think it is used to exclude anyone from the conversation. Many of us have been linking resources for those who asked. Also, nowadays, in a forum, finding most acronyms is trivial via internet search. It really isn’t like when someone gives a jargony seminar or that annoying person that constantly refers to famous people by first name. I mean, in a sense, should you complain that GW has been introducing confusing names with that cringey effort to copyright? I have to say though, something I dislike is scale creep, and the FW sculpts for chaos dwarfs are guilty of that.
  16. Don't like those orks, tbh, but I can see how they might appeal to others. The whole squig thingy doesn't doo it for me. The krieggers look too beefy for my taste. But I like that they are getting some support, both armies.
  17. Fyreslayers share a lot of design elements with the latest WHFB dwarf plastic models. It has been said that they are in fact from that era, which partially explains why they really aren't more fleshed out on AoS. I hadn't noticed that helmet in Shartor, but now it all but confirms the FS origins hypothesis.
  18. Or, apparently, that collection of FW sculpts they still sold last year for hundreds of $, a line started in 2016. I do miss proper gryphons, still hoping for centaurs and hybrids of all types: Bull + dwarf = awesome chorf. Horse + humanoid = awesome Kurnothi Horse + eagle = hippogryh Goat + humanoid = awesome Kornothi and so on. I really liked the vampire lady (I know it was hated among some).
  19. GW pre-end times. True, some armies hadn't received support or were somehow squatted, but Swedish system had rules for them: https://eefl.freeforums.net/thread/2409/swedish-comp-system-final-document This is because it was at the core of the game, in part due to GW, in part because that was the culture surrounding it. And, for many armies, several iterations of their core units coexisted without grief. Dwarves had plenty of reesculpts of the same units, so it created interested layers in collections. More recently, sisters of battle had a full release re-imagining existing sculpts. There is no shortage of example of "old GW" and the community supporting via rules old sculpts. It is a modern thing, this systematic squatting. And the community has folded into GW corporate to a large extent, with ITC merging in, and so on. We no longer have external patches to fix egregious issues.
  20. It is OK, Grungni forgives greedy dwarfs (i.e. FS and KO)...for now.
  21. I understand (in part based on your explanations, so thanks!) what is going on. I am pointing out that this is a very crummy move. You release a range of miniatures and sell it for a premium price (hundreds of dollars). You cannot turn around a few years later and say "Look guys, these sculpts cannot be played now. Turns out we released them because we had planned for them some time ago, but we never really intended for them to stay". Because that is freaking misleading! If you want to move away from a business model based on long-term support, you got to say it. We are releasing some cool sculpts but they aren't going to be supported past the next 5 years. So buy them if that's your jam. What makes it more aggravating is the possibility that then GW turns back and says: by the way, we are still planning on releasing "new chorfs", but you won't be able to field the recent sculpts because we want to sell you some others. Cheerio!
  22. I am not discussing FS, they are confirmed safe in Grungni's great cauldron of soup. This is quite likely to reflect a change in policy from GW because FS looked all but dead. I am discussing the possibility that GW might release a bunch of sculpts, sell them for hundreds of dollars (they were eye-watering expensive), then squat them in a few years. To turn around and release more sculpts in the same design/lore space. Because that is what it looks like they might want to do with chorfs. And, given release cycles, it is likely they knew all along. And that'd go in the book, big time, the great book of consumer grudges.
  23. They are being supported in a soup, that surely beats what they did to chorfs. And it is my point exactly. They are making an effort to move away from the original approach of release-collect-squat. Or so I thought. We have examples of successful releases that didn’t need to be all new!!!!?!! units. Sisters of battle sell like hot cakes and, while they are adding new units, they originally mostly ported the original pewter sculpts.
  24. Incorrect. It was a squatted army they brought back. Now it turns out they brought it back as part as some abandoned project they had years ago. They released anyway then proceeded to squat it in only a few years because it was not meant to be a mainstay army. No reservations in taking the hundreds of dollars those models costed, though. Were we supposed to guess they would release models with a very clear and close expiration date? Because next time I’d want that in print. Not acceptable. If they release a new chorf army, which is all but confirmed, they need to provide room for these sculpts within their re imagined chorfs. Or get called out of the scummy move this was.
×
×
  • Create New...