Thursday, December 29, 2011

Kazad ai-menu! (The Dwarves are upon you!)

As promised a month or so ago, I decided to make a few comparison shots of some of my GW figures over the years.  I am going to start with my first love, the Dwarves.  I started these guys back in the heady days of the mid 90's.(specifically 1994)  In my collection I really have three distinct lines that I have out there.  Given the merging of Marauder Miniatures, I will just characterize them based on the edition that they came out or the closest editions.  What I want to do with these pictures is to help me figure out whether I want to continue with my idea of using the 7th edition (well usually called 6.5 as well given that they came out earlier than the 7th) models in my collection.  If I really have lost interest in that line of models, I dont see a reason why to keep them anymore.  Without further ado here are the models that I brought out based on the edition used.  At the end I did take the caliper to them and have the results of my measurements below as well. 

Dwarves Over the Years

These are some of my 4th edition models.  I have sold off about 1/3 of my collection from that time, mainly from the look of some of the models that I am not interested with much any more and also because of the fact that I have just too damn much of one model.  I did not have much in the form of depth on the bench with this edition.  I really do love these models, but mainly as character models in my armies. For example, that fully painted handsome devil on the near left, is my thane of pain.

These are the models of my main line army from the 6th edition.  I really do like these models mainly due to their functionality and versatility.  I will talk about this later but I have no problem with the "monkey hands" that everyone incessantly complains about with this edition.  When I got a good hold of them, I really liked working with these guys.  From my experience, they fit really well with my 4th edition Dwarves. 

While technically from the 6th edition, they came out just prior to the 7th, and part of the joke in Dwarven circles as Dwarves 6.5.  I have put these guys together, and I am still rather undecided as to whether they will serve as a functioning wing of my Dwarves.  Unlike in the two previous editions, this army is significantly different in looks so much that they really dont fit side-by-side with previous editions.  This means that they would have to be a separate army. 

Now for the Comparison

The following pics are my comparison shots, rather self explanatory so I will leave the repotage out of the pics.  The commentary will come later on. 

Now this following pic is one with one of my Romans from Warlord Games, just for laughs.  I know that there are some discrepancies between historical miniatures and fantasy miniatures, and that Romans tended to be on the shorter side and thus modeled by some to be shorter, but this is rather rediculius.  From my Calculation of the models without the base, a Dwarf is about 4'7" or so.  Just by looks that would make that Roman no taller than 5' or so.  That would make Napoleon a LARGE guy for during the Roman Times.  I really do find that hard to believe that the Romans were that short given that the Greeks were as short if not shorter and they ranged around 5'4" or so last time that I looked.  It really does make me wonder if Warlord made their Romans more for 25mm playing initially. 

Comparison Stats

I also decided to do some comparison statistics with my models.  I dont really know how to import a table just yet onto one of these posts so please bear with me on this one.  Height is self explanatory for the model itself, but I am just measuring top of head gear to bottom of base.  Width was from Arm to arm, and if different the widest part on that axis in parentheses.  Girth is how I measure from front to back  at the widest part of the beard.  I also did the hands with or without a weapon in hand in both width of hand and length of hand.  All of these numbers are in mm. 

Body Dimensions
Edition:                                  7th          6th          4th
Model Height:                        25           25            24
Model Width:                         17(20)    20            16
Model Depth:                         12           11            10
With Hand weapon
Hand Lenght:                           3             4              4
Hand Width:                            3             4              4
Without Hand Weapon
Hand Length:                           4             4              4
Hand Width:                            2.5          4              4

A note on the 4th Edition measurements, they were the most wildly varied of the three whereas the 7th and 6th are very consistent concerning the body measurements.  It is proabably due to me not using any poses that have the arms tucked down in a ready position rather than in a heroic upright position.  Honestly I dont think that I can find one of those models if I wanted to.  I will have no problem standing by the measurements on the hands, which were eaiser to do than expected. 

What did suprise me was the hands being that much different in size, and yet that consistent between the previous two editions.  Likewise how different the variability in bodysize in the 4th edition also suprised me as well.  What also suprised me what the consistency in the height of the models.  I think that the comparison shots show that any variances in height is based solely on the headgear of the models and not on the projected height of the models.  This is odd since everyone bemoans the fact that GW has been making bigger models, which includes me on this.  Perhaps that this is a Dwarf Thing in that the size comes from a thicker and bulkier plastic model rather than a taller model. 

What to Do with the new Models?

Honestly, doing this comparison and subsequent measurements have raised more questions and uncertainty in general than answered any of my questions.  When I was putting them together, I really didn't like the general bulkiness of the model, yet when I did the measurements there was not that much difference.  Admittingly I only measured a few points on the miniature which does not take into consideration other points that could show how bulky the model is.  Unfortunatelly even a milimeter difference can cause a big change in the look of the model, which should make sense on a 28mm miniature.  I know that I hate the look of the warmachines that are in this edition in question, and what looks like a monopose of the rank and file with the models does not help out either. 

 I think that I can kit bash the old 6th edition models for some variety for a Great Weapon that would give me the almost the same thing with a 7th model, but I can actually move the left arm around.  The problem is that it is a dis-continued item so what I have is what I have unless I get lucky on E-Bay.  Also I saw and I believe still have some awesome looking pictures of dwarfs that were greenstuffed to look like Ironbreakers from these guys.  One ray of hope is that I have what looks like four peanut butter jars full of Dwarf parts.  One is admittingly my bit jar, but the rest is all new dwarfs.  It will take me a while to run out of Dwarves when I start getting them up and running. 

The other good news is that may be able to find some 4th ed. miniatures out there that are not as flamboyant and can fit into the unit without looking like a character.  Not exactly the easiest but better than nothing.  Also I have not taken a look at Wargames Foundry, or Mirliton's lines and see if they match the same dimensions as GW.  Bugman's said that Foundry are supposed to be larger, however they are comparing a Slayer to a fat dwarf in the pic.  Unfortunatelly I want to see this for myself with what is supposed to be a regular with a regular.  Nevertheless, hope springs eternal on that front, and I saw online that Militron does have crewmembers for cannons and Stonethrowers.  That is something that I really do want to find since I do lack viable variety in models for my artillery crew.  I cant remember right now if Foundry has any warmachines.  Even if they dont quite match up, it would be better than nothing for a new crew.  I have not been impressed with any other manufacturers out there. 

All in all, it is looking worse and worse for the 7th edition that I do have.  Perhaps one or two of the thinner characters may pass muster for me, but I expect to be selling my inventory when I get  a chance to move them, unless I have a wild mood swing which I doubt will happen.  If anyone is interested, please let me know and I will provide you an inventory of what I have. 

Friday, December 23, 2011

Back to Middle Earth once again.

