[LotR] Anyone else noticed this?

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

http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=60011699
001&orignav=300808

That'll be LotR Warmaster then. I can hardly contain my excitement.

Tim
--
----------------
Criticizing the current administration is a treasonable offence!
The dept of "Homeland Security" has been informed of your
activities and will arrive shortly to pick you up. Please wrap
a towel around your head and stand out in front of your home
with a burning US flag so they can find you.
- smithdoer - Usenet out-take

www.rgmw.org - the RGMW FAQ, ignore at your peril!

Currently listening to: 'Waltzing Along' - James
67 answers Last reply
More about lotr noticed this
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Helicon_One wrote:
    > http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=60011699
    > 001&orignav=300808
    >
    > That'll be LotR Warmaster then.

    The boxed set is $100 USD and contains a full rulebook, big terrain, and
    a *lot* of stands (48 evil, 27 good). WarMaster boxed sets are only 18
    stands for $50 USD.

    > I can hardly contain my excitement.

    Well, I'm more excited over this than with the 25mm version, that's for
    sure. LotR battles are naturally large scope, with very big numbers on
    each side. B5A supports this.

    Also, as replacements for WarMaster, the boxed set is pretty good.

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

    "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
    news:36kh07F54il0gU1@individual.net...
    > Helicon_One wrote:
    >> http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=60011699
    >> 001&orignav=300808
    >>
    >> That'll be LotR Warmaster then.
    >
    > The boxed set is $100 USD and contains a full rulebook, big terrain, and a
    > *lot* of stands (48 evil, 27 good). WarMaster boxed sets are only 18
    > stands for $50 USD.
    >
    >> I can hardly contain my excitement.
    >
    > Well, I'm more excited over this than with the 25mm version, that's for
    > sure.

    Agreed. I'm interested simply because it's a new game that genuinely does
    seem to be playable from the box, though of course it isn't a complete game
    in the sense that you won't want extra units (Elven cavalry, for instance).
    I'm not overly fussed about most of the models - they aren't quite Warmaster
    quality for the most part - but they're good enough. And, being LotR, we can
    of course expect the Elves to be the best fighters...

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

    "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:36kl69F52n81qU1@individual.net...
    >
    > "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
    > news:36kh07F54il0gU1@individual.net...
    >> Helicon_One wrote:
    >>> http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=60011699
    >>> 001&orignav=300808
    >>>
    >>> That'll be LotR Warmaster then.
    >>
    >> The boxed set is $100 USD and contains a full rulebook, big terrain, and
    >> a *lot* of stands (48 evil, 27 good). WarMaster boxed sets are only 18
    >> stands for $50 USD.
    >>
    >>> I can hardly contain my excitement.
    >>
    >> Well, I'm more excited over this than with the 25mm version, that's for
    >> sure.
    >
    > Agreed. I'm interested simply because it's a new game that genuinely does
    > seem to be playable from the box, though of course it isn't a complete
    > game in the sense that you won't want extra units (Elven cavalry, for
    > instance). I'm not overly fussed about most of the models - they aren't
    > quite Warmaster quality for the most part - but they're good enough. And,
    > being LotR, we can of course expect the Elves to be the best fighters...

    Are the figures the same scale as WarMaster?


    --

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

    "smithdoerr" <askmeforname@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:36knj7F524fc7U1@individual.net...
    >
    > "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:36kl69F52n81qU1@individual.net...
    >>
    >> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
    >> news:36kh07F54il0gU1@individual.net...
    >>> Helicon_One wrote:
    >>>> http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=60011699
    >>>> 001&orignav=300808
    >>>>
    >>>> That'll be LotR Warmaster then.
    >>>
    >>> The boxed set is $100 USD and contains a full rulebook, big terrain, and
    >>> a *lot* of stands (48 evil, 27 good). WarMaster boxed sets are only 18
    >>> stands for $50 USD.
    >>>
    >>>> I can hardly contain my excitement.
    >>>
    >>> Well, I'm more excited over this than with the 25mm version, that's for
    >>> sure.
    >>
    >> Agreed. I'm interested simply because it's a new game that genuinely does
    >> seem to be playable from the box, though of course it isn't a complete
    >> game in the sense that you won't want extra units (Elven cavalry, for
    >> instance). I'm not overly fussed about most of the models - they aren't
    >> quite Warmaster quality for the most part - but they're good enough. And,
    >> being LotR, we can of course expect the Elves to be the best fighters...
    >
    > Are the figures the same scale as WarMaster?

    Supposed to be - the Online Store calls it a "10mm strategy game".

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

    >
    >The boxed set is $100 USD and contains a full rulebook, big terrain, and
    >a *lot* of stands (48 evil, 27 good). WarMaster boxed sets are only 18
    >stands for $50 USD.

