Jump to content

Greybeard86

Members
  • Posts

    654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Greybeard86

  1. The hobgoblin rider tribes just happen to wear fur hats and use terms like khan? I mean cmon, we all know that back in the day GW was “inspired” by both fantasy tropes and somehow inappropriate caricatures of the different real cultures around the globe. The warhammer universes were mostly a parody of the real world and nerd culture, and they leaned heavily on it. they wanted you to recognize the source material, I guess they were not so concerned about copyrights back then (specially given how liberally they borrowed). For me, what makes it a little more ok is that they also were quite brutal with their own culture. This was more obvious in 40k, with the whole repressive state, but I believe that few cultures were unscathed in fantasy (who are the good guys exactly?). Insofar as they are a tad more sensitive moving forward while still leaning on the absurd (and no good guys!), personally im fine with TOW. But no good and bad guys, please. Make the “good” pretty bad and the “bad” have their moments.
  2. Ever since we go the first teaser with Skaeth’s, I have been excited as the prospect of kurnothi. I admit I am not always a fan of the over the top designs in AoS. However, I think they nailed it with those early kurnothi. If the faction manages to keep that vibe across a larger selection on models, it could be glorious!
  3. Chorfs vs Kurnothi would be epic. Nature vs industrialism, both in their savage versions.
  4. I think we "consumers" also got this impression. It might be generational, but I much prefer it. Absolutely, I guess I resent this a bit less. Perhaps you might even come back if that is the case? I think the Kurnothi seed from your Dark Harvest needs you to develop (and then hopefully bring models).
  5. I find this a bit surprising. Same as your other comments on writing to support models. What built GW's most "iconic" set up, 40k, was not "novels for models" in the strict sense that you describe. Yes, they started by creating a setting and a game to sell more miniatures. However, what contributed more to the setting, Eisenhorn's collections or some random short story to support new models? In following Eisenhorn (or Gotrek), the reader is placed in many different contexts of the setting, most of which do not have a direct correspondence on the shelf. It does, however, contribute to world building and this is what reels in the reader/player/buyer (at least in my case). My impression is that the sort of subordination of art and prose to models you describe is a newer phenomenon. Very much like the case of new codexes / army books having a smaller ratio of illustrations to pictures of models. I bought the black templars limited edition codex and the only memorable part of it is the cover. Which is simply a re-printing the original illustrations by JBlanche. All this to say that I believe that GW's obsession of only doing things to boost sales (e.g. old white dwarf vs new white dwarf, attitudes on conversions, or whatever warhammer community is) is simply eroding at the capital their franchise had build over time. I certainly don't find most of AoS's lore interesting and much of what you and others have said about here is, IMO, spot on. Losening the grip on writers and detangling a bit more novels from models might lessen initially whatever "conversion metrics" they are considering, but could prove a smarter long term investment.
  6. No kurnothi No chorf centaurs (not counting that thingy as one)
  7. I think quite a few of us were missing exactly "mortals" in the "mortal realms". Because when everything is over the top, the lack of contrast removes the excitement. So I applaud the move to give simple mortals more of a role. That said, I am also concerned about the fate of CoS, as it seems that crusades might be invading its design space. Frankly, the slow bleeding of CoS is very painful to watch, I can imagine it will only get worse now. At the end of the day, it seems that GW is going with TOW as a home for old sculpts (though when?), so they might feel "safer" squatting (wait, do we have to retire this term now?) CoS. That'd be the nicer way to look at it.
  8. Yes! They teased us with Skaeth's wild hunt to then leave us hanging for years... 😭
  9. I really like that zombie dragon. I am new to this whole new world of 3d printed stuff. I am a bit like a kid in a candy store: there are so many alternatives that look very nice. However, there are many sources (etsy, myminifactory), with some printing (others do not); it is all a bit confusing at the moment. Furthermore, sometimes I have a bit of trouble with scales, though they often seem to report them. I was also surprised to see that some of the mass produced plastic alternatives are catching up a bit. That said, I still think it is in unique "centerpiece" options that one can find the most appealing alternative sculpts. Thanks, folks, keep them coming!
  10. This, so much. I picked warbands as nice additions to spice up my armies, and to try painting new things for cheap. If you wanted to try whether you'll like painting a new army, few options (if any) could beat a warband.