Well I have to point out that a fellow blogger by the name of Der Feldmarschall gave me this tid bit earlier this week in the following post.

Thanks a bunch for posting this DF.  Now as a Dwarf guy, you would assume that The Hobbit is right in my wheel house.  Unfortunally stereotypes tend to be right right and this is no exception. The Hobbit, and for that matter LOTR as well, is in my opinion an example of classic fantasy literature ranking up there with Grimm's Fairytales, and even though both of these books may be considered to be geared toward the younger crowd I tend to think that they are still great reads for us adults.  I get a lot more out of these works now than when I was younger, and I can understand the richness of these works. 

Now let me comment about the movie.  While I do like the LOTR movies so much that I have the full DVD set, there are several glaring omissions that I wish that they would have kept in the movie, like the clensing of the shire for one.  I understand that they had a time issue, but some of the issues that I have with the movie do change the storyline that provides a larger message rather than just fantasy entertainment.  The Hobbit had much fewer messages in the book, however the movies are supposed to take a broader view of what was happening in Middle Earth at the time.  I am really looking forward to seeing this movie, and from what I see it will tie into the LOTR movies quite neatly.  All in all it looks like a great movie so far and I look forward to seeing it, which will hopefully introduce a lot of the Dwarven culture to us that we see from the books.  For those who want a link take a look here:

As a side note the singing of the Dwarves in the movie is much better than the cartoon from back in 1977.  I thought that those damn songs were too childish when I was 6, let alone now.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

"A date which will live in Infamy"

According to the story as told to me.  In the span of 24 hours 70 years ago, my Grandfather went from mooring his ship to picking up bodies from the harbor.  From never shooting in anger, to knocking down 7 planes in the span of four hours as the shooter in the battery. From being just a damn kid from the fields, to a veteran in two hours.  From waiting for the launch to go to church at 0800hrs to being thrown off of his boat from the concussion of the Arizona in the span of 20 minutes.  From being at peace to being at war in a blink of an eye.  Reflecting on this day, it should amaze us how quick things change when they do. 

Thursday, December 1, 2011

A bit of yellow journalism

Well, I was contemplating the next post as I am currently running out of a few regular posts to do, and the intersection of my wargaming hobby and the real world found a dark corner today.  I was online for my daily read through Warseer and I found this post.

It is also linked to this post from this blog.

The synopsis of these posts is that a reporter went to a 40K tournament and did a story on it for a greek publication.  Sad to say, this story was clearly a hit piece on our hobby, and from the second post it was even more sarcastic that protrayed in the english translation.  This woman did interview several of the participants that came to this event as well and they did not help the situation if they were accurately quoted and translated.

Honestly I have no idea whether this is an accurate translation or just someone trying to cause a fuss just because they were boored on a Wednesday night.  Since the second link is one of the guys in the picture, and he took the time to do a translation, I have a hard time believing that someone would take the time to translate and cause this uproar if it is not an accurate translation.  Now, some hippy reporter in Greece really should not bother me and usually it does not, but I do have some problems with this article.  This article is laced with insults ranging from the usual to the more obscure and more potent about gamers, expressed below.   

Wargamers are Shut-in Geeks

A common sterertype that all wargamers get from time to time.  Anyone who spends a lot of their lives gaming especially in their adolescence have experienced this bias.  Some of it may be founded and some of it can be unfounded.  I would have to say that I really did not have a problem with this since it just indicated to us her bias.  It told me her type real quickly as one of those judgemental, pushy, people that will denegrate someone just to make them feel better.  Anyone that has gone to high school has experienced these people.  If it was just this I would have dismissed her and not even write this post. 

Wargamers don't think

She really disapproved of the fluff of the 40K universe, and though that anyone who thought it through would also approve of her disapproval.  Therefore anyone who liked the 40K fluff did is not a thinking person, even though there were plenty of highly educated people at the tournament she stated.  In addition she also made sure to insult the british with her disdain for the 40K world.  I don't remember if I have ever stated this, but I cant stand the fluff that GW produces.  So painting a brush on all of us based of the fact that some of the people like the drivel that GW puts in their books certainly annoys me.  It makes me wonder if she saw a couple of guys playing a game of Armies of Arcania, which apparently has almost no fluff, and would still have the same attitude.  Somehow I think that she would disapprove based on the concept that wargaming fosters warmongering in her mind.  This closed mindedness that if you are not enlightened enough to be a left-winged community organizer, you are dumb as a fence post really gets under my skin.  World view is not an indication of intellect!

Wargaming Promotes Nazism?

That is a salient point of the article that either you are a Nazi sympathizer or a sympathizer in training.  Now this was very insulting to me on several levels becaue of the context. Apparently, this problem is rampant here in America.  Now, it has been a long time since I have been to the hazing rituals to join the wargaming community, but I don't seem to recall them including getting nazi tats.  All of it was hersay from what I gathered from the article, or her perception based on the loosely on the iconography that is in the GW fluff that she despised.  Throwing the Nazi word around was usually a cardinal sin for the media to use without evidence.  So not only insulting the gamers but Americans, and of course anyone conservative.  To be honest I have seen all walks of life play this game from the very hippy liberal, to the most libertarian.  I really don't check their political card at the start of the game to see if they are someone that I care to associate with, since I never thought that it mattered.  Apparently it does to this woman.

This entire article was decrying the zenophobic attitude of the gamers, but I wonder if they were trying to single out these gamers for their own political dialogue that is happening in Greece.  Remember that this was a published article in a newspaper so I am assuming that an editor actually read the story like you see in All the Presidents Men.  Clearly I get from this article that 40K gamers are a bunch of rich nazi's that have too much time on their hands.  With the strife that they are having in Greece, denegrating people will not end well for Greece, or for anyone else that starts this kind of attack.

My apologies for taking this post into a political realm, and perhaps making this more than just a reporter being short sighted and meanspirited.  It is my hope that no one takes this article seriously, but it does poses the question what is this world coming to when a fictional game can be taken in this light.  I have a hard time seeing this woman denegrating recreational sex or drug use, so why should she or anyone else give a damn what someone does in their spare time.  Add this to my musical hobby, where it is apparently illegal to make quality instruments here in the US regardless of the paperwork(Google Gibson Guitar Raids if you have no idea what I am talking about).  It makes me wonder if I will be running out of hobbies in the future, and when that happens wait and see how expensive the damn models will be then.  I guess that I should go out to the shooting range before that is not allowed either.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Alternative Systems: Summary

Yet again on my sojourn from GW I have taken another step away from GW this week.  Given my post on comtemplating different manufactureres, (located here) I went looking for other manufactureres this week.  In addition to finding a few notable manufactureres that do interesting fantasy models, I also saw one manufacturer that has their own rules.  Now I know about Reaper so this was no specific suprise, but it got me thinking what else is out there that is an alternative to Games Workshop's rules. 

