[LotR] Anyone else noticed this?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Andy O'Neill" <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news😛tLNd.43332$K7.8187@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:36nl9rF5281h7U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "M Roberts" <unknown@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:cu63jk$6n6$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:36nemgF4t4ch3U1@individual.net...
>>>> >
>>>> > This game uses warmaster game mechanics?
>>>>
>>>> Probably not, though it is designed by Rick Priestly, who also
>>> designed
>>>> Warmaster.
>>>
>>> Heh, exactly wrong, I'm afraid. It's using a "cleaned & polished"
>>> version of the Warmaster rules & 10mm miniatures.
>>
>> Wonder what that means.
>
> Well....
> As you may recall I think more than a bit of a tweak necessary to make
> warmaster playable.

I know, but I doubt it will be anything more extensive than the most recent
version of the Warmaster "Living Rulebook" - in other words, WM with the
errata included, but nothing new ruleswise.

> Basing em on warmaster makes them far less likely I'll buy the set.

It doesn't need to be that great when a full game with 5 armies costs half
as much as one Warmaster army, though...

>>> For more info:
>>>
>>> http://www.specialist-games.com/ (currently the 2nd & 3rd items down).
>>> http://www.specialist-games.com/warmaster/forum_b/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=7
>>> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/gw-warmaster/messages
>>
>> Love the way this is in the Warmaster section. So, to put it another way,
>> BoFA is a one-off Warmaster promotion, just with LotR army lists and
>> models. Why couldn't they have put the effort into make WM plastics for
>> the other ranges, I wonder?
>>
>> Philip Bowles
>
>
> The obvious reason would be that plastics have a high set up cost and they
> don't have enough turnover to justify the moulds.

But with an all-new game with a limited run they do? There can't be much
doubt that WM would have been more successful if GW hadn't decided to make
it fully metal from the start.

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Craig Little" <craig.little@gmail.com> wrote in message
news😛6GdneM7e7dWAZrfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
> "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:587631d1.0502070813.4522ce8@posting.google.com...
>> "Craig Little" <craig.little@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<1b2dnR6etowx05rfRVn-oQ@comcast.com>...
>>> "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:36nluaF53666fU1@individual.net...
>>> >
>>>
>>> >
>>> > It's not as though anything else was desperately needed like, say,
>>> > filling
>>> > the gaping holes in the Mordheim range, speeding up the rerelease and
>>> > rules production for the rest of the Epic armies or whatever.
>>> > Hopefully
>>> > Epic won't be too badly-affected, though - right from the start they
>>> > gave
>>> > themselves a year or so after Swordwind to get the Chaos releases (or
>>> > were
>>> > Tyranids next?) done, and they should still be able to do that in the
>>> > time
>>> > they have.
>>> >
>
> <Snip>
>
> It seems your EA tau thoughts mirror my own, but I'd like to read your
> review on the Epic forums, what username do I need to search for?

Philip Bowles (I'm imaginative like that). In the Tau part of the forum the
two threads are towards the bottom of the second page, with me as the
author.

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.02.07.18.37.36.671180@sig.invalid...
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:01:29 +0000, Philip Bowles wrote:
>>
>> "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
>> news😛an.2005.02.06.22.02.39.499061@sig.invalid...
>>> Actually, i'm a annoyed by this. Fanatic as a whole got 'restructured':
>>> losing most of the few employees, having new releases scaled back, and
>>> apparently having fewer resources to work with. So the solution to this
>>> is
>>> to release yet another game and spread the available resources even
>>> thinner?
>>
>> Yes, it draws them away from all their other projects, like:
>>
>
> Ok, i never claimed they were making the most productive use of the
> resources they had. There are some things that do need to be redone.
> But most of it does seem a bit pointless.

Oh, the entire Blood Bowl range really was in desperate need of revision.
Problem was, the new one's every bit as bad. Necro's gone from decent but
dated to poor and only slightly less dated.

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote in message
news:ePednVgqGoU0MprfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> Andy O'Neill wrote:
>
>> "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:587631d1.0502070813.4522ce8@posting.google.com...
>> <<>>
>>
>>>I don't like the fish tank syndrome - why call a flying tank a
>>>Devilfish rather than a Devil, Lionfish rather than a Lion etc.? Also,
>>>"Whiteshark" isn't even a real fish. I decided to add diversity to the
>>>names: Swordfish became Marlin, Lionfish Torpedo Ray to suit its role,
>>>the Dragonfish was the Conger and, in my revision, the Whiteshark and
>>>Scorpionfish were dropped altogether. I also added a Dragonet light
>>>transport for the Gue'vesa.
>>
>>
>> I used to work with someone called tuna, "tuna fish".
>>
>> But that's kind of different.
>> Fish was involved though.
>
> Tuna just doesn't taste as good since they took the dolphin out though.

