[LotR] Anyone else noticed this?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
news:36v5baF57mr2jU1@individual.net...
<<>>
>> 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...
>


Changing the command and control model would be a major change.
My list was not intended to be exhaustive though.
Moves need reducing and there should be more limitations on movement such as
crossing the face of an enemy unit etc.
( Still not exhaustive, btw ).

--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Andy O'Neill" <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VbIOd.78557$K7.70863@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:36v5baF57mr2jU1@individual.net...
> <<>>
>>> 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...
>>
>
>
> Changing the command and control model would be a major change.

I still think it achieves what it's designed to do - the modifier system
penalises poor play like spreading units too far or allowing stands to be
sacrificed, and is more likely to reward players who keep a coherent line
and use their resources more sparingly. Adding additional modifiers to the
current system is all that's needed to sort out the problems that exist
there. I know you don't like the fact that the system doesn't have a
mechanism for reducing your command resources as time goes by - blame that
on GW's insistence on using their own mechanics that they can patent - but
as I've said befotre I'd question whether the command systems you've
described for DBx and the like are any more realistic, though I concede that
they might be more tactical.

> My list was not intended to be exhaustive though.
> Moves need reducing

That's simple - just impose the Epic restriction on retaining the
initiative. In Warmaster terms, you can attempt to give a unit a second
order but, if successful, can't give it a third.

Philip Bowles
 
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. 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.
>

That's just silly. They are miniatures made by a division of games
workshop, that very fact makes the official. They couldn't tell you, for
example, you have to use SG basilisks instead of your FW Basilisks, for
example.

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

"Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cugcvu$7p1$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "M Roberts" <unknown@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:cuduab$voj$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > ForgeWorld models are *not* Citadel miniatures, and GW have refused
to
> > clarify (to me, at least) whether they're allowed or not.
>
> That's just silly.

I agree wholeheartedly, but that's not the point.

> They are miniatures made by a division of games
> workshop, that very fact makes the official.

No, it doesn't. When you point out the actual rule about Citadel
miniatures, and then ask about Forge World models, the best answer I've
ever had is "well, you should be alright", which is not terribly
reassuring.

All it'll take is one anally pedantic rules lawyer to point out that
you're not using Citadel miniatures, and by the letter of the rules they
should disqualify you.

I'm not saying it's right, or that it'll even happen, but it's a
possibility, until GW either change the wording of the rules or classify
FW models as Citadel.

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

"Helicon_One" <helicon_one@yahoo.co.spam.uk> wrote in message
news:cu2vvj$hs$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=6001
1699
> 001&orignav=300808

Try this then:

http://store.us.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.us?do=List_Models&co
de=304571&orignav=9&ParentID=254436&GameNav=9

The Americans get a 50UKP game for 50USD - roughly half the price we'd
pay . . .

Thanks, GW UK :-((

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

>>
>> That's just silly.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly, but that's not the point.
>
>> They are miniatures made by a division of games
>> workshop, that very fact makes the official.
>
> No, it doesn't.

Yes it does, if they are the same type as already existing minis that
already have rules. There is no way anyone could stop you using FW
Vultures, Chimeras, etc, in a game of Epic (tournament or not). Similarly
there is no way anyone could stop you using a Leman Russ with the
alternative pattern turret that FW does in a 40k game.



When you point out the actual rule about Citadel
> miniatures, and then ask about Forge World models, the best answer I've
> ever had is "well, you should be alright", which is not terribly
> reassuring.

I suggest you do it anyway, and laugh in the face of anyone who says you
can't use them.

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

<snip>
> All it'll take is one anally pedantic rules lawyer to point out that
> you're not using Citadel miniatures, and by the letter of the rules they
> should disqualify you.

Actually I don't think that works. I just read the rules and I am far from
certain tournamentwise but there is the 'Counts As' rule, isn't it? And
there is a chapter dealing with out of print and FW miniatures. I think they
state that you can use both old and FW miniatures as long as you tell your
opponent what they are supposed to be.
Besides if you ever face such an anally pedantic rules lawyer I am not sure
it would be fun to play against him. Beat up, yes, play, no.