I took a trip to The Miniature Pages, and found a few posts of people asking the same question as I was.  Apparently, I am not the only one contemplating this.  The four posts that I found are the following:

After going through all of them I found the following systems as the answers to what is the alternative to GW's Warhammer Fantasy Battle:

List of Fantasy Game Systems:
1: Warhammer Fantasy Battle (Games Workshop)
2: Kings of War (Mantic)*
3: Fantasy Warriors (Miltron)*
4: Armies of Arcana
5: Mighty Armies (Rebel Miniatures)
6: Hostile Realms(Piquet Master Rules)
7: Songs of Blades and Heroes
8: Hordes of the Things*
9: 100 Kingdoms*
10: For the Masses (Majestic 12)
11: No Quarter
12: War Engine/Shockforce
13: Pride of Lions
14: Impetus*
15: Battle Systems 2 ed.
16: Rally Around the King
17: Reaper Warlord

* Free online rules

I may have missed one or two, but I think that I got them all.  Now I fully do admit that I am biased toward the 6th edition so much that a perfect world would be the combination of WFB-6 and WAB.  Given that, if I am impressed enough with a new system, then it is something notable for me.  From what I have been reading on the posts, some of these very much may not be what I am looking for based on the descriptions that some people have put up.

To me I would equate it to buying a car when you have brand loyality prevalent in your decision.  It is not that much of a suprise to me given that we invest a lot into this hobby.  Think of all of the time spend on reading through rules, painting miniatures, let alone the cost of the models.  So I am sure that I will be doing quite a few posts after I go through some of the rule sets.  Of course I am going to try out the free online ones first, and preferably get a game or two in to see how it feels as you play it along with the core rules review.  Even though the free ones are first in line, I have noticed that almost all of these rules are insanely cheaper than Games Workshop.  When I say cheap, I mean the most expensive ruleset so far including most armylists is cheaper than what the going rate is for the old paperback books after the price hikes of late.  Yet another example of GW's hubris. 

What is it you are looking for?

I believe that I should provide some attributes on what exactly that I am looking for.  Some of this may change and perhaps added as I go through the systems.  There may be a deal breaker that I dont know of just yet.  For right now, here is the following attributes that I am looking for:

1: 28mm model based game single bases.  I really don't want to rebase my dwarf army into large group bases. 

2: Same variety of units as what I am currently used to .  I want everything from monsters and warmachines to lowly infantry. 

3:  Robust magic, but not overpowering magic.  Odd from a dwarf player, but I have no problem with magic as long as it is not game-winning as it can be now in the 8th. 

4:  Close combat is incremental, and not all or nothing.  I like how I can take a few models off of my unit and not specifically loose the whole unit when I loose a combat.  It is anticlimatic to me when I just take a unit away.  Even when I loose that unit eventually I get the 300 feel of the combat. 

5:  Dice only and preferably only D6 dice.  If I really wanted a card game I would play texas hold-em.  and if I want a DXX dice game, I would proabably play DnD. 

6:  Main line company level game.  I am not looking to play games where a unit is a batallion, nor am I looking for my faction to have 20 models.  Skirmish games is a different analysis and deserves different parameters.  Note, I have no problems with skirmish units. 

7:  Must have atleast the standard fantasy factions that we all know and love.  I dont want to see fishmen with no elves in sight. 

8:  None of the annoyances of the current version of WFB.  I dont see how I can elaborate further. 

As stated before, the list will most likely grow as I go through a few of these and determine what I like and dont like.  I will try to have a running ranking to see what I like given what I have already gone through.  I have already downloaded a few of these rules, and I can tell some differences.  Some are over 20 years old, and will not ever change.  Some are just coming out and will be subject to change.  Having clunky rules is not a problem with me, which should not be suprised given my penchant for the 6th edition.  Truth be told I am interested in seeing what is out there exactly.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

SPQR in the field

Well yesterday I took my Romans out to play a game with a friend.  It has been several months since I have played WAB, and I was glad for the occasion.  I was tabled easily, but it was still good to get them out and roll some dice.  I dedided to not do a battle report mainly because I did not take any pictures of the game, and that I didn't take any notes on the play-by-play to do it justice.  I usually dont so I am not suprised.

I really wanted to take these guys out and acutally get them some action.

Here is a close-up of them. 

There is a full century that is just about done, which I plan on getting done this month at the latest.  Usually, it is in jest when I set a painting deadline, but since it is getting colder, I really do need to get the models that I have almost done, complete so that I can put varnish on them before it gets too cold where I am at.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

A moment of Clarity

I had a moment of clarity over the past week.  For those who follow my blog proabably already know, but for those who don't, I am not buying as much as I used to from GW any more.  There are several reasons why this is the case.  One is the price hikes that everyone is complaining about.  I don't deny that I am curtailing my purchases for that reason.  The fact that I am not playing as much as I used to in Fantasy has definately put a damper in my purchases as well.  My personal financial situation also has limited my options as well, among other reasons. 

What I have been doing as of late is putting a lot of things on the auction block.  I have sold all of my new Bretonnians that I had, as well as most of my chaos army that I still had in boxes.  What I have been doing with the proceeds is to buy classic miniatures.  Predominately models that I have not really seen in a while if at all, but I have been buying some regular old metal Bretonnians as well.  I got them to have something to compare with other manufacturers, and also that I believe that you can never have enough variety in your Bretonnians.  So I am looking for models that fit what I have for the Bretonnians and yet still use them for WAB.  FireForge Games might do the trick for more flamboyant knights, and there are a plethora of manufacturers for a more subdued knight look. I have as of yet to make a decision as to where I want to go with them, but the magic 8 ball is saying both. 

Now I have also been picking up some Chaos models as well.  The older metal knights as well as the Marauders more specifically.  And now for the momenty that you have all been waiting for, the moment where I have what apparently Alcoholics call a "Moment of Clarity" this week (You can thank Pulp Fiction for that, especially when I have visions of Jules when I had it).  My moment of clarity is "why am I still looking for Marauders when the Viking range from a series of different maufactures should be just as good for my taiste?"  I really do see Marauders more as a Conan the Barbarian type of guys rather than the Chaos worshipers like GW is making them.  Likewise my ideas of Chaos Warriors is more of what you would see from the movie "Willow" as well rather than what you get from GW.  I guess that this is yet another way that I am drawing away from GW. 