Yeah but at least now we can get our dolphin tuna-free.


--

-smithdoerr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Andy O'Neill wrote:
> "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote ...

> Basing em on warmaster makes them far less likely I'll buy the set.

Basing them on WarMaster makes it far *more* likely that one can buy the
set.

>>Why couldn't they have put the effort into make WM plastics for
>>the other ranges, I wonder?
>
> The obvious reason would be that plastics have a high set up cost and they
> don't have enough turnover to justify the moulds.

True. OTOH, if they were WFB scale, the you would have to pay at least
5x as much for the models.

And WTF are you doing buying GW for their rules? You buy GW for the
models. It's a hell of a lot easier to change the rules than it is to
have a set of models cast up.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Philip Bowles wrote:
> "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote ...
>>So the solution to this is to release yet another game and spread
>>the available resources even thinner?

It may be that GW needs to find more ways to earn back their Tolkien
license fees. Perhaps the LotR range hasn't been the grand money-maker
that GW thought it would be?

> Yes, it draws them away from all their other projects, like:
>
> Warmaster Slann Mage Priests for a range which already has a Slann Mage
> Priest only a couple of years old.

Oooh, a single blister! Such a waste of effort!

> New versions of Blood Bowl and Necromunda ranges that had existing models.

As far as I've seen, the Escher, Van Saar, and Spyre ranges are entirely
unchanged, with only the occasional model being added to Necromunda.

> BFG Space Marine Escorts that cost more than nearly identical Forge World
> Space Marine Escorts.

Phil, isn't that the high cost of pewter?

> Mordheim Dwarf Treasure Hunter hired sword when Mordheim has both a
> surfeit of Hired Swords and a band full of Dwarf Treasure Hunters.

Granted stunties of any flavor are wasted.

> Inquisitor models. Not redundant, it's just that supporting Inquisitor is a
> waste of resources.

On the contrary. Inquisitor models a great use of resources. Compared
with the large FW resin whatnots, Inquisitor models are dirt cheap and
more varied. The Inquisitor models, the better!

> It's not as though anything else was desperately needed like, say, filling
> the gaping holes in the Mordheim range,

Why? Does anybody still play Mordheim?

> speeding up the rerelease and rules
> production for the rest of the Epic armies

Or Epic, for that matter?

> or whatever.

This would make more sense if you were asking for the 40k4 Eldar
Codex(ici), or the WFB6 WElves or DoW books -- things that people have
models for and could use updates.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:36r6hmF55s4j6U1@individual.net...
> Philip Bowles wrote:
>> "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote ...
>>>So the solution to this is to release yet another game and spread the
>>>available resources even thinner?
>
> It may be that GW needs to find more ways to earn back their Tolkien
> license fees. Perhaps the LotR range hasn't been the grand money-maker
> that GW thought it would be?

That much is plain from the fact that they're milking the licence for
everything it's worth, trying to recoup their costs by throwing out
cheap-to-produce supplement after cheap-to-produce supplement to squeeze
more money from the few people who do collect LotR.

>> Yes, it draws them away from all their other projects, like:
>>
>> Warmaster Slann Mage Priests for a range which already has a Slann Mage
>> Priest only a couple of years old.
>
> Oooh, a single blister! Such a waste of effort!

One wonders what the point was when they didn't revise the rest of the
Lizard range in the process, though. It's true that the new Slann is good,
but ut wasn't really necessary.

>> New versions of Blood Bowl and Necromunda ranges that had existing
>> models.
>
> As far as I've seen, the Escher, Van Saar, and Spyre ranges are entirely
> unchanged, with only the occasional model being added to Necromunda.

We've had new van Saar. Among the others we've had the appalling Spyrer
Patriarch and Matriarch, promised new models for the Redemptionists, new
Ratskins and new Scavvies will be forthcoming.

>> BFG Space Marine Escorts that cost more than nearly identical Forge World
>> Space Marine Escorts.
>
> Phil, isn't that the high cost of pewter?

Why should the gamer care why they're as pricey as they are? They'd just go
for the cheaper Forge World models.

>> Inquisitor models. Not redundant, it's just that supporting Inquisitor is
>> a waste of resources.
>
> On the contrary. Inquisitor models a great use of resources. Compared
> with the large FW resin whatnots, Inquisitor models are dirt cheap and
> more varied. The Inquisitor models, the better!

But they're useful for what, exactly?