  11. Underworlds warbands have been a good source of proxies for the main game. They are commonly used as "fancier" champions or heroes (or simply scavenged for bits). In addition, they were cheaper than existing options (such as the massively overpriced foot heroes). This got me thinking about proxies in AoS and how, in my opinion, can add a lot of character to an army and the battlefield in general. I know that GW is determined to keep the table top GW(TM) only, but this is our game so I am not playing it by those rules. So, in that vein, what are good sources of proxies? What are alternative sculpts (both GW and not) that you have used in your armies and/or games? Let me get the ball rolling with some of the sculpts that I found and really like for AoS (and are not GW): Alternative dragons: https://karolrudykart.com/index.php?id=offer&kat=19#odnosnik Alternative gargants: https://www.darkswordminiatures.com/shop/forest-giant/ Alternative dwarves: https://avatars-of-war.com/sh/es/97-regimientos-en-plastico Alternative saurtus knights https://www.lostkingdomminiatures.com/en/saurian-ancients-cuetzpal/94-146-ezocamatl-knights.html#/26-supports-pre_supported
  12. GW would probably love to rotate all of its inventory regularly, as I bet that the sales boost it would fuel would compensate for the costs of development. In fact, it is my understanding that AoS was designed to be a large scale version of underworlds, with small armies rotated out every few years. The fact that many small ranges have received little to no love over the years seems to corroborate this. They probably never intended for them to stick around so long, hence the lack of planned releases. AoS seems to have moved away from this with releases like lumineth, which I really like (the business model, not the actual models, which I do not like :P). In this particular instance, I think that for us, consumers, this is probably a net loss. Those sculpts can be used nicely in a variety of roles and tend to be more interesting (and cheaper) than the main range counterparts. That said, as long as we don't let FOMO best our impulse-control, we'll probably be fine as this means a stream of fresh releases.
  13. This. The only reason why so many turn to domestic 3d printing is that while it is vastly more costly than GW's process, GW is pricing it so high above cost that it still makes it wortwhile. I do not know much about the tech for commercial 3d printing, but my guess is that it is still well behind GW's tech. Ultimately, whether 3d printing eventually cuts into GW's pockets is unclear, in my opinion. If it becomes cheaper (even if it is still professional / commercial printing, not domestic), it might end up fuelling a more fragmented industry of highly detailed miniatures by multiple smaller design companies printed by pro-services. To me, that's the ideal scenario. GW would need to compete with cheaper minis and lower prices, given that quality-wise some are already on par with them. Domestic 3d printing might get more followers, but I find it extremely hard to believe that it will replace proper mass production processes any time soon. Some might knit their scarves, but most won't.
  14. Domestic 3d printing is still very inefficient from an industrial perspective compared to mass produced plastic, afaik. An important component of why it is even a thing is because mass plastic is sold at way above cost. This means that every person printing home (as opposed to buying mass produced) is effectively a waste. Shops with pro-grade printers are probably a bit better (don’t know the tech well), but still likely producing at fair greater costs than GW. The printing revolution might evolve to more efficient processes, but this is unlikely to happen with domestic printers. There is a reason why we moved from home economies to market economies and it very much applies to miniatures too. All that to say that from an economist’s perspective this is a crazy thing. The equivalent of people knitting their own sweaters (taking far longer than needed) because Zara dominates the market and sets crazy prices. We live in crazy land and GW’s marketing machinery is so powerful than most don’t even notice it.
  15. Spam does affect 40k too. Less than AoS but you do see skewed army compositions. In fairness, i think AoS has always been designed to be more wacky and play what you like to an extreme. Skewed lists are encouraged in the ads run in warcom. Factions were designed with very few options and the whole conditional battle line thingy. Frankyl, as an older Wargamer, I prefer balanced armies that represent the lore. I know it is unfair but every time I see an all whatever army I think it is some rubbish luuulwot lelel kinda thing. I know it isn’t necessarily the case and that it is a matter of preference, but it feels cheap and bland.