--
Ecke

Newsgroup FAQ @ http://www.rgmw.org

Due to technology humankind produced weapons of mass destruction. Without
technology it would just take a bit longer.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"M Roberts" <unknown@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:cugf5j$dtq$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Robert Williams" <mail@rscc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cugcvu$7p1$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "M Roberts" <unknown@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:cuduab$voj$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >
>> > ForgeWorld models are *not* Citadel miniatures, and GW have refused
> to
>> > clarify (to me, at least) whether they're allowed or not.
>>
>> That's just silly.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly, but that's not the point.
>
>> They are miniatures made by a division of games
>> workshop, that very fact makes the official.
>
> No, it doesn't. When you point out the actual rule about Citadel
> miniatures, and then ask about Forge World models, the best answer I've
> ever had is "well, you should be alright", which is not terribly
> reassuring.

Think about this for a moment - in any other (non-GW) tournament
environment, if you brought along models that represented units in the game
rules, wouldn't you assume you could use them unless you were specifically
told otherwise? You can't assume that the models are illegitimate unless
you're clearly told as much. If GW doesn't intend FW models to be used in
tournaments, the onus is on them to make that clear.

In any case, the clearest indication from GW I know of is the Epic
"Collectors Models" section in the rulebook, which contains 'counts as'
notes for every Forge World Epic Imperial unit. It is specified that in
tournaments Forge World models count as particular units in the list
(Earthshaker platforms count as Basilisks, for instance) - which clearly
indicates that you're allowed to use them in GW-sanctioned Epic tournaments.

Philip Bowles

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

M Roberts wrote:

[SNIP]

> No, it doesn't. When you point out the actual rule about Citadel
> miniatures, and then ask about Forge World models, the best answer I've
> ever had is "well, you should be alright", which is not terribly
> reassuring.

Well, one could always refer to GW's own rules...

> All it'll take is one anally pedantic rules lawyer to point out that
> you're not using Citadel miniatures, and by the letter of the rules they
> should disqualify you.

No, they shouldn't, and any anal lawyer who'd pull such a stunt would be
at serious risk of having my shoe stuffed up his ass. Why? Because,
but the letter of the rules:

"All models must be Citadel, Marauder, Fanatic, or Forge World models.
Forge World models may only be used to represent entries from Codexes or
Army Books. Vehicles from the Imperial Armour books are not permitted."
[p.2, Tournament Rulebook, Grand Tournament 2004 Season.]

This dates back at least to 2001:

"• May only use Games Workshop models, these include Citadel,
Marauder, Fanatic, or Forge World miniatures."
[p.4, GT 2001 rules packet]


> I'm not saying it's right, or that it'll even happen, but it's a
> possibility, until GW either change the wording of the rules or classify
> FW models as Citadel.

And *why* would they need to do this?

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

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

>>>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.

Inquisitor is the ultimate GW game -- the minis are far better than the
rules. Just have a pretty picture on the box, and I'm sure Inquisitor
would sell just fine as long as they never made mention that there's
supposed to be a ruleset that goes with the models. If it were up to
me, I'd strip the mechanics back to White Wolf Storyteller, with a d6
rather than d10...

> Though would having Inquisitor in the main range really be any worse
> than having LotR there?

No, it would NOT. In fact, if the Inquisitor Range were expanded to
include Kasrkin, Stormtroopers, along with filling out the Inquisitorial
Henchmen (Crusader, Battle Sister, Grey Knight), that would be awesome.

>>>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

True.

>(hence minor armies like Dark Eldar, DoW and Kislev being Mail Order
> only, and Chaos Dwarfs vanishing completely).

Dark Eldar and Chaos Dwarves don't exactly inspire...

> Expanding the number of armies won't do much for their profits
> if they or another range loses sails by becoming Mail Order only.

That's debatable. If GW can shuffle the slow sellers to MO, while
keeping the fast movers on shelf, doesn't that help overall?

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:37341kF57eugtU1@individual.net...
> Philip Bowles wrote:
>> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>
>>>>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.
>
> Inquisitor is the ultimate GW game -- the minis are far better than the
> rules.

