Death of the warhammer-soul

[Dai-Mongar]

I think some people need to take off their rose-tinted glasses. Nostaligia can make anything look better.

[Spectrar Ghost]

Do I have to take off the purple shirt with the frilly collar too?

I agree with DeSelby - The artistic quality of the sculpts has stayed about the same. I'd venture the technical quality has increased at least slightly, however.

[iamfanboy]

I think some people need to take off their rose-tinted glasses. Nostaligia can make anything look better.

Not to be cruel, but I heartily agree with Mr. Monger here; nostalgia is the mind-killer that impairs impartiality. But you can't let it do so, because sometimes new things ARE actually better.

Whether the medium of sculpting is greenstuff, marble, or CAD is irrelevant; what matters is the sculptor's vision and skill at turning that vision into physical reality.

Anyone who believes otherwise needs to visit the 21st century; we've got a lot of badass minis to paint and put together.

I'm glad I played Final Fantasy IV on the Nintendo DS, because it was substantially better than the SNES version; I greatly prefer Quickstrike Battletech to the old Battletech rules, simply because it's actually playable and teachable easily (versus the unwieldiness of Battletech); the '50s were a godawful time to be alive, ridden with paranoia, fear, and despair; and anyone who claims Rogue Trader is better than X edition of 40k (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, whateverth) probably hasn't sat down to play a game of Rogue Trader in the better part of twenty years..

(and seriously, the 1990s had some HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE minis coming out of Games Workshop. Anyone who seriously believes that the first version of Ghazghul Thraka is better than the dual-fisted version needs to get his eyes checked; likewise anyone who thinks the old Isabella is better than the new one Finecast aside.)

[carlisimo]

I demand examples!

[lbecks]

I miss Kopinski. But they still have Dainton and Boyd. In terms of models, it's really a case by case by issue. Certain models like the Pink Horrors had a lot of character lost in translation. But i like the new plastic Empire and VC stuff more than their old counterparts.

[shelfunit.]

battle for skull pass dwarfs * cough, sputter *

I actually like them!

[ashc]

With regards to the VC book cover discussion, I have no idea why they keep using Dave Gallagher's childish scrawls as cover art, they look terrible. They could have taken practically any other art from the rest of the book (I direct you to the likes of page 6) and yet we got that on the cover.

I have hated his 'angsty teen drawing cartoons with a pencil' style since he ruined the Chaos Space Marine book with it (doesn't help that plenty of other stuff ruined that too, but the pics alongside it took the biscuit).

[AndrewGPaul]

(and seriously, the 1990s had some HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE minis coming out of Games Workshop. Anyone who seriously believes that the first version of Ghazghul Thraka is better than the dual-fisted version needs to get his eyes checked; likewise anyone who thinks the old Isabella is better than the new one Finecast aside.)

I don't know if I'd say the original Ghazgkull is better, but it looks like an Ork. The new one doesn't work for me - the essence of the Ork is lost amongst all the armour plates and spikes.

Having said that, I think I like the new art - it's actually closer in "feel" to the wierd gothic stuff from Rogue Trader. I liked Mark Gibbons and Des Hanley at the time, but now I like stuff that's not so clean. The art in the current Warhammer Armies: High Elves and Wood Elves books is much better than older editions - the elves look alien, with inhuman faces and expressions. That's not something that I think earlier books really captured.

The main problem with using CAD for sculpting miniatures seems to be laziness or unfamiliarity with the software (and here I'm speaking more generally than just GW). It's most obvious with cloth and hair - poor drapery means you get a lot of miniatures apparently wearing rubber.

[eldargal]

I can't agree with Dai-monger more and the OP less. I've been playing WFB for sixteen years and some of my brothers have been playing 25 and we all think WFB is in the best place it has been. I don't see how anything is getting 'toylike', the monsters and whatnot are getting bigger because technology allows it. If this technology had existed two decades ago we would have seen an abundance of large, plastic kits then, too.

I think some people need to take off their rose-tinted glasses. Nostaligia can make anything look better.