>> It's not as though anything else was desperately needed like, say,
>> filling the gaping holes in the Mordheim range,
>
> Why? Does anybody still play Mordheim?

Since it's had more model and rules support than any of the other ranges,
I'd venture to say it's quite likely. Problem is it's had more rules support
than the model makers can keep up with - there are rules dating back to the
days when Town Cryer was in WD that don't yet have accompanying models.

>> speeding up the rerelease and rules production for the rest of the Epic
>> armies
>
> Or Epic, for that matter?
>

They should do - it's a great system and relatively inexpensive for GW.

> This would make more sense if you were asking for the 40k4 Eldar
> Codex(ici), or the WFB6 WElves or DoW books -- things that people have
> models for and could use updates.

As opposed to, say, Epic Chaos or Tyranids? Or Necromunda Scavvies (though
they're on the way), Ash Waste Nomads and special characters?

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <36r6hmF55s4j6U1@individual.net>, John Hwang wrote:

> Why? Does anybody still play Mordheim?

Yes. The most recent gaming session I had time for was spent playing
Mordheim. Before that it was Morheim, and before that it was also
Mordheim.

--
Joakim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:11:48 -0800, John Hwang wrote:

> Philip Bowles wrote:
>> "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote ...
>>>So the solution to this is to release yet another game and spread the
>>>available resources even thinner?
>
> It may be that GW needs to find more ways to earn back their Tolkien
> license fees. Perhaps the LotR range hasn't been the grand money-maker
> that GW thought it would be?
>
>
Could be, i know dozens of gamers and one (1) of them plays LOTR, or would
if he had an opponent. Upcoming GW events are stuggling to find volunteers
to run LOTR games. I don't know what the situation is elsewhere, but if
it's not selling, i'm confused as to how they might expect a smaller scale
version of it to do any better.

>> Yes, it draws them away from all their other projects, like:
>>
>> Warmaster Slann Mage Priests for a range which already has a Slann Mage
>> Priest only a couple of years old.
>
> Oooh, a single blister! Such a waste of effort!
>
>
This is just an example, and there are many others. It's frustrating
watching models get redone (sometimes several times) while you're waiting
for models that have been missing for years. When something is massively
out of date and looks hideous, that's one thing. But something that just
came out 2-3 years ago and looks decent, what's the point?

>> It's not as though anything else was desperately needed like, say,
>> filling the gaping holes in the Mordheim range,
>
> Why? Does anybody still play Mordheim?
>
>
Mordheim has a strong presence in my area. I personally have never played
it, but people seem to enjoy it.

>> speeding up the rerelease and rules
>> production for the rest of the Epic armies
>
> Or Epic, for that matter?

The current incarnation of epic is a good game. I've met many people who
_would_ play epic if they weren't afraid of it being abbandoned. They are
warying of getting into the game since most of the rules are playtest
versions, and the new models they'd need are not available, and the
forgeworld stuff isn't considered official, and it's looking like 4 years
before some armies get any models, and they're barely stocked anywhere,
and GW hasn't put a lot of visible effort into get new players, and
fanatic getting restructured, and the priority seems to be redoing models
that were just redone in the last incarnation rather than models that are
10+ years old or completely absent, and .... this could go on and on.

I like the game, i've been trying to get people into playing it. But my
efforts are suffering a lot. People seem interested in it, but people also
remember epic 40K following a similar path and getting axed.


> This would make more sense if you were asking for the 40k4 Eldar
> Codex(ici), or the WFB6 WElves or DoW books -- things that people have
> models for and could use updates.

As opposed to things that people have models for, but can't use because
there are currently no rules that could be updated? Or rules people can't
use, because they don't feel like converting every model they need?


--
"I adopted a kitten. He was cute for the first week, then he turned
obnoxious"

 

[Estarriol]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>> On the contrary. Inquisitor models a great use of resources. Compared
>> with the large FW resin whatnots, Inquisitor models are dirt cheap and
>> more varied. The Inquisitor models, the better!
>
> But they're useful for what, exactly?
>
This is Hwang, models that size mean he can use 58 grey scales instead of
the 32 he can get on a WFB figure.

--
estarriol

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.02.08.18.04.18.945006@sig.invalid...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:11:48 -0800, John Hwang wrote:
>
>> Philip Bowles wrote:
>>> "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote ...
>>>>So the solution to this is to release yet another game and spread the
>>>>available resources even thinner?
>>
>> It may be that GW needs to find more ways to earn back their Tolkien
>> license fees. Perhaps the LotR range hasn't been the grand money-maker
>> that GW thought it would be?
>>
>>
> Could be, i know dozens of gamers and one (1) of them plays LOTR, or would
> if he had an opponent. Upcoming GW events are stuggling to find volunteers
> to run LOTR games. I don't know what the situation is elsewhere, but if
> it's not selling, i'm confused as to how they might expect a smaller scale
> version of it to do any better.