This is true, but that's more a measure of how bad the rules are than
anything. I've yet to see an Inquisitor model that's made me think "I think
I should own that" - the Eldar Ranger's not far off, but the range as a
whole is pretty so-so.

>> Expanding the number of armies won't do much for their profits if they
>> or another range loses sails by becoming Mail Order only.
>
> That's debatable. If GW can shuffle the slow sellers to MO, while keeping
> the fast movers on shelf, doesn't that help overall?

While I'd love to see the Necrons and Ogre Kingdoms go to Mail Order only
(or better yet, be removed altogether - especially the Necrons), I really
don't see GW doing that with a 'current' army even if a new one comes along.

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

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

>>Inquisitor is the ultimate GW game -- the minis are far better than the
>>rules.
>
> This is true, but that's more a measure of how bad the rules are than
> anything. I've yet to see an Inquisitor model that's made me think "I think
> I should own that" - the Eldar Ranger's not far off, but the range as a
> whole is pretty so-so.

Oh, c'mon, what about the Eversor and Vindcare, along with the Kroot
Merc (w/ Booster, of course)? The Deathwatch Marine is aces. The Chrono
Gladiator, Death Cultists, and original Arco-Flagellent are all very
good. If the range were expanded, Inquisitor would be great.

>>That's debatable. If GW can shuffle the slow sellers to MO, while keeping
>>the fast movers on shelf, doesn't that help overall?
>
> While I'd love to see the Necrons and Ogre Kingdoms go to Mail Order only
> (or better yet, be removed altogether - especially the Necrons), I really
> don't see GW doing that with a 'current' army even if a new one comes along.

Considering that Ogre Kingdoms is probably their hottest seller in quite
some time, I can't see that happening.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:3742otF5a6lphU1@individual.net...
> Philip Bowles wrote:
>> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote
>
>>>Inquisitor is the ultimate GW game -- the minis are far better than the
>>>rules.
>>
>> This is true, but that's more a measure of how bad the rules are than
>> anything. I've yet to see an Inquisitor model that's made me think "I
>> think I should own that" - the Eldar Ranger's not far off, but the range
>> as a whole is pretty so-so.
>
> Oh, c'mon, what about the Eversor

Rather poor, IMO, especially the lack of detailing on the skull mask.

> and Vindcare,

Okay, he's decent.

along with the Kroot
> Merc (w/ Booster, of course)?

Bionic Kroot is bad; the other looks no different and no better-detailed
than his 28mm counterparts.

> The Deathwatch Marine is aces.

True, he's good.

The Chrono
> Gladiator, Death Cultists, and original Arco-Flagellent are all very good.

Urgh to all of them. And again, the 28mm Death Cultists look identical.

> If the range were expanded, Inquisitor would be great.

For thematic reasons I wouldn't mind a warband with the Ranger, original
Rogue Trader and a Navigator (and possibly the Kroot), but without a ruleset
to support them they aren't interesting enough to buy as collectors' items.

>>>That's debatable. If GW can shuffle the slow sellers to MO, while
>>>keeping the fast movers on shelf, doesn't that help overall?
>>
>> While I'd love to see the Necrons and Ogre Kingdoms go to Mail Order only
>> (or better yet, be removed altogether - especially the Necrons), I really
>> don't see GW doing that with a 'current' army even if a new one comes
>> along.
>
> Considering that Ogre Kingdoms is probably their hottest seller in quite
> some time, I can't see that happening.

What makes you say that? Anyway, you can't deny that Necrons were a complete
flop - the planned release of the third C'Tan seems to have been postponed
indefinitely despite being listed in the schedule at a Games Day two or
three years ago, there were no Necron vehicle design rules, the army's been
completely unsupported by any later revisions, updates or additions, and
they seem to have quietly fallen into the background in the fluff after GW's
initial frenzied efforts to get them involved in everything. In fact, apart
from the fact that the Dark Eldar got an update and were never of much fluff
significance, the Necrons' treatment seems very reminiscent of that
perennially-ignored army. They must surely be one of GW's real low-sellers.

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

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

>>Oh, c'mon, what about the Eversor
>
> Rather poor, IMO, especially the lack of detailing on the skull mask.