I was not that sure about how the historical ranges would fare.  Would they have what they need, and is it really what I am looking for?  Well, I did troll through some of the various manufacturer, and found that as a matter of fact, yes I think that I can do it depending on the comparison sizes for viking ranges.  I have not found anything, but I am also looking for Atilla the Hun, or Cossack troops for variety reasons in a Chaos army.  Chaos was my only holdout for human armies that I was going to collect GW models, but with the exception of Chaos Warriors, I believe that is not going to happen as well.  If anyone has any ideas as to what would be good "Kurgan" Marauder, or Chaos Warrior models, I am all ears. 

This is not just stopping at human armies as well.  I collected characters from the Vampire Count Ranges of GW as well as some parts of elite units, mainly because they are cooler models that what GW is using now, and I really did like the bloodline idea back in the 6th.  As far as common troops I really dont have much, however Mantic Games is really catching my eye.  I need to take a look myself with these guys to see if it is what I am looking for, but I am liking what I am seeing.  Some factions that I want to or already are collecting simply have no comparison in my opinion. I really like the Elf lines from Games Workshop, and I have not seen many other lines that compare to them, along with the Orc and Goblin line.  The Chaos Warriors line may be one of them, I have simply not looked for an alternative just yet.  Reaper is another option but on average is not my style. 

I am also looking very carefully as to what is in my inventory that I really want to continue based on the looks of the range.  For instance, the new dwarves are by far a different army type than what I have here in many aspects.  I like a lot of what I have seen in the army but right now I am not sure if this exactly what I want to do with part of my dwarf army.  Despite my penchant for GW Orcs and Goblins, I may be looking for an Orc replacement that is more slimmed down and would fit the other ranges that I am looking for. I am not sure at the moment for new line of orcs, and I may look at classic ranges from GW as well to see what the differences is.  Wood Elves are another quandry for me as well.  I can either use the army currently sold which "looks" like they fit with the other Elf lines, or to collect the older line, which has a limited scope of models compared to the new models, but still looks great.  The good news is that if I dont see myself fielding a classic wood elf army, I can always play a Silvan High Elf army in the likes of Averlorn should I decide to collect the classic wood elf armies.  Clearly I am going to make a few decisions over the next month or two to see which way I am going with what is my primary army for some of the factions that I collect, and not to mention that more comparison pictures will be down the pike as well. (Oddly enough, I dont see that many people doing this for fantasy figures, however I see it all the time for historical figures.)  Either way both my wallet and my WAB armies will benefit no matter what.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

A few Comparison Shots

Someone asked me to do a few comparison shots of the IOB High Elves against the troops in the regular box.  I was planning on doing that anyways, but I figured that I would do it now and get it out of the way.  I put the figures in front of graph paper measured out to one inch squares for the large lines, and .10 for each small lines.  It sort of looks like a line up at a police station if the even do these kind of line ups anymore.  The models not IOB are 6th edition plastic/metal models. 

I usually take a calipers to my models if I see something that is not right.  When I calipered the IOB models I noticed that they were different size.  You really do see well the height of the models in the pictures, but you don't really see the width of pieces of the models that well, nor the depth of some pieces as well.  After measuring the minatures, I had to say that it was a "dealbreaker" for me to use the IOB models in my army even in just their own unit.  I still think that it would be visible to me and bug the hell out of me that they were that different.  I have the distinct feeling that the new elite plastic models fit the IOB models well and thus would look larger compared to the older models.  Enjoy!

The swordmaster on the left is from The Isle of Blood set, and the one on the right is the standard metal Swordmaster that we have had for around a decade.  Notice that the metal swordmaster is atleast 1/10 shorter than the plastic ones from IOB.  The IOB sword is a little bent toward the camera so it looks smaller than it really is.  You have a hard time seein in the pictures, but the IOB swordmasters have very large mellons for heads.  So much that their heads don't look even close to each other. 

Here is a set of spearelves in some form.  On the left is a Seaguard model from the IOB.  The center is my own kit bashed spearelf, and the one in the right just the standard spearelf.  The center model is a spearelf body but with a Silver Helm's head.  As you can tell the IOB model is once again taller significantly compared to the older models.  Also, once again, the heads are very much fatter on the IOB models compared to the regular models. 

On this pic, we have the IOB Ellyron Reaver, a Standare Ellyron Reaver, and a Silver Helm.  Now I really cant see much difference in these models heights personally.  I would admit that I dont have a rider nor a head on the IOB Ellyron Reaver.  To be honest I really didn't look at these models that closely and measured them out like I normally do.  I just did not like the looks of the Reavers exactly, when I was perfectly happy with the existing Reavers, and in a pinch, I could do the "Glade Rider Two Step" and kitbash a few glade riders if I really felt the need to do something different.  All in all I have a lot less problem with these models than the other models.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Why I am not fond of Re-enactments.

A rather quick post on this topic hopefully(after finishing the article there is no way that this is a quick post, sorry guys).  I decided to comment on the topic of re-enactment gaming for a few reasons.  It explains why I like the periods that I like in WAB and other comperable game systems.  It also explains where I started in the wargaming scene as opposed to going in another direction. 

Personal Background

I was always enamoured with military history ever since I was very young.  Both my Grandfathers were in WWII.  One was at Pearl Harbor when war was imposed on us.  The other was awarded a Distinguishing Flying Cross for downing 7 zeroes in one mission.  I remember their stories even now after both are gone.  Ken Burns came out with his first documentary on the Civil War and that got me really into reading military history.  I subscribed to magazines like "Military History," and while I don't have an extensive library on some of these items, I do add to my collection from time to time when I find a few books that actually bring light to the commentary as opposed to just regurgetating what I already have.  My next item that I want to collect is the Loeb series of books like Polybus, Livy, Caesar, etc. 

Despite all of this information at my hands, I don't see myself as a "History Buff."  In my definition, a history buff can tell you every detail about what they know about in history.  However, getting the reasons why is where I see many history buffs fail.  I call myself an amature historian in that I really try to figure out the reasons why an event in history happened, and determine the cause and effects of said event.  I guess that it is the two years of AP History where I was drilled to do this is still with me.  Even then however I was very good at evaluating events and try to put them into perspective.

Since I am someone who takes pride in knowing his history, why is it that I don't want to re-enact anything in my gaming or even in real life?  Well the answers are below, and yes they do vary based on periods.

Documentation is my Bane. 

The more that I know about the period, the less that I am interested in the period.  WWII and the American Civil War (for anyone outside of the US please forgive me if I switch back to calling it The Civil War, I think it is an American thing) are the worst periods for me personally because I know so much about the periods that I really cant enjoy playing any games in these periods.  For example FOW does not interest me because everything is documentated so well during WWII that I have a hard time separating the game from history.  A little hard to explain, but my personal game gives me more setting questions than I care to ask in what is supposed to be a fun game.  The great thing about playing in the ancient or classical period is that there is little documentation that we still have compared to what we have even for say the Napelonic era of warfare.  Likewise for many parts of the Middle and Dark ages, and I just skip parts that are too detailed for me to play like from Heroditus. 