Well, it's a lot cheaper, it's not a major investment for GW (seems it's
basically a one-off rather than a permanent addition to Specialist Games)
and it uses existing rules (no cost of rules development) that, however
flawed they may be in some way, are far better than the LotR rules. It's
basically a Warmaster expansion for LotR fans, as far as I can tell.

> This is just an example, and there are many others.

Mordheim Amazons, anyone?

>>> speeding up the rerelease and rules
>>> production for the rest of the Epic armies
>>
>> Or Epic, for that matter?
>
> The current incarnation of epic is a good game. I've met many people who
> _would_ play epic if they weren't afraid of it being abbandoned. They are
> warying of getting into the game since most of the rules are playtest
> versions, and the new models they'd need are not available, and the
> forgeworld stuff isn't considered official,

It's as official as the Tau list gets and most Tau releases (everything in
the 40k list, Mantas, Barracudas and Tigersharks) are certain to make it
into the final Tau Epic list, and includes cheaper versions of some existing
Fanatic figures (Night Spinners, Falcons, Chimeras, Manticores, Basilisks)
as well as superior if more expensive versions of others (Imperial and Ork
aircraft).

and it's looking like 4 years
> before some armies get any models,

Well, there are already ranges for SM, IG, Orks, Tau and Eldar, Chaos is due
in a year, Tyranids maybe in two. That just leaves Necrons, and frankly who
cares?

> I like the game, i've been trying to get people into playing it. But my
> efforts are suffering a lot. People seem interested in it, but people also
> remember epic 40K following a similar path and getting axed.

Even if Fanatic did do away with it (and it never dropped E40k, even though
that was by their own admission by far their least popular game) it wouldn't
invalidate the game at the stage it had reached, and wouldn't invalidate the
official army lists - okay, prospective Tau players might be reluctant to
invest, but for players of Space Marines, Orks, Imperial Guard and Eldar
there's nothing to lose. Orks and IG have had more support in Epic this
edition than they had with E40k, along with a number of all-new units
(especially the IG, who have also had two units missing from E40k - Thudd
Gun and Rapier - reinstated this edition, and are promised a Capitol
Imperialis at some stage).

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

estarriol wrote:
>>>The Inquisitor models, the better!
>>
>>But they're useful for what, exactly?
>
> This is Hwang, models that size mean he can use 58 grey scales instead of
> the 32 he can get on a WFB figure.

Nonsense.

At that point, you *blend* your paints for continuous gradation.

And WRT greys, there's always:

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rgmw-genbus/vwp?.dir=/John+Hwang&.dnm=Jakaras.jpg&.src=gr&.view=t&.hires=t

Or:

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rgmw-genbus/vwp?.dir=/John+Hwang&.dnm=Priests.jpg&.src=gr&.view=t&.hires=t




--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

disgruntled pawn wrote:
> John Hwang wrote:

>>It may be that GW needs to find more ways to earn back their Tolkien
>>license fees. Perhaps the LotR range hasn't been the grand money-maker
>>that GW thought it would be?
>
> Could be, i know dozens of gamers and one (1) of them plays LOTR, or would
> if he had an opponent.

To be honest, I always saw LotR as a collection, not a game.

>>>Warmaster Slann Mage

>>Oooh, a single blister! Such a waste of effort!
>
> This is just an example, and there are many others.

Yes, I know. I was just needling Phil a bit to see what might happen.

>>Does anybody still play Mordheim?
>
> Mordheim has a strong presence in my area. I personally have never played
> it, but people seem to enjoy it.

Mordhiem isn't so bad, what with so many models buildable from
multi-pose plastics. Dwarfs, Skaven, and Humans are all easily done
from plastics.

>>Or Epic, for that matter?
>
> The current incarnation of epic is a good game.

True.

> I've met many people who _would_ play epic if they weren't
> afraid of it being abbandoned.

For me, the issue is being spread too thin. I've got lots of stuff that
hardly sees play any more. For example, I've got 3 Necromunda gangs,
two fully painted, a full rulest, and still haven't gotten a chance to
play. So if I move over to Epic, collect and build an army, what then?
Be stuck solo like that LotR guy?

> I like the game, i've been trying to get people into playing it.