Phil, I just don't get your concept of "detailing", so I'm going to have
to ignore this. The main point is that there is a goodly number and
proportion of Inquisitor scale models that I'd not be adverse to getting
if they weren't tainted by the official GW Inquisitor rules.

>>and Vindcare,
>
> Okay, he's decent.
>
> along with the Kroot
>
>>Merc (w/ Booster, of course)?
>
> Bionic Kroot is bad;

Duh.

> the other looks no different and no better-detailed
> than his 28mm counterparts.

And that would be the point.

>> The Deathwatch Marine is aces.
>
> True, he's good.

If slightly overdone with gegaws.

>>The Chrono Gladiator, Death Cultists, and original Arco-Flagellent are all very good.
>
> Urgh to all of them. And again, the 28mm Death Cultists look identical.

So? The 28mm models were sculpted after the 54mm models. How do you
fault the original for the copy?

>>If the range were expanded, Inquisitor would be great.
>
> For thematic reasons I wouldn't mind a warband with the Ranger, original
> Rogue Trader and a Navigator (and possibly the Kroot), but without a ruleset
> to support them they aren't interesting enough to buy as collectors' items.

Phil, considering the vast amount of rulestuff you, of all people, are
capable of producing in a day, how long would it take you to write a
decent rules-light ruleset for the models?

Hell, even working full time, I could pretty easily put something
together over a fortnight. You could probably knock it together by Monday.

The only question is what the correct basis should be. While Necromunda
Underhive is pretty tempting, I'm thinking it may be even better to go
back to Rogue Trader itself for the core ruleset.

>>>While I'd love to see the Necrons and Ogre Kingdoms go to Mail Order only
>>>(or better yet, be removed altogether - especially the Necrons), I really
>>>don't see GW doing that with a 'current' army even if a new one comes
>>>along.
>>
>>Considering that Ogre Kingdoms is probably their hottest seller in quite
>>some time, I can't see that happening.
>
> What makes you say that?

Because there are more people building Ogre armies upon its release than
I have ever seen in all my GW gaming years.

> Anyway, you can't deny that Necrons were a complete flop

Well, they're boring, that's for sure.

> - the planned release of the third C'Tan seems to have been postponed
> indefinitely despite being listed in the schedule at a Games Day two or
> three years ago, there were no Necron vehicle design rules, the army's
> been completely unsupported by any later revisions, updates or
> additions,

Huh? They got rework with a full Codex and full model range with all
the trimmings. Ugly stuff, but complete nonetheless.

> and they seem to have quietly fallen into the background in the fluff
> after GW's initial frenzied efforts to get them involved in everything.
> In fact, apart from the fact that the Dark Eldar got an update and
> were never of much fluff significance, the Necrons' treatment seems
> very reminiscent of that perennially-ignored army. They must surely
> be one of GW's real low-sellers.

Entirely possible. But then I'm not privvy to that information.

All I know is that GW lost a lot of money in the US last year.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:3733ieF58mot4U1@individual.net...
> M Roberts wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > No, it doesn't. When you point out the actual rule about Citadel
> > miniatures, and then ask about Forge World models, the best answer
I've
> > ever had is "well, you should be alright", which is not terribly
> > reassuring.
>
> Well, one could always refer to GW's own rules...

I have. That's where the problem starts . . .

> > All it'll take is one anally pedantic rules lawyer to point out that
> > you're not using Citadel miniatures, and by the letter of the rules
they
> > should disqualify you.
>
> No, they shouldn't, and any anal lawyer who'd pull such a stunt would
be
> at serious risk of having my shoe stuffed up his ass. Why? Because,
> but the letter of the rules:
>
> "All models must be Citadel, Marauder, Fanatic, or Forge World models.
> Forge World models may only be used to represent entries from Codexes
or
> Army Books. Vehicles from the Imperial Armour books are not
permitted."
> [p.2, Tournament Rulebook, Grand Tournament 2004 Season.]
>
> This dates back at least to 2001:
>
> "• May only use Games Workshop models, these include Citadel,
> Marauder, Fanatic, or Forge World miniatures."
> [p.4, GT 2001 rules packet]


Hmm, interesting. The only tournie rulespacks I have to hand say this:

BfG/Call To Arms 2003:
° All models in your fleet must be appropriate Citadel miniatures and
present a ‘What You See Is What You Get’ (WYSIWYG) look.