  16. It depends on the goals. Do you want to be another "GW"? Then, sure, the combination of rules/models/lore is a killer. But if anything, the experience with GW has taught us that (big surprise) excessively dominant companies entrench and this results in lower value for the consumer (higher prices, stiffled innovation). I'd prefer to have more companies focused on making models, now that production technologies are becoming more widely available. Some of the sculpts in Etsy's are stunning and can perfectly well sub in for many "units" across systems. While I love some of the "lore", I believe in using "assets" from a variety of games to personalize my armies. Finally, I do not believe that GW has great rules and I do think that they suffer from being excessively tied to models. Some of the work out there is pretty innovative, I don't see why we couldn't learn from it and use it in our games.
  17. I don't think we should aim to fight fire with fire (bring in another behemoth). GW does not need to be met in all 4 dimensions at the same time (lore, miniatures, rules, community), we just need to open up some of them. Are GW models too pricey? What is stopping you from buying one of the many giant / gargant alternatives out there then. Do you despise the codex / army book creep and think that other systems do it better? Use one page rules, KoW, 9th age or whatever. Some of them are a bit more cumbersome (learning new sets of rules for every community is a bit harder), but others are much easier (buy that Etsy's gargant). That is why I insist so much on the tourney and 3rd party kits bit. How on earth have we become so brainwashed that we let companies dictate how we play with our toy soldiers? I understand that GW's machinery is powerful, with their WYSIWYG nonsense and control over tourney hosts and popular venues (everyone wants GW's sponsorhip, from the battle report channel to the commission artist). But I still think we can do better. IMHO, the high prices are, to a large extent, our own fault.
  18. I do not disagree that competition is needed, I constantly say it. But I truly don’t agree with the statement that GW’s rules are what attracts people to GW. The MTG example you bring up is quite pertinent. Copies of cards are easy to make, the card itself has little value added. The reason why there isn’t an explosion of proxy cards is because MTG tournies are largely organized by entities that are strongly connected to Hasbro in a comercial sense. Would it be “ilegal” to play warhammer with cardboard cutouts and borrowed rules books? Not at all. How about a tournament like that? Still not illegal. How about now I use one of the many elf mages sold by other companies to stand in for teclis? Nothing ilegal about it. How we play the game or represent the lore on the table top is completely outside of the legal control by GW. What the company does well is integrating lore, miniatures and game in a tight coordinated package. The write lore to support their game system and rules to encourage using their miniatures (as well as using stores with vested interests to guarantee it). Many other companies have tighter rules, comparable or superior sculpts. There are very nice fantasy and sci if universes out there. But tying it all together so closely is rare. STar wars does not produce movies to sell models for their miniature games, but GW does. This, by design, channels people into using the GW package, and not just bits of it (lore, miniatures, rules). It is in GW s interest for us to do that, but they can’t truly force us in a legal sense. So they just create the illusion of it by controlling the tourney scene (recent itc move), sponsoring a certain way of playing (YouTubers, online sites), dictating rules in stores. That makes it look like this is the way to play warhammer. Then, they turn around and use this as a form of market power to price things at far above competitive prices. It is hard for other companies to crack that nut. Existing popular universes might generate miniature games to some success, but it is unlikely they will start tailoring the novels / movies or whatever to the miniatures. Better miniature systems often lack the wealth of background lore. To be fair, GW universes were pretty bare bones to begin with, they just didn’t have to compete with an existing GW at the time and were free to borrow massively from existing universes with no regards given to IP. That is why I think that, realistically, competition will come from disentangling the rules / lore / miniatures combo. A world where players shop around more freely for the best universe / miniatures / rules in separation is one where competition is far more likely to flourish. The funny part is that this only depends on us, the players. Nothing is truly stopping us from doing that and I know of people who do it. But of course the visibl3 “official” narrative is set to make it look out of place, purely because of comercial interests.