Yeah, GW's support for Fanatic / SG ranges has been lacking. If only GW
could have spent the effort they're wasting on LotR on SG. Just
imagine... Or not. It's actually quite depressing.

>>This would make more sense if you were asking for the 40k4 Eldar
>>Codex(ici), or the WFB6 WElves or DoW books -- things that people
>>have models for and could use updates.
>
> As opposed to things that people have models for, but can't use because
> there are currently no rules that could be updated? Or rules people can't
> use, because they don't feel like converting every model they need?

I think I'd rather seem more done with the main ranges of 40k4 and WFB6
at the moment.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:28 +0000, Philip Bowles wrote:

> "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.02.08.18.04.18.945006@sig.invalid...
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:11:48 -0800, John Hwang wrote:
>>
>>> Philip Bowles wrote:
>>>> "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote ...
>>>>>So the solution to this is to release yet another game and spread the
>>>>>available resources even thinner?
>>>
>>> It may be that GW needs to find more ways to earn back their Tolkien
>>> license fees. Perhaps the LotR range hasn't been the grand money-maker
>>> that GW thought it would be?
>>>
>> Could be, i know dozens of gamers and one (1) of them plays LOTR, or would
>> if he had an opponent. Upcoming GW events are stuggling to find volunteers
>> to run LOTR games. I don't know what the situation is elsewhere, but if
>> it's not selling, i'm confused as to how they might expect a smaller scale
>> version of it to do any better.
>
> seems it's basically a one-off rather than a permanent addition to Specialist
> Games

That's what i thought until i saw they're making more models. One-off
games are cool. This seems to me it's more like testing the waters to
see if there's interest. If there is, it'll get support; if not, "hey we
were just making a self contained game". Rightly or wrongly, that's the
impression i get, and it doesn't do much for my interest in the game.

>>>> speeding up the rerelease and rules
>>>> production for the rest of the Epic armies
>>>
>> and the forgeworld stuff isn't considered official,
>
> It's as official as the Tau list gets

I don't have a problem with the playtest lists. I think it's a great idea.
I was under the impression that the Forgeworld models were not being
accepted as official models.

> and it's looking like 4 years
>> before some armies get any models,
>
> Well, there are already ranges for SM, IG, Orks, Tau and Eldar, Chaos is
> due in a year, Tyranids maybe in two. That just leaves Necrons, and
> frankly who cares?
>

I don't know that tau count (see above). Have the Chaos been released? Or
are you refering to the line from Epic 40K? That's not in stores for
whatever reason. A quick visit to the GW online store shows SM, IG, and
Orks. Eldar are due in the summer. But, i had thought that the
proposed release schedule of everything else had been pushed back due to
restructuring fanatic.

>> I like the game, i've been trying to get people into playing it. But my
>> efforts are suffering a lot. People seem interested in it, but people
>> also remember epic 40K following a similar path and getting axed.
>
> it never dropped E40k, even
> though that was by their own admission by far their least popular game

Sure, it may have still been in the catalogue, but the game was dead.

> it wouldn't invalidate the game at the stage it had reached, and
> wouldn't invalidate the official army lists - okay, prospective Tau
> players might be reluctant to invest, but for players of Space Marines,
> Orks, Imperial Guard and Eldar there's nothing to lose.

That depends on your perspective. I know there will always be people
playing regardless of whether the game officially exists. But, not
everyone has a group of people who are passionate about the game already.
And there are not many people i know willing to invest the time/money into
a game that may suddenly lose any hope of getting new players.

I'm not saying i think Fanatic will drop Epic:A (i highly doubt that
they will). But it's not my opinion that matters. What matters is the
perceptions of people who are potential players. So far, all the ones
i've talked to have come to the conclusion that the the game's future
isn't certain enough to warrent getting into it. (as an example of this,
see the being of this post regarding my feeling that they are 'testing the
waters' with the warmaster-scale LOTR game)

--
'So, in conclusion: HITTING A GUY IN THE NUTS WITH AN EPEE SETS BACK
WOMEN'S LIBERATION AT LEAST THREE THOUSAND YEARS.'

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.02.09.07.57.30.859869@sig.invalid...
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:28 +0000, Philip Bowles wrote:
>
>> "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
>> news😛an.2005.02.08.18.04.18.945006@sig.invalid...
>>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:11:48 -0800, John Hwang wrote:
>>>
>>>> Philip Bowles wrote:
>>>>> "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote ...
>>>>>>So the solution to this is to release yet another game and spread the
>>>>>>available resources even thinner?
>>>>
>>>> It may be that GW needs to find more ways to earn back their Tolkien
>>>> license fees. Perhaps the LotR range hasn't been the grand money-maker
>>>> that GW thought it would be?
>>>>
>>> Could be, i know dozens of gamers and one (1) of them plays LOTR, or
>>> would
>>> if he had an opponent. Upcoming GW events are stuggling to find
>>> volunteers
>>> to run LOTR games. I don't know what the situation is elsewhere, but if
>>> it's not selling, i'm confused as to how they might expect a smaller
>>> scale
>>> version of it to do any better.
>>
>> seems it's basically a one-off rather than a permanent addition to
>> Specialist
>> Games
>
> That's what i thought until i saw they're making more models.