2003 40k UK/GT Rulespack:
° All models used must be PAINTED Citadel miniatures of the appropriate
type for the troops they represent.
° You may use converted Citadel miniatures to represent troop types that
are not yet available.
° Non-Citadel miniatures are not permitted in the Grand Tournament and
will be removed in the same way as unpainted miniatures.
° Conversions must begin as Citadel miniatures and contain a majority of
Citadel miniature components. If you are in any doubt about the validity
of your conversion please contact the Tournament organisers immediately.

Neither mentions Forgeworld at all, only Citadel. And Forgeworld models
are *not* Citadel models.

> > I'm not saying it's right, or that it'll even happen, but it's a
> > possibility, until GW either change the wording of the rules or
classify
> > FW models as Citadel.
>
> And *why* would they need to do this?

Because, at the moment, by the letter of the rules, Forgeworld models
should not be allowed in GW tournies.

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

John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message news:<375f10F5aflqvU1@individual.net>...
> Philip Bowles wrote:
> > "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>
> >>Oh, c'mon, what about the Eversor
> >
> > Rather poor, IMO, especially the lack of detailing on the skull mask.
>
> Phil, I just don't get your concept of "detailing", so I'm going to have
> to ignore this.

Well, let's start with the basics - if it's a square lump of pewter
with eye holes, a comic-book skeleton grin and no other features, it's
poorly-detailed. In 40k that's forgivable, but at this scale some
attempt could have been made to make it look more like a real skull
rather than a copy of the current Dark Reaper masks (only more
angular). WFB skeletons manage better than this in 28mm.

> > the other looks no different and no better-detailed
> > than his 28mm counterparts.
>
> And that would be the point.

And so you pay as much for one huge Kroot as for 16 40k Kroot that are
at least as good and more poseable because...?

> >> The Deathwatch Marine is aces.
> >
> > True, he's good.
>
> If slightly overdone with gegaws.

About right for the size of model, I'd say.

>>The Chrono Gladiator, Death Cultists, and original Arco-Flagellent
are all very good.
> >
> > Urgh to all of them. And again, the 28mm Death Cultists look identical.
>
> So? The 28mm models were sculpted after the 54mm models. How do you
> fault the original for the copy?

Well, I fault the originals because, like the copies, they're dreadful
models, but beyond that if I *did* want Death Cult Assassins, why on
earth would I pay for a 54mm one when I could get a cheaper 28mm one
of the same quality? You don't get any extra details on the larger
models, so what's the point?

> >>If the range were expanded, Inquisitor would be great.
> >
> > For thematic reasons I wouldn't mind a warband with the Ranger, original
> > Rogue Trader and a Navigator (and possibly the Kroot), but without a ruleset
> > to support them they aren't interesting enough to buy as collectors' items.
>
> Phil, considering the vast amount of rulestuff you, of all people, are
> capable of producing in a day, how long would it take you to write a
> decent rules-light ruleset for the models?

Probably a fraction of the time it took Thorpe to come up with
Inquisitor, but I'd find players where, exactly? And in any case why
should I want to go to the effort? These are GW products and if they
want me to use them they need to support them with a useable ruleset.

> >>>While I'd love to see the Necrons and Ogre Kingdoms go to Mail Order only
> >>>(or better yet, be removed altogether - especially the Necrons), I really
> >>>don't see GW doing that with a 'current' army even if a new one comes
> >>>along.
> >>
> >>Considering that Ogre Kingdoms is probably their hottest seller in quite
> >>some time, I can't see that happening.
> >
> > What makes you say that?
>
> Because there are more people building Ogre armies upon its release than
> I have ever seen in all my GW gaming years.

I don't remember seeing one save for the one in the (then)-local GW.