    Are you sure its $100? I was told by my store that its only $80 U.S., but hey,
    maybe the price went up.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    Ducalguard wrote:
    >>The boxed set is $100 USD and contains a full rulebook, big terrain, and
    >>a *lot* of stands (48 evil, 27 good). WarMaster boxed sets are only 18
    >>stands for $50 USD.
    >
    > Are you sure its $100? I was told by my store that its only $80 U.S., but hey,
    > maybe the price went up.

    It's 50 GBP on the website, which I assumed would be converted to $100
    USD, based on how GW likes to take extra profit in the exchange. If
    it's $80 USD, so much the better.

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

    "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:36kt5gF53r2aaU1@individual.net...
    >
    > "smithdoerr" <askmeforname@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:36knj7F524fc7U1@individual.net...
    >>
    >> Are the figures the same scale as WarMaster?
    >
    > Supposed to be - the Online Store calls it a "10mm strategy game".

    Ah ok. I was expecting GW to make them some odd-ball size smaller to
    discourage people from using them in other games like they did with LotR.


    --

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

    smithdoerr wrote:
    > "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote

    >>>Are the figures the same scale as WarMaster?
    >>
    >>Supposed to be - the Online Store calls it a "10mm strategy game".
    >
    > Ah ok. I was expecting GW to make them some odd-ball size smaller to
    > discourage people from using them in other games like they did with LotR.

    I expected the same, 8mm, splitting the difference between Warmaster and
    Epic.

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

    On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:32:36 +0000, Helicon_One wrote:

    > http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=60011699
    > 001&orignav=300808
    >
    > That'll be LotR Warmaster then. I can hardly contain my excitement.
    >
    >
    It might be cool if it actually was a self contained game, as opposed to
    all the other boxed sets which pretty require you to buy a ton of other
    stuff. Seeing as it has seperate models you can buy, i'm assuming it's the
    latter. Or would be if it somehow sells well enough for GW to decide it's
    worth supporting with models.

    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?

    --
    Ctcaiato - otter meat to go
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:36kl69F52n81qU1@individual.net...
    >
    > "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
    > news:36kh07F54il0gU1@individual.net...
    >> Helicon_One wrote:
    >>> http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=60011699
    >>> 001&orignav=300808
    >>>
    >>> That'll be LotR Warmaster then.
    >>
    >> The boxed set is $100 USD and contains a full rulebook, big terrain, and
    >> a *lot* of stands (48 evil, 27 good). WarMaster boxed sets are only 18
    >> stands for $50 USD.
    >>
    >>> I can hardly contain my excitement.
    >>
    >> Well, I'm more excited over this than with the 25mm version, that's for
    >> sure.
    >
    > Agreed. I'm interested simply because it's a new game that genuinely does
    > seem to be playable from the box, though of course it isn't a complete
    > game in the sense that you won't want extra units (Elven cavalry, for
    > instance). I'm not overly fussed about most of the models - they aren't
    > quite Warmaster quality for the most part - but they're good enough. And,
    > being LotR, we can of course expect the Elves to be the best fighters...
    >
    > Philip Bowles


    This game uses warmaster game mechanics?

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

    "Andy O'Neill" <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:hrtNd.14302$68.1912@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > This game uses warmaster game mechanics?

    Come on get with the program.. it uses >

    The Hobbit battle game rules and mechanics..
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "Andy O'Neill" <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:hrtNd.14302$68.1912@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > "Philip Bowles" <pbowles@aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:36kl69F52n81qU1@individual.net...
    >>
    >> "John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
    >> news:36kh07F54il0gU1@individual.net...
    >>> Helicon_One wrote:
    >>>> http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=60011699
    >>>> 001&orignav=300808
    >>>>
    >>>> That'll be LotR Warmaster then.
    >>>
    >>> The boxed set is $100 USD and contains a full rulebook, big terrain, and
    >>> a *lot* of stands (48 evil, 27 good). WarMaster boxed sets are only 18
    >>> stands for $50 USD.
    >>>
    >>>> I can hardly contain my excitement.
    >>>
    >>> Well, I'm more excited over this than with the 25mm version, that's for
    >>> sure.
    >>
    >> Agreed. I'm interested simply because it's a new game that genuinely does
    >> seem to be playable from the box, though of course it isn't a complete
    >> game in the sense that you won't want extra units (Elven cavalry, for
    >> instance). I'm not overly fussed about most of the models - they aren't
    >> quite Warmaster quality for the most part - but they're good enough. And,
    >> being LotR, we can of course expect the Elves to be the best fighters...
    >>
    >> Philip Bowles
    >
    >
    > This game uses warmaster game mechanics?

    Probably not, though it is designed by Rick Priestly, who also designed
    Warmaster. Then again he designed WFB, 40k and LotR as well... Looking at
    the selection of models available, leaders don't seem to be a significant
    part of the game (Wargs and Elves appear not to have any at all) so I don't
    expect command and control to play much part. GW seems to be being
    remarkably silent on this new game, though - no hint of how it plays or even
    a suggestion of a coming White Dwarf preview or showcase article on it.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "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. A complete game in a
    box, limited to 8000 copies in the initial print run.