Do you just mean the other ones being released at the same time as the main
box (Smaug, Elven cavalry and the rest?) I don't think the Hobbit background
gives much scope for new models beyond those released in the game and the
accompanying half-dozen blisters.

>>>>> speeding up the rerelease and rules
>>>>> production for the rest of the Epic armies
>>>>
>>> and the forgeworld stuff isn't considered official,
>>
>> It's as official as the Tau list gets
>
> I don't have a problem with the playtest lists. I think it's a great idea.
> I was under the impression that the Forgeworld models were not being
> accepted as official models.

They're official for official units - no one's going to say "Hey, you can't
use those Manticores - they're Forge World rather than Fanatic ones".

On that subject, though, one thing annoys me about the Eldar collectors'
models section in Swordwind - the Imperial version in the rulebook had all
weapon configurations from Fanatic past and Forge World. The Eldar are
missing the Forge World Wave Serpents, as well as the E40k Vypers, weapon
platforms, Falcons and Wave Serpents with non-standard configurations
(they're also missing the lascannon battery Titan wing weapons from Space
Marine).

As for the Tau list, notes on the playtest specifically point out that the
only way to represent Tau, other than by stand-ins, is with the Forge World
range. Fanatic will make its own eventually, but until then Forge World
stuff works.

>> and it's looking like 4 years
>>> before some armies get any models,
>>
>> Well, there are already ranges for SM, IG, Orks, Tau and Eldar, Chaos is
>> due in a year, Tyranids maybe in two. That just leaves Necrons, and
>> frankly who cares?
>>
>
> I don't know that tau count (see above). Have the Chaos been released?

Chaos is due in 2006, as I pointed out above, though players with existing
Chaos and Tyranid armies can use their models with the playtest lists
(though if other players' collections are anything like mine, they'll have
far more Tyranid 'vehicles' and other support units than compulsory Gaunts
and Gargoyles).

Or
> are you refering to the line from Epic 40K? That's not in stores for
> whatever reason. A quick visit to the GW online store shows SM, IG, and
> Orks. Eldar are due in the summer.

On the UK Online Store the first Eldar releases are up - the rest will come
out over the next couple of months, and the Feral Orks after that.

But, i had thought that the
> proposed release schedule of everything else had been pushed back due to
> restructuring fanatic.

I hadn't heard anything reliable to suggest that Epic would be affected -
the next releases were always supposed to be in 2006, which gives Fanatic
more than enough time to adjust. It takes Fanatic about three months to
finalise an Epic list when they start concentrating on it in detail (that's
how long it took with the Eldar). I don't imagine that a batch of rereleases
and a dozen or so new Chaos figures will take a year to produce.

>> it wouldn't invalidate the game at the stage it had reached, and
>> wouldn't invalidate the official army lists - okay, prospective Tau
>> players might be reluctant to invest, but for players of Space Marines,
>> Orks, Imperial Guard and Eldar there's nothing to lose.
>
> That depends on your perspective. I know there will always be people
> playing regardless of whether the game officially exists. But, not
> everyone has a group of people who are passionate about the game already.

You can still teach it to new players. Chess didn't stop gaining new players
when it stopped getting new editions and the figure range was settled on...
I can't see Fanatic dropping the model range, even if they stop actively
supporting the game with new models.

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:36tqrjF55j0c2U1@individual.net...
> disgruntled pawn wrote:
>> John Hwang wrote:

>>>This would make more sense if you were asking for the 40k4 Eldar
>>>Codex(ici), or the WFB6 WElves or DoW books -- things that people have
>>>models for and could use updates.
>>
>> As opposed to things that people have models for, but can't use because
>> there are currently no rules that could be updated? Or rules people can't
>> use, because they don't feel like converting every model they need?
>
> I think I'd rather seem more done with the main ranges of 40k4 and WFB6 at
> the moment.