Hindsight is 20/20 so I know what worked and what didn't

On this one, I have to ask can anyone else not play a Gettysburg re-enactment without the Union Fishook?  If you can then you are a better man that me, because I have a very hard time not doing a re-enactment of Gettysburg without doing some kind of formation like that with Union Troops.  I tried that several times on a computer game to no avail.  Likewise I tried to play The Civil War in a campaign mode and got boored easy for the same reason in that I know what to do and not to do during the start of the war.  Now when I play computer games with opponants on a WWII game, I get a better game, but I do get eventually boored as well.  Also there is at times the inevibility of the game that tends to sour things as well, especially with campaigns.  If you don't have the documentation you can't have any hindsight.  That means that I am not that interested in playing in a game re-enacting Zama for instance but I have no problem in something more obscure.

Personal Attachment to the guys on the table. 

WWII is where I have the hardest time on this issue.  I have a very hard time playing a game with Easy Company of "Band of Brothers" fame in a game of FOW for instance.  I have a hard time playing a game with my Grandfathers Cruiser as well.  Span of time is a very helpful for me to separate myself with the guys on the table.  But if there is someone notable in history even back in the ancient world I still have a hard time.  I am not playing Caesar ever in my WAB games, nor am I ever playing King Leonaideus of Thermopoly fame. 

Ok, what the hell do like to play then?

I dont want to re-invent the wheel I guess and I feel that I am not being creative playing re-enactment games, which is what I see too much in the periods that I dont like.  My Roman army is a good example of what I try to look for in a game of Historical gaming.  I am working on full cohort right now for a 3K game.  I only know of one cohort that is actually noted in any historical context and they ended up in a religious book.  This means that all the other cohorts are fair game basically and I can do anything that I want to them.  Anything from the Ancient world is where I really do like to be right now.  There is where I can squirrel away to a place in history where we know generally what happened but not the details is what I really do like.  Dark Ages, and the Middle ages are also periods where I like as well for the same reason, thanks to the occasional siege that burned out the castle records, no one cares about these bumpkins, etc.  The great thing about these periods for me is that there are holes in history that I can get into and follow my own way.

On another note...

This article also explains why I like Fantasy Gaming as well, but have problems playing LOTR.  LOTR feels too much like a re-enactment game rather than a game that you can go your own path.  Don't get me wrong, there are some elements of the LOTR world that I am interested in and do fit my bill, but too much of it does seem like I am re-enacting either the movie or the book.  Either way it does not work for me. 

To reiterate from a previous post, I started playing WFB back in 1994 and one of the reasons why I was attracted to the game is that there is a lot more that is unwritten about your army than there is in the armybook.  General Fantasy Gaming allows for me to create my own world under a few constructs and general rules.  Playing non-human armies does not allow for much personal attachment for me, and there is absolutely no way that I would re-invent the wheel with this form of gaming since there is no wheel unless I made it.  When you get into something like Mighty Empires that is not with the backdrop of WFB dogma, I can really let my imagination run wild, with our own world.  Thus the reason why and where I started in gaming when I did.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

A Few Close Ups

As promised in my previous post, here are a few close ups of the pictures of my Dwarf army.  Lets start with my first group of miniatures. 

These warriors are my first set of dwarves that I painted.  While the paint job leaves something to be desired like some basic shading and highlighting, but the poses leave a lot to be desired as well.  I only started with 20 of these and then added 5 more a few years later.  You proabably cant see them but I have improved. 

After my first unit of regular warriors, I put together these guys.  Once again some basic lessons were leaned by painting these guys, and like above, I did add five more dwarves to this unit.  Unfortunately I figured out that it is not the greatest of ideas to have these guys as a block as large as the warrior units.  You live and learn on all fronts I guess. 

Now this cannon I believe that I came next, it all gets fuzzy after the first two.  As you can see these metal guys are showing their age.  They are first on the block as far as repainting.  I have no idea exactly when I plan on doing that but it will be a long time from now I guarantee. 

As stated in the picture, these are the miners.  Once again a few issues with shading and some of these guys are also showing their age. 

This is my unit of Longbeards with a character that I placed in here.  Usually if I want a Lord he is the man that I use.  A little better shading, but still some painting to be desired. 

My unit of Ironbreakers with a Battle Standard Bearer.  Now I really think that at the time that this was the best that I could have done at the time.  I think that I could do better now on the unit for sure, but not that bad at all.  The armour is my special mix to show that they have Gromril armour. 

I should have put this guy up front because he is the oldest model that I still have that is fully painted.  If I every question my ability I take a look at him and compare what I am painting to him.  It always makes me feel better after that.  He used to be my Runesmith, until I retired him. 

I wanted to put my elite core units out there as well.  The model on the top left is my runesmith.  He is part of the "first wave" of painting that I have done.  The guy on the bottom left is my Thane of Pain when I need one.  He is perhaps one of my best works that I have done in my "second wave" of my dwarfs.  I need to make sure that this guy has the cushioning to make sure that he doesnt become like the cannon crew.  Speaking of the second wave here is the bulk of them coming up next. 

My organ gun.  While you can't really see the shading in the picture, the crew's beards are all shaded and not blobs.  This is one of the first in the second wave of models that I did. 

Now this is my best unit painted up right now.  The runesmith here is ranked right up to my thane of pain in quality of painting.  Some of the shading is not showing up well, but this is the best of my painting job with Dwarves. 

Right now I am trying an experiment with my painting in that I have groups of 40K, Fantasy, and WAB all up on my table.  I wanted to try to paint one thing at a time on each group whenever I paint, in order to break the monotony of painting so much of one unit.  It seems to be working ok on that front, but it is taking forever to get everything done.  I guess that I should rather focus on one group at a time.  I am going to try to finish up my Space Marines and knock them out given that they are the closest to being complete, and try something else.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Mustering the Horde.

Sorry for the long wait on this post.  I have been very busy with other projects and gone every other weekend for a few events, along with housesitting.  Well I decided to take a few pictures of my Dwarf army and post them here.  More are to come, but here are just a few that I have edited so far.

A panoramic picure of my whole painted dwarf army, less a few models.  This comes in at around 3000 pts. last time that I have checked. 

This is the vanguard of my army for the most part.  I don't really count the pair of bolt throwers in this, it is just that I wanted them on a hill and my core looks cool near a hill. 

This is my missle wing of my army.  Notice that my stone thrower lost its wheel.  I just saw that it happened when I took them out of the box.  Apparently this happened after my last move.  DAMN IT!!!!

