RuneBrush
-
Posts
4,619 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
34
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by RuneBrush
-
-
19 hours ago, Liquidsteel said:
The trays can be quite fiddly when it comes to removing casualties, can see Skellies being very annoying taking them off and back on multiple times a round, but for ease of speeding up movement and initial combat maybe I'll start using them again.
Skeletons can indeed be a bit of a pain in the bum. In the past I've used them to shift the unit across the board and charge. Once I get to the pile in phase I'll start taking them off the movement tray as I can get them in more densely and it makes casualties a lot easier to remove.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, GrogTheGrognard said:
Wow, just wow.
1. How does the amount of Patreon money matter for this discussion? If he was making $1 billion every month versus $10 every month would that change who's in the right and who's in the wrong? Would it change how GW is currently throttling the fan creativity like TTS or SODAZ?
2. You do realize he actually is leading a small team of animators, voices actors, and editors to make TTS right? TTS isn't free to make you have to pay a lot of people for the production work they put out. I'm not saying he's making nothing but you are taking the full $19k per month and acting like it's pure profit when it is nowhere close to that.
3. He shouldn't have to buy a GW license as TTS is clearly a parody of the 40k universe as a whole. That being said UK parody law is a joke because they literally say that the caricature, parody, or pastiche must be 'fair dealing', but there is no agreed definition of 'fair dealing'. This allows GW to sue anybody making a parody claiming it's not 'fair dealing' no matter what.
4. Maybe you should launch your own fan animation channel talking **** about GW and maybe after around EIGHT YEARS of putting out quality content you can finally make around what TTS is making currently as well.
It matters because that amount of income each month makes TTS a commercial venture and no longer something fan based - in the UK a turnover of £85k+ needs to be VAT registered so based purely on Patreon subscriptions TTS is considered a business.
Within both the US and UK fair use rules, the commerciality of created content plays a huge part on if its creation is considered fair use or not.
-
3
-
-
+++ MOD HAT +++
Back onto rumour now please folks. I've already asked to avoid the sin/bin terms and people seem to have taken that as a reason to have a discussion about it
-
2
-
8
-
-
18 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Yeah, we should really stop with the sin guy/bin guy meme. I don't think it helps us have a healthy perspective on the game.
+++ MOD HAT +++
This ^. Comes across really bad for somebody to come across talk that their army is only ready for the bin.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Honk said:
It goes against the spirit of the monster mash, but belladamma and 10 wolves would give you mobile caster support…
It's a thought! Depending on how I get on with the bits I've started, I'll see how I fancy doing this. One of the things I'm trying not to do is to over commit. I've done it in the past where I jump into a project with both feet and get bored with it half way through and a load of my planned ideas go out the window to get it finished 🤣
-
1
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Lightbox said:
@RuneBrush if you're leaning toward conversions then a unit of zombies can really provide an awful lot of conversion opportunity, you can take any sort of model/unit and zombify it by putting the limbs at awkward angles and having the heads twisted. Though it also means a lot of models to paint 😧
Also for differentiating your dragons and terrorgheists I've found replacing the rocks they stand on with bits of terrain and walls etc to be really great for them.
Cheers. My intention is zombie lite initially as I know having lots of models to convert & paint will take me forever (always far too tempting to put extra details on).
The plan is that the Terrorgheists will have some scenery added to the bases in replacement for the rocks - at least on the ones I build in the future. Big decision there is what scenery! The mausoleum works really well but has been done to death (ba-dum-tish), but I'm not convinced the sigmar themed terrain will look right. The Zombie Dragon isn't going to use the Terrorgheist kit as a base 😉
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just in case you've not spotted it, but @Overread and I are doing a "Tale of Two Moderators" challenge and I've gone for Soulblight Gravelords as my army 😁 Planning on a fairly monster heavy list, but with a few non-monster units so that I can do path to glory games without my opponent refusing to play against me!