I'd actually rather GW reinstated one or more Specialist Games in the main
range - it's spreading the various 40k and WFB projects as thinly as it is
because it's pretty much out of ideas for what to do with the systems once
the army books are done (look at the way it's spreading out Space Marine
releases that could have been released in two months over more than half a
year). GW should quickly finish the army books, declare the games
effectively finished save for campaign and Realm books and their
accompanying releases, and put resources into fleshing out, say, Epic or
Mordheim. Okay, GW wants to be able to release models on a monthly basis,
but there simply isn't the scope to do that for much longer with 40k and WFB
without indefinitely revisiting the existing ranges.

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"jockelinde" <nouser@notmydomain.se> wrote in message
news:slrnd0f7a0.dke.nouser@crux.id.gu.se...
<< Warmaster >>

>> The core mechanics are faulted in a number of ways.
>> Search on google. Warmaster review is one thread.
>
> Thanks, I've taken a look at the old warmaster threads and now I'm
> not as tempted to by buy it anymore.

You either like the way the command control system works in WM or you loathe
it.
The keep-on-fighting-til-you-drop bit of the rules is just plain silly but
could obviously be "fixed" by stopping after one over-run.
You could also make lines work more logically by measuring to nearest end
rather than farthest.
But why bother fixing it.

I have a 10mil fantasy genre project as a sort of ongoing low priority task.
Not worked on it for a while but I had several armies painted and a vague
bunch of ideas for a campaign.

Rules I've been considering as candidates.

DBM, plus DBF - Army lists are included in the latter. DBM is tricky if you
don't know it well.
Hordes of the Thing - Fantasy version of DBA which is in turn a simplified
version of DBM. Some people at the club like this with the addition of DBM
quality.
Might of Arms - These include mechanisms for wearing units which some miss
from DBx.
Write something else from scratch - More work than I could really be
bothered with.

MoA is historical, but I'd slap a few more troops types and magic on and
it'd work.
All use DBx basing.

I have Pendraken figures but I may eventually buy some GW stuff for leaders
and the like.

--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Andy O'Neill" <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZQoOd.31773$68.15544@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "jockelinde" <nouser@notmydomain.se> wrote in message
> news:slrnd0f7a0.dke.nouser@crux.id.gu.se...
> << Warmaster >>
>
>>> The core mechanics are faulted in a number of ways.
>>> Search on google. Warmaster review is one thread.
>>
>> Thanks, I've taken a look at the old warmaster threads and now I'm
>> not as tempted to by buy it anymore.
>
> You either like the way the command control system works in WM or you
> loathe it.
> The keep-on-fighting-til-you-drop bit of the rules is just plain silly but
> could obviously be "fixed" by stopping after one over-run.

Looking at the battle report on the Specialist Games website, it sounds as
though this might have been adopted - there's one instance of eagles rushing
into an ongoing combat.

> You could also make lines work more logically by measuring to nearest end
> rather than farthest.
> But why bother fixing it.

Well, if minor fixes solve the problems it seems logical to fix them...

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

>>>>> speeding up the rerelease and rules
>>>>> production for the rest of the Epic armies
>>>>
>>> and the forgeworld stuff isn't considered official,
>>
>> It's as official as the Tau list gets
>
> I don't have a problem with the playtest lists. I think it's a great idea.
> I was under the impression that the Forgeworld models were not being
> accepted as official models.

That is not the case. FW models that are equivalent to SG models, like
Baneblades, Basilisks and the like, are of course official.

The 'unique' FW models (like the Hell Talon) were not going to be included
in 'official' Epic tournament lists because the EA game and minis were
initially sold in GW stores, and there was a possibility they would get a
permanent place in larger GW's. FW figs are not sold in normal GW stores,
and the designers considered them to be harder to obtain (which has been
shown to be completely false; they are usually easier to obtain that the SG
figures!), thus they weren't allowed to be put in the official lists.

This restricition has been lifted now with the re-organisation of Fanatic.
Hence the inclusion of the Hell Talon in the Black Legion list.

Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

> (they're also missing the lascannon battery Titan wing weapons from Space
> Marine).

That was done on purpose. Eldar haven't had lascannons in the fluff for
years.

Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cudpcl$3ri$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > I don't have a problem with the playtest lists. I think it's a great
idea.
> > I was under the impression that the Forgeworld models were not being
> > accepted as official models.
>
> That is not the case. FW models that are equivalent to SG models,
like
> Baneblades, Basilisks and the like, are of course official.

All GW tournie rules I've ever read have all said something to the tune
of "all models must be the appropriate Citadel miniatures . . ." or
something very similar. I've asked on at least three occasions whether
ForgeWorld models (specifically BfG SM ships) are tournie legal or not
and have still to receive an un-ambiguous "Yes".