Not exactly a missle wing or a core wing of my army, but this is what I had left to put on my table so this is what is left.  My next post will have a few more close ups that will hopefully show you more detail.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Back to the Future

Since I expounded a few posts ago as to why I am not playing the new edition of WFB, (see here) I thought that it would be a good idea to expound on what edition makes me stay in the past and not to move on.  This is actually a very important excercise that I think that us dis-affected veterans of GW should do in my opinion.  It provides a basis for defending your argument against those who claim one thing or another as to why you just don't want to move on.  Shocking that we need to do this, I know, but sometimes you have to in order to get some peace when you are playing another game. 

Suprisingly I had a minor amount of peer pressure at the start of the edition when I told them to count me out of playing in this edition.  Most of my group didn't care one way or another other than to say sorry to see me go, but I did have one or two people who couldn't understand why.  This was the greatest edition since sliced bread for them, so why was I not towing the line?  It got a little out of hand, but we are back on good terms as far as I know.   

Before I get into saying which editions that I like I feel that I should explain what I like about the editions as I see them in general separately first.  Of course I can't really really do them justice in one post so please forgive if I omit one thing or another as I am trying to be brief.  Some of the editions that I will be talking about will not exactly be an edition that I have any first hand experience with.  I will note them once again just to make note, but I will try not to talk in any real detail of them.  Lets start first cronologically I guess with the 3rd edition. 

The Mysterious Edition

I have no real experience with this edition personally, however the good news is that I do have the 3rd edition book and I did read through part of it.  Perhaps it is something that I should read more of given the recent penchant for disaffected gamers to return to this edition.  From what I have read of this edition it seems to be a very interesting edition.  It is a very intricate edition, which does turn off a lot of players.  However if they want simplicity, then that begs the question "Why are they playing this edition, when the 8th is easiest WFB edition that I have ever seen or read?" 

The problem that I see with this edition is also what I like about this edition.  The rules seem to be rather clunky and that makes me apprehensive when it comes to investing the time to learn the rules.  I also dont care for a GM every time that I play a game.  While they did not spell it out, I get the feeling that you may need one in order to play it properly.  I really do hope that I am wrong on this.  Nevertheless I still want to try this edition out at some time.  I call it the Mysterious Edition mainly because I just have no idea, nor a frame of reference as to what the game is like. 

My First Edition

The 4th edition is where I cut my teeth on Warhammer Fantasy, and wargaming in general, hence the header.  It turned out that a friend of mine brought along his free magazine that he got from "Battle Masters" on a trip that I was taking with him and his family.  We read through the mag and I was instantly enamoured.  That summer I started playing the game with him and a few friends.  Since half of my friends stayed at my school and the other half went to a special academic program that I was not elligible for (It was IB and I needed to have Foreign Language classes by then, which I did not have) this was my only real outlet to get my friends together.  I remember it fondly to say the least. 

I would have to say that I would definately have started the edition in the 4th, but I am not so sure that I would have been mature enough to play in the 3rd, even when I started when I did playing in the 4th.  In retrospect I am sure that many people are like me now with the difference between the 3rd and the 4th.  I can tell that it is a slimmed down version of the earlier editions, but it begs the question for me "did streamlining the 4th really make for a better game?"  I simply do not have the experience between the two editions to make that distinction.

Nostalgia is not clouding my eyes on this edition however.  I also can see why people call this edition "Herohammer."  In the Dwarf book they have a scenario between OnG and Dwarves, where the sampler army lists have the Dwarves with over 1200 points in characters alone in a combined 3K list.  Now I know that a ratio of that in an army list at the time may be considered to be light, but looking back that seems to be very shocking.  Even then I thought that it was rather high to have that much invested in characters.(I guess that I was a prolific teen when it came to matters of the pressboard)  I still have to call it a good edition even though my preference is for the later editions as noted.  It still had the variability that I can see in the 3rd but was more controlled with the armybooks. 

The Lost Edition

The 5th edition I have almost no experience with nor any real authority to speak since this was about the time that I left gaming all together.  From what I have read based on other accounts it seems to me that it is more like edition 4.5 to me.  I have no idea what the differences are so I am at a loss to say anything good or bad about them. 

The Crown Jewel Edition

This is the edition that I would consider to be my go-to edition if I had one.  It still had most of the gaming mechanics from back in the 4th, and the noticable fixes were good ones in my mind.  Here you were required to have atleast some basic units in your army, the characters were not nearly as tooled up as before, and flying made sense to name a few.  There were issues of manuaverability with Infantry, and the fact that there is no way to turn a flank like in the 7th, (a great fix in my mind) but those were minor annoyances at most to me.

 I can see and have experienced plenty of abuses of this edition so I know that it can get OTT, however for friendly games with people who want to project more of what their army should be as opposed to an OTT army, I have to say that it can't be beat.  The perfect world is this edition married with WAB.  The Honeymoon would be very ugly I am sure. 

Now I may have the nostalgia bug on this edition but in my mind it had a lot more going for it than not. I also liked the Generals Compendium which took the game to a new level so that is another plus. Which is proabably the reason why I liked the 4th as well in that it had Mighty Empires prominent in the game.  It also has going for it that I came back to the game during this edition.  I guess that the reason why I cam back is that the edition made a lot of sense to me when I read through some of the online army lists for the Bretonnians, Wood Elves, etc.  Even thought I did not have an army book, I read some of the online PDF's and could tell from them that the game has evolved.  Also other factors like good looking plastics brought me back, as well as eventually a good group of relatively balanced army book where nothing was too hard or too soft, atleast in my opinion. 

The Knockoff Edition

Essentially this edition was edition 6.5.  While I did like a lot of the changes that they made to this edition from the 6th, I could take or leave most of the changes in this edition.  The neutered panic, (which also happened with the 6th, but not nearly as much as here) played around with the magic phase, and basically made units more survivable in close combat for the most part.  I'm sure that I have missed something but it boils down to these three items for the most part.  I would have to say that magic was done well, and the close combat rules are great, but it really bothered me that panic was a bit of a non-event in this edition.  So much that it soured the edition a tad, and some of the new rules led to suprisingly confusion and arguments over some of the new rules.  The core rules are great rulesets and I like them a lot, just not as much as the 6th.

I do have to make the notable mention as well that the armybooks (more like fanboy's wet dreams on paper) were abysmal.  When I read The Empire book I had to ask my self "What the hell was GW doing," and that was based on the robo-donkey, and the ICBM's that was in the new book.  This was the start and I was already apprehensive of what they were doing.  That and the OnG book made me take a second look, when they added that WAAGH rule, and nerfed animosity that has never changed since atleast the 4th.  The High Elves sent me over the top when it came out, because that was the writing on the wall.  When they had common elite troops now with multple attacks, it was the beginning of the end and about the time that I started to collect OOP models that I liked for life after GW.  The major problem with this is that the core rules were not built for this kind of combat from rank and file.