Current list is looking like:
QuoteAllegiance: Soulblight Gravelords
- Lineage: Avengorii Dynasty
Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon (435)
- Deathlance
10 x Deathrattle Skeletons (85)
Terrorgheist (305)
Total: 825Yeah, it's not that inspiring yet 🤣 I've plans on a converted Vengorian Lord (or two!) and likely add another couple of Terrorgheist. Also have the Vargskyr and a Vampire Lord that may well be added for those lower end games. Feel free to contribute to the thread and make suggestions - not aiming for top meta but equally do want something with a bit of bite 🦇
-
1
-
-
The past few months have been slightly traumatic for two of the armies I collect for Age of Sigmar, seeing both my Legion of Nagash and Legion of Grief armies disappearing from the list of Pitched Battle options available in AoS 3. The mod challenge has given me is the perfect excuse to do something I have been wanting to attempt for some time – create a visually unique army that might stand a chance at receiving a painting nomination at an event (which has been on my hobby bucket list for a while). Posting my progress publically should keep me on the straight and narrow of getting things finished too.
One thing I've personally found useful in the past is setting a few realistic but challenging constraints, so here's my initial ones for this project
- My army needs to have a solid narrative focus and be playable as both a Path to Glory force and a Matched Play army
- It needs to be playable in a GW store and at GW events, so I need to stick to Citadel miniatures & conversions
- Lastly there needs to be a conversion or two (possibly using the Anvil of Apotheosis rules)
Deep down I knew that I had to create a Soulblight Gravelords army, not only would it ensure I continued the work of the Great Necromancer (all praise Nagash), but it also meant that I could continue painting my Cursed City miniatures and use the basing scheme I had invented for those - basing is one aspect I don't really enjoy and normally put off doing.
Composition wise, I am aiming for something monster heavy. Not only have monsters have been given some nice boost in the new edition, they're also aesthetically striking on the tabletop. Another reason is that I'm a notoriously slow painter and large models mean I can use my airbrush to speed things along. I will need to include some non-monsters unit because a path to glory force containing just a Zombie Dragon and Terrorgheist isn’t going to win me any friends! As with Overread, I've actually made a bit of a start on the models (couldn't help myself), but not done any painting yet.
My hobby desk currently contains ten Cursed City skeletons based and undercoated and a Terrorgheist assembled ready for basing. The crazy heat we've had in the UK meant that I've also started on my Zombie Dragon conversion - but more on that in a future post 😉
-
4
-
4
-
On 7/24/2021 at 7:10 PM, Soolong said:
Some of the ads I'm seeing are not really family friendly and lead to a manga site that appears to cater to a adult audience.
One tip (and I use it on my work computer) is on all Google driven ads there's a blue cross in the top right hand corner. That will generally give you a chance to send feedback on the advert for containing inappropriate content. If enough people do it, it'll prompt Google to check that the categories selected are correct for that advertiser.
-
1 hour ago, Darnok said:
Sorry for some sort of double post, but this fits so much better over here:
Only problem being... this is incorrect.
Looking for coming months that fit this scheme - i.e. 30 days, starting on a Wednesday - you end up with September 2021, June 2022, November 2023... stopping at October 2025. Not April!
While I do not believe for a second this September 23rd will be the release date, it might very well be the date of the next TOW preview - possibly including an actual release date.
June 2022 is pretty too soon in my opinion, it has one major benefit over November or October though: it is a "classical" release month. November in particular is pretty much impossible, since at that point GW has the Christmas bundle boxes up. October is not as unlikely, but would still be a bit odd. It would also be over four years away - while I am not the most optimistic person in general, I'm not that pessimistic here.
To be honest, I consider June 2022 not that unlikely all things considered. It fits as a "major product release slot" and also adds up with the "more than two years off" comment in the original announcement back in November 2019. With the other options being either too soon or unfitting for other reasons - and doubting that GW has dropped this bit without any meaning whatsoever - I guess we are in for either some major news this September or the games release next June.Personal view is it'll be November 2022 or November 2023. GW normally has two big releases each year - one June/July time for a main studio release and then one in November for a specialist games release. This year the rumour mill is suggesting November will be an Age of Darkness (Heresy) box set with updated version of the rules. Ultimately it'll depend upon how much work was managed to be put in during the pandemic. The old specialist games/FW offices were packed in like sardines, so not a chance they could have been covid safe 😜
That said, GW is always able to surprise!