ForgeWorld models are *not* Citadel miniatures, and GW have refused to
clarify (to me, at least) whether they're allowed or not.

Anyone else heard any different ?

Cheers, Martyn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Philip Bowles wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...

>>I think I'd rather seem more done with the main ranges of 40k4 and WFB6 at
>>the moment.
>
> I'd actually rather GW reinstated one or more Specialist Games in the main
> range

I don't recall you being a fan of Inquisitor...

> GW should quickly finish the army books, declare the games
> effectively finished save for campaign and Realm books and their
> accompanying releases, and put resources into fleshing out, say, Epic or
> Mordheim. Okay, GW wants to be able to release models on a monthly basis,
> but there simply isn't the scope to do that for much longer with 40k and WFB
> without indefinitely revisiting the existing ranges.

Sure there is. Where do you think Necronz, Tau, and Ogre Kingdoms came
from?

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cudpfi$3u4$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> (they're also missing the lascannon battery Titan wing weapons from Space
>> Marine).
>
> That was done on purpose. Eldar haven't had lascannons in the fluff for
> years.

But the old lascannon weapon platform is included and named as such - it's
just armed with a bright lance. There's no logical reason they couldn't have
done the same with the wing lasers or lascannon-armed Vypers.

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"M Roberts" <unknown@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:cuduab$voj$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cudpcl$3ri$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >
>> > I don't have a problem with the playtest lists. I think it's a great
> idea.
>> > I was under the impression that the Forgeworld models were not being
>> > accepted as official models.
>>
>> That is not the case. FW models that are equivalent to SG models,
> like
>> Baneblades, Basilisks and the like, are of course official.
>
> All GW tournie rules I've ever read have all said something to the tune
> of "all models must be the appropriate Citadel miniatures . . ." or
> something very similar.

That's just wording predating the creation of Forge World (or at least
predating the period when Forge World created models supported by official
GW rules). It might also be designed to exclude FW models without official
support - a better wording would be "all models must be supported by
official Games Workshop rules" or something similar, but clarity has never
been GW's strong point, and it doesn't help that they don't have a clear
definition of 'official' rules to work with (especially in Mordheim, in
which even some Annual rules have since been branded unofficial).

I've asked on at least three occasions whether
> ForgeWorld models (specifically BfG SM ships) are tournie legal or not
> and have still to receive an un-ambiguous "Yes".

So how are the Aurora and Solaris treated? As testified to by their place in
Armada, these are completely official Battlefleet Gothic rules, but they
have no non-FW models.

> ForgeWorld models are *not* Citadel miniatures, and GW have refused to
> clarify (to me, at least) whether they're allowed or not.

Or to put it another way, they've never told you they aren't allowed. Have
you ever heard of or seen anyone being turned away from a GW tournament for
using FW models, or having those models banned, where official (non-FW)
rules exist?

For that matter, where does the definition of a Citadel miniature start and
end? Forge World designers, such as Will Hayes, have worked on both FW
models and figures in the 'official' Specialist Games Range (Revenant Titan
and Eldar Engines of Vaul come to mind). Are models created by freelancers
like Bob Naismith (Warmaster War Hydra and Manticore) disallowed for not
being Citadel? What matters is surely who payrolls the designers, i.e. Games
Workshop, not whether the brand label used is 'Citadel' or 'Forge World',
since both are just divisions of the same company.

Philip Bowles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:370bq8F57o6esU3@individual.net...
> Philip Bowles wrote:
>> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>
>>>I think I'd rather seem more done with the main ranges of 40k4 and WFB6
>>>at the moment.
>>
>> I'd actually rather GW reinstated one or more Specialist Games in the
>> main range
>
> I don't recall you being a fan of Inquisitor...

Well obviously they should choose a half-decent one that might actually
sell. Though would having Inquisitor in the main range really be any worse
than having LotR there?

>> GW should quickly finish the army books, declare the games effectively
>> finished save for campaign and Realm books and their accompanying
>> releases, and put resources into fleshing out, say, Epic or Mordheim.
>> Okay, GW wants to be able to release models on a monthly basis, but there
>> simply isn't the scope to do that for much longer with 40k and WFB
>> without indefinitely revisiting the existing ranges.
>
> Sure there is. Where do you think Necronz, Tau, and Ogre Kingdoms came
> from?

GW's already admitted that they've got too many armies for most places to
stock (hence minor armies like Dark Eldar, DoW and Kislev being Mail Order
only, and Chaos Dwarfs vanishing completely). Expanding the number of armies
won't do much for their profits if they or another range loses sails by
becoming Mail Order only.

Philip Bowles