Add the major problem of the 7th edition army books, with the annoyances of the core rules, I tend to not want to play the 7th.  It just seems to me too much of a hassle to offer playing it.  I have offered in the past to play with 6th edition books with 7th edition core rules, which I did like and would be interested in playing again, but I don't want to confuse people or be considered an opportunist for what people may think are obscelete books for the 7th. 

And The Winner Is...

If you have read this far, then I am sure that you can tell that I liked the 6th above all.  After that it is a hard choice, between 7th and 4th editions, with 7th ahead due to its core rules that I approve of more.  3rd edition would be next in line mainly because of my lack of experience but interest, and finally the 5th purely due to my lack of experience with it and it being a 4th edition knock off.  To put in order:


I really do want to play a few games of the 3rd to see if I would bump it up a place or two.

Friday, September 16, 2011

To 40K or to not 40K

Over the last year I have tipped my toe into 40K.  It was not because my interest for WFB is waning, but rather I made the decision to start playing before that happened.  I doubt that I will be as attached to 40K as I am for WAB or how I was attached to WFB, but I still plan on taking the time to play it well.  I have never been a major tournament player, I was better at Tournament Organizing instead, so I really dont see me doing the tournament scene with 40K.  Hopefully I will take some of the lessons learned from  my years of collecting WFB and be smarter with how I design my army. 

What Have I done So Far?

I have started my collection with the Assault on Black Reach box, which is the normal for most newcommers.  I have started to put together a Space Marine army right now with a Battleforce along with a few other vehicles.  I am currently around 1850 or so with what I have collected for them which would get me to a bare minimum for playing normal games at my LGS.  As far as painting  goes I am painting them up as Crimson Fists.  I figure that after another battle force plus a few vehicles or two and some sternguard and this army is done for the most part.  At that point it is basically an understrength company which fits the background of the chapter very nicely.  I may put together other companies of the chapter, but I am going to try to take a lesson from my WFB days and focus on one part at a time with this army. 

I may do a home-made chapter, but I am not interested in putting together many of the other different type of space marines.  They just seem like the same damn army but with a few changes here and there.  They remind me of the different bloodlines from the VC 6th edition armybook.  Why cant they put all of the different armies in one book is beyond me, other than GW thinks that their customers are dumb enough to buy them, which seems to be the case. 

What is upcoming

Imperial Guard is what has really brought me to 40K, and that was before the new book came out. IG reminds me of playing WWII games but not being WWII per-sae. I can't stand playing re-enactment games,(something that needs a post in of itself) so playing IG is something that really draws me. Of all of the different armies that I am interested IG is an army that I would most likely form an attachment with like what I had in fantasy. I have collected a few vehicles and some troops for this army and I can see me do a lot of things with this army. These guys are right next after I get the space marines done.

I still have the Ork portion of the AOBR models as well, and I find that to be the perfect opponant for my guys so I am planning on setting up an army with them as well.  My LGS does have a few cheap battle forces for Orks so I would be getting a deal with them.  I do find the army interesting, but not as interesting as the two previous armies.  Perhaps I need to get the codex and read through it.  They do have an easy paint job so I would not be putting much time in painting them.  These guys are proabably next in line. 

Interested but not that much yet. 

Eldar is another army that I have some interest in.  As of right now I have barely flipped through the codex so I have almost no idea what they are about.  I have seen one guy at my LGS that has a beautifully painted army and does play them all of the time.  They are also an army that looks like a sci-fi army, and not some kind of modern warfare knock off.  They are still a cheap battleforce as well which does attract me. 

Nids is an army that does interest me to some extent.  From Starship Troopers to Aliens I can see a few things that I can do with this army.  I think that they serve a great role in that they are the monsters of space.  They serve a very great evil opposing force role that does interest me. 

Tau is another army that I have some interest in.  They actually look like a sci-fi army like Eldar, but they are not Eldar with different rules and choices.  Something that I am interested in but not off the bat. 

After that I really lose interest in all other armies, which makes for about half of the armies that GW has.  An improvement in my mind since I still am enamoured with 75% of the fantasy armies even though I am not active in the 8th edition.  I dont have the emotional nor the physical investment with 40K right now so I am not planning on any grand plans that I had with Fantasy.  Good for me, bad for GW.  If they come to their senses, I will be here if that ever happens.  The good news is yet another hard lesson from GW is that I taking this piecemal as much as I can.  I am not going five armies ahead of where I am like I did in Fantasy, and if something is amiss in the next edition, I have no problem boarding up what I have put together, keep what I really like and sell the rest, sort of what I am doing with my Fantasy inventory right now.   

What is 40K to me?

Well it is a general change of pace for me, and I want to have it as an alternative to WAB and hopefully something that I can use for a break from WAB.  Incidentally I believe that 40K will be the go-to game for most people so that may be switched for me unfortunatelly.  I guess that I really need to start recruitment for WAB apparently.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Apparently, The Roman Army wasn't built in a day either

(You have no idea how hard it was to find this pic, but apparently the word "Gaul" gives me a few pics of a half naked Lady along with everything else that you would expect.  Sometimes you need to just laugh at the internet)

Well since I really don't play much WFB anymore,(please see my previous post Here ) I have migrated to both 40K and to Warhammer Ancient Battle.  Specifically Early Imperial Romans is what I am putting together right now with a Gallic mercenary contingent.  Even though I have over 2K worth of an army according to WAB rules, I know right now that this army will be a lot larger over the years.  I dont plan to be as into 40K as I would be with WAB, but I will leave that to a post of its own.  Now I don't think that I will have much trouble finding any opponants for 40K, but Warhammer Ancient Battle can be tricky to find opponants from what I gather. 

A "Roman Toga Party" it is not around here. 

The good news is that I do have a few good friends and veterans of WFB who want to start playing, or already are playing as well.  I guess that the problem that I am experiencing is finding the variety in play.  The only guy with an army ready to play is another Roman army, and the rest either are taking their time putting together their army or are in a completely different period.  Now I have no problem playing the Roman Civil Wars but the guy that playes the other Roman army guy has an army that is rather booring.  What he fields is basically Wargames Factory plastic Romans and a few Celtic slingers, not exactly what I call a varied army.  We have not played in a few months so he may have made a few additions, but I doubt it.  I guess that I will offer to lend him for the game a few of my units that would give him some variety.  He is usually a good guy so I doubt that I would be overstepping my bounds if I do that. 

