Jump to content

Vaeris

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vaeris

  1. I would like to see a Avian (bird) based race/faction as well as a Feline based. There are a ton of birds in the world from which to get inspiration for models, both flying and flightless (to kill the can't have a whole flying army rebuttal). There is a "dog" faction (koborlas) so I'd imagine "cat" people are wondering when's their turn.

     

    That's wolf to you, Newbie or should I call you lunch? ::D:

     

    :ph34r: Yeah I know. I have around 30+ Koborlas. Probably should have used "canine", lol! Still, would love to see some Werebirds and Werecats. ^_^

  2. I would like to see a Avian (bird) based race/faction as well as a Feline based. There are a ton of birds in the world from which to get inspiration for models, both flying and flightless (to kill the can't have a whole flying army rebuttal). There is a "dog" faction (koborlas) so I'd imagine "cat" people are wondering when's their turn.

  3. It's not a Warlord game, but the Age of Wonders series has a bit of a Warlord feel, especially at the tactical level. Great fun and tactical depth. Like Warlord, units have basic stats and then additional special abilities. Combined arms works best, but you can field stacks of units with only 1 type of unit.

     

    Good Old Games has the three games in the series without DRM for $10 and under (each. Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic is the last one in the series (and the best of them), but there is still an active map and mod community.

     

    Ron

     

    Good Old Games had all three games in the series on sale a week or so ago for $4 each. I took advantage of it to pick up Shadow Magic as I already have the first 2. I agree also, very good series of games. A shame they stopped at three as it could have been a great rival for the Heroes of MM series.

  4. Despite everyone going to the jugular about painted armies, is anyone else happy as hell that there is a topic with more than 3 posts in it on the Warlord Forum!

     

     

    I always feel like people only paint their miniatures so they can fudge distances. "Oh I would be in b2b contact, but that miniature is painted and I don't want to damage it."

    Pfft. :)

     

    Well I am a forum junky of sorts, though I mainly frequent my MMO forum of choice. Once I've gotten a few more skins on my wall as far as Warlord goes I hope to contribute more to the overall game discussion. Believe me this discussion is a ton more civil than some of those I've seen on MMO forums.

     

    You should start carrying a ball-peen hammer with you. If someone actually does say that to you just swing that hammer out of nowhere and smack!: now they don't have to worry about that paint job! :devil: Seriously, though, that's what the edges of the base are for. A little scuff there can be touched up easily, even if they flock the edges. :poke:

  5. While this is not quite what you are looking for, there happens to a thread right here in the Warlord forum for painted armies. There are only 5 people who have posted links to anything there, including yours truly.

     

    And now that I look back at that thread, I'm overdue to update my post. I now have something like 3x as many painted Elves, almost twice as many Crusaders, and finally enough Dwarves to be worth shooting. Updates tonight if I can grab a little time after work.

     

    See? I love painted armies too. I just don't always field them...

     

    ~v

     

    That's actually a pretty cool thread. Thanks for linking it. It is true that I was thinking more along the lines of the Warlord website as most newbies(myself included)would probably go to the Reaper Games page and click on Warlord from there. I think it'd do the game some good to have a gallery of sorts there. Heck I'd even volunteer to take photos at the Asylum store for that purpose. :lol: And of course having "action shots" from other parts of the planet show people that this game is played in many places and hopefully prompt more people to jump on-board.

  6. I think in general we want to expand the game and the player base, not turn people away because they don't have an "acceptable" force. That would seem counterproductive. Paint has no effect on the game results.

    But most of us would probably agree that paint does have an effect on the coolness factor of mini gaming...::D:

     

    You bring up a good point here. I think most mini gamers - regardless of which mini game they play - are interested in expanding the player base. Who doesn't want more opponents to choose from? I know from personal experience that people seeing fully painted forces squaring off across a table full of nice terrain* from each other does inspire them to want to play. So it would seem that encouraging fully painted armies would be helpful to the hobby. OTOH, I also know from personal experience that the often daunting or overwhelming prospect of painting all those figures often causes newcomers to quit. Which pretty much counters the above argument about fully painted armies are beneficial.

     

    So perhaps instead of discussing the merits of painted/unpainted figures in tourneys, we should be discussing how to deal with that - that is getting more people to not only enjoy playing, but how to get more painted minis on game tables everywhere without alienating anyone.

     

    In my old game group, several of us were always willing to help new comers get their minis painted - usually by offering to paint a unit or two for them. I wish we'd thought of having group painting nights back those days - I'm sure that would have been a huge motivator in all of us getting things painted.

     

    ----

     

    *while I'm fairly ambivalent about playing with/against unpainted minis, I will readily admit that I'm somewhat of a terrain snob/elitist. I'd rather play with and against unpainted pewter than play on a table with terrain made of stacked CD cases and pop cans. Since I also enjoy building and sharing terrain, this has never really been a problem for me as I've yet to meet an opponent who was upset I provided better terrain.

     

     

    One thing I think would help promote would be a photo section on the main Warlord page that had pictures of the people who play in action with, of course (lol), their painted armies. Volunteer basis only as I know not everyone wants a mugshot on the internet. But it would be cool to have such shots showing people all over the country/world playing Warlord on the main Warlord site.

  7. I don't see any other way to read, "...just to prove the point that playing against a fully painted list isn't all it's cracked up to be" to mean that you were planning to make things worse by proxying only to increase your opponent's confusion. "Oh, yeah? Well, I'll show 'em how horrible it can be when you follow the rules" is not a reasonable response to rules you disagree with.