-
1
-
-
This is a bit later than originally planned, but myself and @Overread have decided to embrace "New Rules New Army" and we're each going to build and paint up a new AoS army! Because sharing is caring, we'll be posting up our progress on TGA and allow you to comment, cheer and make suggestions*. Our ultimate goal is to build our armies up to (at least) 2000 points and with luck meet up a Warhammer World somewhen next year** for a game or two.
We're both fans of the Tale of Warlords format, so going to be following something sort of similar with a few odd changes. Firstly we're not setting communal goals, real life often throws curveballs and we're doing this as a fun hobby project. Next up, we've agreed that we'll be posting up regular progress posts to keep everyone up to date with where we are even if the visible progress may be small.
* what have we let ourselves in for?!
** date may vary depending upon pandemics, plagues and other events-
12
-
1
-
3
-
-
On 7/24/2021 at 8:31 PM, Whitefang said:
Wrong
CA’s design is based on the material provided by GW
And considering the production process
if TOW is gonna be released in 2022 or 2023
The mold of miniatures should have been completed at the moment and even some experimenting models have already been produced
100% this. Quite a bit (if not all) of the concept art used by CA was created by Mark Bedford. I'm not 100% sure of his official job title currently but he's is effectually the head of design/concept for Specialist Games
-
+++ MOD HAT +++
Having just caught up, I think we're at the point where we're largely going round in circles and we're largely just discussing differing opinions. Will keep an eye on the thread, but if it doesn't look like it's going anywhere will lock it
-
1 hour ago, stratigo said:
Three posts are pretty much asking the same thing, so I'll just answer them with this one.
GW is not a person. It's not a collection of individuals. It's not even the shareholders really. It's a legal entity that exists to own things. It doesn't make things, it owns things other people make, on behalf of its investors, but most of the investors don't have a strong connection to even the day to day operations of the company, much less make things for it.
When someone says GW makes something, they are doing a shorthand of "A team of someone's in GW has made something and GW pays them some amount of compensation for owning their work".
I feel like this is basic economics here. This component doesn't even have a moral judgement attached, it's a strict statement of fact. GW the company exists to hold the IP and tools of production for a labor force. The labor force produces things using the owned IP and tools. That's capitalism. That's just capitalism. I don't get how this is confusing people. Capitalist realism indeed, you struggle to see into even the basic workings of the system.
Now, I DO, obviously, have a moral judgement. And that judgement is that GW using its power of ownership extracts more wealth then I think is moral from the people working for it, and can (and has done so) use that concentration of wealth as a tool to stifle and manipulate small creators out of markets. Both strictly legally and not so strictly legally. And, this being a thread about GW IP rules, the imbalance between a corporation of the size of GW (who is obviously far from the biggest corporation in the world) and an individual or even small group is vast, and the law does NOT adequately bridge it, or even really try that hard to in terms of IP rights. GW has MORE protection under the law then any animator on youtube, and this sucks. This is bad. And they all have to hope that GW simply doesn't exercise its power to destroy them, which is can do at will, and can do so largely regardless of the law, a law that already exists to benefit wealthier entities in the first place. It is a bad world where one's livelihood, or even just hobbies, exist on the whim of a powerful impersonal entity right?
If you want me to get into what I think GW should do in regards to labor, I can, but that wasn't the point of this thread.
GW manages a small measure of vertical integration in that they own the process from design to production. That's not super uncommon in wargaming, though GW of course has a dominating edge over most companies that produce both IP and models. And it's not really... material? A lot of companies vertically integrate to own the IP and means of production through various steps. But, again, IP thread, so focus of the IP part of it.