  19. I think this could be considered a tone-deaf comment, given the thread There are many things here worth unpacking. First, what we do with our miniatures is not something the company can or should try to control, as long as it is within our legal right (which extends far). For example, I imagine some people use GW's minis in DnD games (as using minis in DnD sessions seems to be popular now, it wasn't in my era). Can you imagine if WOTC said that only certain brands could be used for that? There is no legal basis for attempting to control how we play warhammer, but certainly GW is pushing (and succeeding) to get non-GW products out of tournament tables (not everywhere, not all the time). Second, intellectual property. There is a fine line and it is not about being a "rebel". However, ultimately, one might want to consider exactly why we have intellectual property laws, whether that applies here, and to which extent GW can stop others from producing their own version of the miniatures inspired by GW's lore. It certainly did not stop GW from ripping off fantasy and sci fi ideas early on. And some argue it is the basis for their transition to the wackier AoS races (how on earth can someone pretend to copyright medieval knights chasing the grail or mummy kings). Note, however, that a lot in AoS is actually derivative of what we had in WHFB, or outright the same (lizardmen, orks, elves). I think that, for this part, it would help to have others bring their experience. If I read a dragonlance book, like it, and start sculpting and selling dragonlance inspired miniatures, can I be sued by WOTC? Obviously the answer is yes if I pretend that my minis are from another company's lines (e.g. recasts). But otherwise, is it forbidden? How does this change with concepts used in multiple franchises, such as elves?
  20. I am not sure I understand the point. Is it that by being "well off" prices don't matter as much to you? Or that no one can force you to buy sculpts you do not like? As for 3rd party sculpts "cannibalizing someone else's intellectual property", that is pretty much what GW did to grow. Every single science-fantasy or medieval-fantasy idea they included was recycled from existing tropes, in a more or less thinly disguised way (aliens - tyranid, ork - orcs, and so on). The universe eventually grew to have its own identity but if others had been as trigger happy with copyrights we wouldn't have had warhammer at all. Same for many of the Tolkien-inspired franchises that resulted in dragonlance, forgotten realms and many other universes. Our rules with our miniatures is strictly a sales ploy and I don't see why we should support it. It is THEIR bottom line, not ours.
  21. @Noserenda There are plenty of very nice centerpieces, but they are resin based mostly AFAIK. Take a look at top miniatures in the minipainting subreddit. I can find dragons, demons and amazing monsters that are at the same level as GW (I posted an example below In any case, all I am saying is that I welcome the massive etsy & related competition that is coming. 3d printers are not as good as the current mass production GW is capable of (they cost more, take longer, it is simply not comparable tech atm). But they are good enough that, coupled with GW's insane market power fueled prices, they can put up a fight. Now we just need to kill the reticence to accept 3rd party kits in tournaments. It is the last holdout for GW, honestly. Plenty of groups / clubs already accept them, but the idea that you won't be able to travel with them (to tournies and some stores) still hurts adoption, I want GW to have to compete with these fantastic outside options. Sometimes, I choose GW. Other times, I don't want to pay more for something that is, IMO, inferior. That is the ideal scenario for the hobby.
  22. This is simply not true. What GW has done well is to create, over the years and borrowing a lot from others, a quirky distinct setting for both 40k and fantasy. The kits were never the best ever at a technical level and they are certainly not the best now. Plenty of examples around here, the tau one is the most obvious. But Harlequin had comparable minis in the metal era (for example, for dwarves) and now with 3d printing I can find lizardmen that are superior to GW's sculpts. It was the story that set them aside, from then on it is a lot of marketing. Prices do not reflect costs alone (no matter how many people keep saying stuff about development costs and what not), they are very much a result of market power. Personally, I encourage those who can find better minis in other ranges to proxy them. I'll happily play against better brets, empire/guild, or even gargants. GW should be a choice because they are better value, not because they bully everyone into their product (tournies) or they are just the loudest (more marketing).
  23. Not surprising! It happened to a lot of us. To their credit, my parents tried to get me interested in 3rd party minis. But as a kid, I just saw them as poor substitutes. What I do not understand is how now, with plenty of adults in the hobby (at argue that more than ever), we still fall for the same BS. Then we turn around and complain that we are being charged too much. Well of course! A company that faces little competition will generally use that market power to raise prices. No, that is not good for the hobby. No, we don't need profit record GW to have a hobby.
  24. Well, yes, because it is that choice that results in the prices we are complaining about.
  25. Kids are very vulnerable to marketing and "hype" because they aren't fully developed. What is our excuse? Because I see this enforced in tournies all the time. They most certainly do not, beyond the mind tricks from marketing. Maybe building up defenses as kids would have been good.
×
×
  • Create New...