    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

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

    "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.

    A complete game in a
    > box, limited to 8000 copies in the initial print run.
    >
    > 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
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.02.06.22.02.39.499061@sig.invalid...
    > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:32:36 +0000, Helicon_One wrote:
    >
    >> http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=60011699
    >> 001&orignav=300808
    >>
    >> That'll be LotR Warmaster then. I can hardly contain my excitement.
    >>
    >>
    > It might be cool if it actually was a self contained game, as opposed to
    > all the other boxed sets which pretty require you to buy a ton of other
    > stuff. Seeing as it has seperate models you can buy, i'm assuming it's the
    > latter.

    At a guess it's somewhere between the two - though I'm not that familiar
    with The Hobbit, I'm not sure there's much else they could add. In other
    words, what we see in advance order is probably everything that will ever be
    released for the system. It's probably going to be most like Talisman - a
    self-contained game but with the option to expand it with extra units.

    > 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:

    Warmaster Slann Mage Priests for a range which already has a Slann Mage
    Priest only a couple of years old.

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

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

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

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

    Etc. etc.

    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.

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

    "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.
    >
    Chaos were next, whether they still are, I don't know, also what do you
    think of the v4 Epic Tau list in the vault? It looks like a lot of the War
    Engines are severely undercosted.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "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.
    > >
    > Chaos were next, whether they still are, I don't know, also what do you
    > think of the v4 Epic Tau list in the vault?

    I had a very, very long list of comments that I posted to the Tau part
    of the forum some time ago. I even redid the whole list with the units
    as I'd like to see them. In a nutshell:

    Markerlights and seekers are too commonplace. I particularly dislike
    Fire Warriors having markerlights - they shouldn't have special rules
    any more than other races' grunts. Granted these are
    characteristically Tau weapons, but pulse lasers are
    characteristically Eldar and they aren't found on every unit. I
    recommended losing seekers from most vehicles, simplifying the guided
    missile rules and standardising the markerlight effect at +1 to hit
    with guided missiles.

    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.

    Tetras should be part of the main list. Chances are, with models due,
    they will be in the next revision.

    It's too much like a fan list - most of the new units were versions of
    the old units, only better (a Hammerhead with twin-linked railguns, a
    Tigershark with extra railcannon etc.) I tried to add more diversity
    to armaments, with a fusion cannon turret for the Marlin, for example.

    It looks like a lot of the War
    > Engines are severely undercosted.

    Last time I checked, the Moray was undercosted (this was generally
    agreed), the Scorpionfish seemed about right and the Dragonfish too
    expensive. According to the designer on the Epic Forum, the Dragonfish
    and Scorpionfish are to be dropped anyway.

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

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

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

    >
    > A complete game in a
    >> box, limited to 8000 copies in the initial print run.
    >>
    >> 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.

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

    In article <PtLNd.43332$K7.8187@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Andy O'Neill wrote:

    > Well....
    > As you may recall I think more than a bit of a tweak necessary to make
    > warmaster playable.
    > Basing em on warmaster makes them far less likely I'll buy the set.

    I have never tried warmaster, but I was under the impression that it
    was solid ruleset. What's wrong with it?

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

    "jockelinde" <nouser@notmydomain.se> wrote in message
    news:slrnd0f1mr.dke.nouser@crux.id.gu.se...
    > In article <PtLNd.43332$K7.8187@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Andy O'Neill
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Well....
    >> As you may recall I think more than a bit of a tweak necessary to make
    >> warmaster playable.
    >> Basing em on warmaster makes them far less likely I'll buy the set.
    >
    > I have never tried warmaster, but I was under the impression that it
    > was solid ruleset. What's wrong with it?
    >
    > --
    > Joakim

    The core mechanics are faulted in a number of ways.
    Search on google. Warmaster review is one thread.

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

    "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.

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

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

    In article <5FMNd.43353$K7.27863@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Andy O'Neill wrote:
    > "jockelinde" <nouser@notmydomain.se> wrote in message
    > news:slrnd0f1mr.dke.nouser@crux.id.gu.se...
    >> In article <PtLNd.43332$K7.8187@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Andy O'Neill
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Well....
    >>> As you may recall I think more than a bit of a tweak necessary to make
    >>> warmaster playable.
    >>> Basing em on warmaster makes them far less likely I'll buy the set.
    >>
    >> I have never tried warmaster, but I was under the impression that it
    >> was solid ruleset. What's wrong with it?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Joakim
    >
    > 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.


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

    "Andy O'Neill" <aon14nocannedmeat@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:PtLNd.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
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "Craig Little" <craig.little@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:P6GdneM7e7dWAZrfRVn-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
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
    news:pan.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:pan.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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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"
  34. 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
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
    news:pan.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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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:pan.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.'
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

    "disgruntled pawn" <see@sig.invalid> wrote in message
    news:pan.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:pan.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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games