> > - the planned release of the third C'Tan seems to have been postponed
> > indefinitely despite being listed in the schedule at a Games Day two or
> > three years ago, there were no Necron vehicle design rules, the army's
> > been completely unsupported by any later revisions, updates or
> > additions,
>
> Huh? They got rework with a full Codex

They got 3rd Edition rules. Big deal - Squats got 2nd Edition rules.
Plus the unit selection and model range for the Codex was smaller than
for, say, the Dark Eldar or Tau.

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

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

>>>>Oh, c'mon, what about the Eversor
>>>
>>>Rather poor, IMO, especially the lack of detailing on the skull mask.
>>
>>Phil, I just don't get your concept of "detailing", so I'm going to
>>have to ignore this.

> at this scale some attempt could have been made to make it look
> more like a real skull rather than a copy of the current Dark
> Reaper masks (only more angular).

Here's the question: Is the Eversor wearing an armoured mask that fits
over his face, or has he been bioengineered to remove the soft tissue on
his head? If it's the former, then the Eversor mask should look like a
mask. If it's the latter, then I would better accept your criticism here.

>>>the other looks no different and no better-detailed
>>>than his 28mm counterparts.
>>
>>And that would be the point.
>
> And so you pay as much for one huge Kroot as for 16 40k Kroot that are
> at least as good and more poseable because...?

Actually, it's more like paying for 12 40k Kroot. 😉

But the main benefit is that the =I= model is simply bigness. A 30mm
model is pretty hard to see details on without getting right up to it,
whereas a 60mm model is a lot easier. And then there's the weight
factor. With the metal model, you don't have to worry about a bump or
breeze knocking the model over.

> >>The Chrono Gladiator, Death Cultists, and original Arco-Flagellent
> are all very good.
>
>>>Urgh to all of them. And again, the 28mm Death Cultists look identical.
>>
>>So? The 28mm models were sculpted after the 54mm models. How do you
>>fault the original for the copy?
>
> Well, I fault the originals because, like the copies, they're dreadful
> models, but beyond that if I *did* want Death Cult Assassins, why on
> earth would I pay for a 54mm one when I could get a cheaper 28mm one
> of the same quality? You don't get any extra details on the larger
> models, so what's the point?

The details are much finer. Also, the Death Cult Assassins are
'convertible'. I have 2 sets, which I intend to convert as follows:
- Death Cultist
- Howling Banshee
- Harlequin
- Callidus Assassin

Thinking about it, down the road, it might be useful to get a 3rd set to
convert up a "naked" Sister Repentia and Dark Eldar Warrior.

>> Phil, considering the vast amount of rulestuff you, of all people, are
>> capable of producing in a day, how long would it take you to write a
>> decent rules-light ruleset for the models?
>
> Probably a fraction of the time it took Thorpe to come up with
> Inquisitor,

Correct.

> but I'd find players where, exactly?

RGMW, for starters.

> And in any case why should I want to go to the effort?

First off, it is clear that, at some level, you want to be a published
game designer.

Second, it is clear that you could do better than Gav did.

Third, current =I= players need a new, better ruleset far more than GW
or the Internet needs a virtual Tale.

> These are GW products and if they want me to use them
> they need to support them with a useable ruleset.

AFAIC, GW has a very usable, and appropriate, ruleset for =I=
squad-level gaming. It's called "Rogue Trader".

>>>>Considering that Ogre Kingdoms is probably their hottest seller in quite
>>>>some time, I can't see that happening.
>>>
>>>What makes you say that?
>>
>>Because there are more people building Ogre armies upon its release than
>>I have ever seen in all my GW gaming years.
>
> I don't remember seeing one save for the one in the (then)-local GW.

Apparently, players in both of the local GW clubs have taken to Ogres in
a rather large way, pun incidental. There is a lot of energy and
excitement over Ogres right now, in stark contrast to the Necron reception.

>>Huh? They got rework with a full Codex
>
> They got 3rd Edition rules. Big deal - Squats got 2nd Edition rules.

Did they get a whole new set of models to replace their RT models?

> Plus the unit selection and model range for the Codex was smaller than
> for, say, the Dark Eldar or Tau.

If so, not by much, particularly if you properly exclude FW's tack-ons.


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