Also, you're right, GW does employ, though I was using the term mostly to mean both. They also still hire on this distinction (eg, hire for a long term position, verse hire for a set task for those not knowing what it is). GW does participate readily in the gig economy.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. That you've had to explain your own opinion on economics to a number of us suggests that it's not an opinion that is that common.
Coming back to the new IP rules, pretty much it's GW's ball and they can tell us how they expect us to play with it. They're perfectly entitled to do this as the owner of the IP even if we don't agree with all the items. As I agreed with in an earlier post, I think we need to wait and see what happens going forward. I certainly expect fan films to be clamped down on, but beyond this who knows. Is this fair? No less fair than trying to make a business from somebody else's work.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, stratigo said:
GW the business doesn't make anything. It hires people that makes things for it, who do NOT see a equal return for the things that they make proportional to what the people who own, but have no involvement in, GW make.
Thus it is not actual fairness to equate GW, the corporation that holds IP, to a creator who creates an IP themselves and thus owns it.
I'm really struggling to get my head round the point you're trying to get over.
What do you mean by make? My interpretation of make is producing a product that is sold. However by that definition there are loads of small studio businesses that will draw the design for a model, have it sculpted by a third party and then manufactured by a casting company. The sculptor will normally receive a one off commission fee, so will never see equal return if that model is really popular. In fact there are plenty of businesses out there that commission both the design and sculpt.
In truth, GW is as much a manufacturer as it is a design studio - they have factories and production facilities that make physical products - it's not outsourced and we as consumers don't buy designs or ideas, we buy products. GW also doesn't hire people - it employs them. It's a small but huge difference.
-
5
-
-
+++ MOD HAT +++
Just tidied a few posts up (sorry if yours was one of them) as things were getting somewhat unpleasant.
Please can we keep this thread on the topic of "Actual Games Played", it's fine to have a bit of discussion but there are plenty of other threads talking about specific mechanics and their impact on the game as an overall entity. We're focusing about the games you folks have played and how you found the new rules.
Also as a reminder, please do not take it upon yourself to call people out - use the report function. Equally if you're about to post something that is unpleasant or rude, just don't.
-
11 minutes ago, Public Universal Duardin said:
You woke up something from the recesses of my mind...wasn't it that you could customise dwarf weapons? 3 runes per weapon, you couldn't have more than one of the same rune? Something like that? It's been so long...but I remember how FUN it was!
And you couldn't replicate the same rune combinations on different weapons (jealous runes or something like that I believe)
-
1
-
-
On 7/20/2021 at 5:41 AM, Blutsteigen said:
PS the 2nd list is not legal -- the ZOmbie Dragon is over half my point total.
Can't comment on the list much as I've not got any games in!
One thing that is possible would be to make your zombie dragon so that the rider can be removed. The vampire is separate (and would recommend you leave them off to paint), and you could either put a pin in their bottom and a hole in the seat, or glue a small magnet in the two models. Would mean you can run it as either a zombie dragon on it's own (within the limits of a 750 game) or with the rider for bigger games. You could even paint up a "matching" vampire on foot for your smaller games as I think the points work out the same which would add a nice narrative element to your games
-
+++ MOD HAT +++
OK folks, can I ask you please to rein it in a bit please? Have read some pretty confrontational comments in here so far and not particularly impressed. Appreciate that some people have some very strong beliefs and it's natural to want to defend those beliefs. But let's put a bit of context here, we're talking about a shared hobby and there's no need to be aggressive when somebody's beliefs and opinions differ from your own. In short, stay civil.
-
17 hours ago, Sorrow said:
People, a question!
Do you think that there might be a second wave of Soulblight models in the future?
Absolutely! However the future is a long time 😉 I'm not convinced we'll get much in the way of new Soulblight models this edition of the game - there may be a random hero appear, but can't see there being a second wave. That said we all thought the same about the Lumineth and were proven wrong on that.
-
My own take (currently - this will likely change).
The Old World will arrive with a bunch of brand new miniatures, including a selection of plastic troops to cover most of the options and then resin bits and bobs. It'll be 25mm scale rather than heroic 28mm - will mean that you'll get scale creep in some ranges, but overall shouldn't be too jarring. I'm keeping my fingers crossed we'll see some old molds resurrected and things like the Fortified Manor be brought back to cater for scenery.