The newbies that are assembling their armies will be barbarian armies, so I am definately looking forward to playing them, but I have also not talked with them for a while so I have no idea where they are at.  I only have less than 1000 pts. of Celtic and the vast majority are still being assembled.  Even assembled I dont think that it would be exactly what I would use as say an introductory army just yet.  I think that it needs a few units for it to be more viable, and something that I would offer to play anyways as Romans seem more forgiving.  Given the penchant for disenchantment with WFB, I would not be suprised if I will be playing a few introductory games with people over time so I should be prepared I guess. 

I have as of yet tried to play out of period.  I have no problems with doing that, however I have only gotten a few games in with the new edition so I want to get some experience of how my army works with different armies in their own period let alone in another period.  I can see a few periods that I actually want to try with my Romans and see how they work out.  I want to try the Parthians from the Byzantium book with them, as well as the Shieldwall book with them.  "Hanibal and the Punic Wars" is another period that I think can have a few interesting interperiod games that I want to, but not with the current Romans that I have exactly. 

The thing with WAB that is a double edged sword for me is the variety in the periods.  I am a kid in a candy store with WAB.  I have no idea exactly which project that I want to do next, but most likely I will be making my celtic contingent into an actual celtic army.  Since I just have the generic Celtics from Warlord Games, I have no idea exactly what I want to do with them.  It seems to me that the sky is the limit as far as the projects that I would be interested in doing.  I guess that should be expected once you break out of the paracholism that is Games Workshop.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

At a Crossroads

I find myself at a crossroads over the past year. Since this is a new blog I feel the need to provide brief history of my Warhammer gaming.  I have been playing Warhammer Fantasy for over a decade collectively.  Starting in the 4th over 17 years ago, with a few friends during the weekend.  I started with Dwarves and fell in love with the game.  This was the time before I was in high school so my weekends were not busy working or going to football games.  I did not really play much during high school with the exception of a few games here and there.  There was no way that I could play early in college and basically missed the fifth edition.  When I had a place to set up a painting table I started back in the the sixth, not because I had the space, but rather I got interested once again to the hobby after reading through how the sixth edition worked, and some of the models drew me in once again.  I have been playing ever since.... until last year. 

I read the rumors on warseer when they came out, and I was not that enthused at all as to what I was reading.  As usual the rumors turned out to be true when I got the starter boxset.  I read through the book and played a few friendly games and was not impressed with what I experienced.  I just flat out did not like playing the game that I used to.  The core rules is what really repelled me when I went through them.  It seemed like half of the new rules came from the fifth edition of 40K and the other half were fixes for the screwups that we experienced in the 7th edition.  It is like the saying of what came first, the chicken or the egg, when they were developing the game for the 8th edition.  What came first the terrible army books of the 7th so that the 8th edition is the fix, or did they have the 8th edition in mind when they made the army books for the 7th.  I honestly think that since the 7th edition books went off of the rails with VC and HE, which I believe that they were books 3 and 4, I tend to think that the 8th is to make up for the mistakes of the 7th armybooks. 

Now I flat out cant stand the army books that came out at all during the tenure of the 7th edition.  I believe that I have since sold all but one army book and I dont know why I am keeping the damn thing.  However, I have no problems with the core rules of the 7th edition.  I have personally really did like using 7th edition core rules with 6th edition rulebooks.  I actually have played with a  friend that liked the old army book after his army book "expired" just for fun and we were perfectly happy.  The 8th edition changed everything for me.  Now I cannot tolerate the game at all. 

What dont I like?

Now here is the meat of the problem.  What is it that I dont like about the 8th edition.  How can I count the ways?  Let take this one phase at a time in no specific order.

1: Magic:  I am not a fan of how magic and magic items are put together.  Having generic magic items with a few army oriented items really seems to me lazy and a copout.  I dont like how they have one extra spell that you dont have to roll for.  Not that I dont like that at all, but it makes armies like Elves not as special.  While I did not experience in my few games the uber spells that everyone bemones about, I certainly dont approve of them.  I know that critics will say that it almost never happens, but that is like telling an anti-war protestor "dont worry about nuclear weapons they are almost never used."

2: Close Combat:  I have problem with the fact that most of a unit has the ability to fight in close combat.  Apparently I can have my High Elf spearelves fight with 40 models now.  I know that this is a fantasy game, and we are talking about High Elves, but what exactly makes them able to defy physics.  I dont like how ward saves are given to troops with hand weapon and shields.  Ward saves are supposed to be more or less magical how is it that common troops get it juse because of a weapon choice.(note: I dont like how Brettonians use them)  An extra attack on the charge makes no real sense to me at all, one of the 40K rules that dont translate well.  It seems to me that most of the new rules in close combat that are new were to compensate for very hard elite units of the 7th edition.  This phase is what really sent me over the edge. 

3: Shooting:  I really dont like how warmachines work now it is too much like how 40K is used.  Guessing for the warmachines is a skill that everyone who barely passed geometry can do.  Those who have not done that yet really should not be playing wargames in my opinion, even if they graduate from high school.

4: Movement:  Really this phase is not as bad as others but there are a few problems.  I dont like how you are not allowed to turn anymore. (WAB did that as well, Damn them)  While I like the concept randomness during the charge the way that it works is too varied for my taiste. 

So Now What?

What to do now with all of my books and armies?  Well I am now basically becoming a collector of GW's miniatures, and mainly the older metal models since they are better models in my opinion.  I have recently sold off almost all of my models from the boxset with a few exceptions.  They just flat out do not work with what I have with in inventory with my High Elves.  A lot of my "Future Projects" are on hold if not on the selling block.  Warhammer Ancient Battle is really my game of choice right now.  I am looking at Kings of War from Mantic but we shall see what happens. 

It seems that I am not alone in my sojourn from Warhammer in my area.  I know a few veteran wargammers who are not really playing anymore both personally and online.  I have offered to play them using 6th edition rules to the ones that I personally know, but I have yet to set up a time to play.  Most of them are moving towards Warhammer Ancient Battle if they already are not already playing. 

I have also kicked around the idea about starting a forum for us players who want to play older editions.  I have not seen any forums that have done this so I guess that this will be the first.  I cant see any other way to, dare I say it, "organize" those who want to play the previous editions.  I am not looking to put together a tournament circut, just a way to find opponants. 

Like all change you have no idea where you will land in the end or what it will look like, but the only way to make the change happen is to start trying.

Welcome All

Welcome to my new blog.  This is mainly for me to expound on one of my hobbies that I am currently in, miniature wargaming.  On here the posts will mostly entail what I am currently doing with my miniature armies, as well as commentary on the wargamming issues of the day, as well as some picures of what I have worked on in the past or are currently working on now.  I hope that you enjoy what you see on here.