    No, I would never do anything to impact the actal play of the game. I would, however, gladly field an army composed of proxied painted models of every faction (and non-faction generic) that I own (and I do have a smattering painted from nearly every WL faction, including most of the coming SN factions). Everything would be on appropriate bases and distinct from everything else, but it would be a "hot mess" in terms of color schemes, basing styles, and general unifying theme. I can't imagine that a "painted army purist" would be especially happy with that list, but really, I wouldn't care. My army is not there to make them happy; it's there so I can play the game, and that's all.

     

    Miniatures gaming is about playing with painted figures.

    That is just an opinion, not a fact. A number of people share the opinion with you, but it is far from universal. When tournaments require painted armies to participate, it only serves to try to force that opinion on the rest of us, and it alienates players from one another. It is completely avoidable, with no effort at all.

     

    ~v

     

    In response to the first I'd rather see a "hot mess" than a silver horde. I'm no "painted army purist" but that's my preference. The only things I would think would be that you were either color blind or or just naturally didn't know how to coordinate colors. Either way I'd respect that you made the effort. ::):

     

    As to the second I think it depends on the company behind it. Some look at assembling/painting miniatures as the first step in the overall hobby. That, to me, is why they have painted demo armies on the table to try to draw in new customers. If they didn't then why don't they just use unpainted minis for their demos?

     

    Now, I understand there are a host of reasons people don't paint their minis. I'm by no means trying to sound like I'm judging them as I really don't care. Would I prefer to face a painted army over unpainted? Absolutly! Would I not play a person b/c they had an unpainted army? Of course not, though I may have 50 million questions about what's what, especially if they proxy. And as my mind is racing with a million other things tactically as far as what I want to do I may ask such questions numerous times.

     

    I totally respect Gus' decision to not require painted models for events at the Asylum and ReaperCon. That said, I have to believe that a part of the idea behind Reaper minis is the assembling/painting of minis and then playing with them be it in Warlord or your weekly D&D group. Based on that I don't think it hurts a thing to offer up an award or three recognizing those who took the time to paint their Warlord minis. Especially if it doesn't give any game related bonus and considering that down the road sometime Gus could take photos of those armies in action at events and use said photos on the website to help market the game.

     

    I agree, though, that anything done should only be in the vein of encouraging painting and not requiring.

  8. Interesting info. It would be really interesting to see the numbers for 1000 pt armies for other games as a comparison.

     

    Wouldn't really be relevant for some games. GW's Warhammer 40k uses 2,500 point forces in tournaments I believe. I may be wrong. Haven't played that since discovering Warlord lol. In any even tI do know people who have spent 2-3 thousand dollars on just 2 or 3 armies for that game and still are missing things they'd like to have.

     

    Joshua

    GW 40K events are more like 1,500 to 1,750 points, I think. Warhammer Fantasy Battle (WFB) events are usually 2000 points at GW events or 2,250 points at Indy GTs.

     

    I don't think 1000 points of a GW Fantasy army and 1000 points of Warlord troops would be an Apples/Apples comparison anyway. (And comparing 40K to Warlord is completely pointless. Like comparing Oranges to Bowling Balls.) Games Workshop's WFB point scale is very coarse compared to Warlord. For instance:

     

    Goblins with bows are 21 points in Warlord; 4 points in WFB

    Orcs with Spears are 14 points in Warlord; 6 points in WFB

     

    Warlord's point scale is more refined and does a better job of numerically representing the model's capability relative to all other Warlord models.

     

     

    Yep, every one I've ran was with those point requirements. Course that was years ago and the format may have changed (I've been out of table-top wargaming for a few years).

     

    As far as the point system goes I don't agree that WFB's is "coarse". It is just set up to do a different thing which, I agree, isn't comparable to Warlord. WFB is not a skirmish game. It is a full army on the field clashing with another like-sized force. Thus the points system reflects being able to put a large quantity of troops on the table. Heck WFB is not meant for a 4X4 table like Warlord either. It is meant for a 4X6 or 4X8.

     

    If you wanted to compare Warlord to a GW product it'd be more appropriate to use Mordheim or Necromunda. Those two games are more skirmish related, though they typically field less models per side than a typical Warlord list.

  9. Well, you could make it so that the in-game benefit only applies for painted, non-proxied armies. That way you don't "limit" proxying and still offer the benefit of having a fully painted listed of the army you have put together on paper.

     

    I'm by no means an excellent painter. I do like to have my mini's painted to reflect what they are supposed to be, though, and it does enhance the fight experience for me when all minis on the table are painted as such. That said, demanding they be painted, I think, is far from the right way to go. Rewarding those who take the time and effort to paint them up to fully represent what they are, however, is a very nice bonus. Any in-game tactical bonuses should be carefully considered. I do think, though, that a fully painted (or percentage wise "more" painted) army should break any ties points wise. If both are fully painted then go to normal tie breaking procedures.

  10. I think the only way Reaper could require any form of paint requirement is if they actually post the scenarios a decent amount of time ahead of the tourney. Only a couple weeks before is not sufficient for players to be expected to build lists and have them painted.

     

    Maybe, but considering we have a full year now to work on painting it's possible to get 1000pts painted (which is 20-25, maybe 30 models) before next year as well as a few auxillary models that cater to certain situations. I kind of like the idea of withholding the scenarios until the last week or 2 as it makes the scenario part of the challenge too (as opposed to it being out for 3+ weeks and everyone running them so much that "best army/lists" are generated).

     

    It'd be kinda cool to see a "Best Painted Army" or a "Best Conversion" type awards.

×
×
  • Create New...