Looking at the way the Age of Darkness has been done, you have an overarching set of rules and then each Black Book focuses on a specific engagement. I can see this transitioning into The Old World, but we'll get a small series of books (2 or 3) for each major engagement - bearing in mind some engagements lasted decades. These books will include all the main protagonists for the engagement, plus a few you might not expect.
I think we'll get some kind of "catch up" book/books that will allow you to field your existing collection in games (similar to how we had the Grand Alliance and Index books). Not sure if this will be a generic set of rules or if it's going to be themed for the engagement in question - it could be there's a clever matrix on what you can and can't do.
We're going to realise quite how far GW has come on in miniature design very quickly when we put down a 25 year old Orc next to one of the models designed for the new game. That said, I can see there being quite a few made to order releases.
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:
So can we assume that GW have initiated an IP infringement suit against Facehammer for splurging the entire contents of the GHB21 on their live stream? 🤔
I think most people who get preview copies get a set of T&C / NDA that will override the general IP rules laid out on this page. However it wouldn't surprise me to see those T&C be updated to prevent this in the future.
16 minutes ago, Golub87 said:I think people severely misunderstand why companies pull stunts like this. It is a numbers game. The goal is not to completely eliminate every kind of fan work, it is to reduce it by X% in order to make WH+ subscription that much more enticing. They aim to create a void and slowly expand into it. This is a long term thing.
Not really. This likely is to ensure that GW is actively protecting their IP which is something that US courts expect to see should anything ever an IP lawsuit be raised in the US. It's something that they were stung with in the past with the chapterhouse case. Simply going "yup, that's our IP, we created it 30 years ago and here's the book" isn't enough.
-
2
-
-
In truth, the IP rules hadn't been updated properly for some time, so it doesn't surprise me that we've seen some updates, especially seeing that we now have Warhammer+ on the horizon. It's split into two sections - guidelines and then infringements.
My own interpretation is that GW is trying to ensure that people aren't profiteering off their IP - something that is actually pretty reasonable if we're honest. The new guidelines also now protect them from somebody creating a Warhammer fan site / YouTube channel and basically using it to slate GW or as a platform to push oddball political agendas. I also think this may have been influenced by the some YouTube videos about that basically spoiled every page of the AoS3 releases in their preview videos.
For me the slightly worrying bit is that the guidelines prevent the use of imagery to be used basically for anything - want to use the AoS logo on a cheat sheet? Nope, not allowed. Want to use a really cool image as a backdrop on your computer? Nope can't do that either. These guidelines wouldn't be as worrying if there were some kind of "fan pack" you could download which included logos and other resources to use, but we don't have that. The other item that to my eyes is basically impractical is that one Infringement is unauthorised use of GW's trademarks - let's consider that and remember that Warhammer and Age of Sigmar are registered trademarks 🤔
However in reality the proof of the pudding is going to be seeing how GW actually applies these new IP rights. With luck they'll continue to take a light handed approach on the whole, but the new rules will give them a bit of additional clout on the odd occasion they need to bring the legal big guns in. From the perspective of channels doing reviews, I don't think anybody who's been given a review copy will have too much to worry about. Reviewers in general may need to be more careful with what they show - a review of a book that means the viewer doesn't need to purchase the product may well be frowned upon.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Overread said:
Even Tyranids - where I've every codex (barring 2nd ed that I've still yet to pick up) even hwen I've not been playing much if at all, I've still not got a single collectors.
Must be honest I've every Space Wolves Codex and pretty much all the collectors edition's from when they came out. The original collectors eds were amazing - heavy duty box with cards, tokens and all sorts in there, the later versions have been a lot less impressive.
Petition for more fan creativity
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
At the risk of being a grumpy sausage, I find many subscription services fall short of the mark. Sadly we live in an age where subscriptions have taken over that "buy once, own it for life" approach that existed at one point.