[Daniel36]

Anyone nostalgic about the dreaded red period? I think not. Archaonhammer anyone? 7th ed? Pfllrrgggghh...
The army books have become of great quality with 8th ed, and I am not just talking about the hard cover, or even the fact that they are full colour. I am talking about the fact that they are much more internally balanced than they were in 7th ed. Not saying they are perfect, but definitely better. And it can just be a feeling, not sure about that, but I have the distinct feeling that army books come much quicker as well since 8th ed.

Besides, if you really really don't like the current Warhammer rules, play something else. There are so many games out there, popular ones too played by people in your area, that you can play instead of Warhammer.

I mean, I get the fact that you don't want to leave Warhammer because of a love for the setting, but honestly, the old material hasn't gone away, it just hasn't been featured as much as it has been in older publications. Doesn't mean that it's not there however.

And if you dislike the current sculpts and like the older sculpts, then why complain? You don't need new sculpts if you own the old ones and play with those. Nobody stopping you from using old sculpts.

[Scammel]

If the Warhammer soul is a gurning metal cultist, Satan can do whatever the hell he likes with it.

[Sgt John Keel]

So on one side we have people with their vision dimmed by nostalgia and on the other people blinded by the new-shiny?

Obviously many new GW sculpts are technically excellent (and some are ****), but what I think is lacking from much of the range is motivation. What are these characters up to, what do they want? If I look at a miniature, especially character miniatures, if I can glean a purpose from the model it is more likely to strike my fancy.*

Also, I think many of the updates of old models lack in continuity. The new Ghazghkull doesn't feel much like the same character the old model was. Neither does the new Isabella and Vlad. This is unfortunate, because it makes us have to learn to know them again, in a way. (In contrast, Calgar, Wurrzag and Tyrion and Teclis pull this off reasonably, I think.)

*Also why I'm not completely sold on multi-part plastics. It does makes it easier for me to create my own character in models, of course, but often they feel like a hodgepodge of parts without direction (chief offender: Sanguinary Guard). So it is very time consuming to make something nice out of it.

[stroller]

I don't agree with the OP. I've just got (belatedly) the latest Orc & Goblin army book and read the updated rules for animosity. I roll the wrong rolls and two of my units fight each other, taking hits and wounds. That's EXACTLY right for O&G, and while it means I'll lose troops, I'll laugh precisely because that rule captures what orcs and goblins would do. Looking through the artwork, both the savage and the comic are still there. It ain't perfect, but when was it ever? Personally I don't like the river troll or arachnarok sculpts, but technically the trolls in particular are very good. I DO like the mounted characters and the savage orcs. Overall, the newer models are more dynamic.

Last but not least, the soul of warhammer is what you make it.

[The bearded one]

I actually like them!

I think I managed to make them passable

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...s/DSC06809.jpg

[loveless]

GW is a mixed bag - always has been, and likely always will be. Sometimes the new releases are incredible improvements upon their predecessors (the new Black Knights, Dark Eldar anything, plastic Death Company, Chaos Possessed, Skaven Clanrats, etc.), others are roughly lateral (Grey Knight Terminators, White Lions, Grave Guard, so on), and some are just disappointing (many say the Daemonettes, Ghouls, and Minotaurs fit in this category, though I tend to like all 3 of those kits).

Frankly, I've seen far more improvements in style than lateral or backwards movements. People often talk about how limited plastic is, but no one seems to talk about how clever GW has become. Their plastics have increasingly become broken down into wisely cut components to show off the flow of organic material, the alien structure of xenos machines, or the ornate detail of the Imperium, High Elves, or what have you. The plastic character blisters are good examples of this - the amount of detail on them is surprising and the component count often staggering - I'd say they often go well beyond what's required, as detail seems to exist in locations that will be invisible once assembled.

As far as the artwork goes, the covers have been a bit disappointing lately, but the internal work continues to be stunning and exude Warhammer Spirit. It's certainly better than what we were seeing in the days of, say, Rogue Trader (though the Vampire Counts cover and Blood Angels cover may well be stuck in that period...)

[shelfunit.]

I think I managed to make them passable

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...s/DSC06809.jpg

Indeed - a great paintjob will help any model

[Easy E]

Churned out like its a job rather than a passion. Perhaps artistry isn't the right word at all. Perhaps its passion.

Now it seems a little too much like 'another day at the office!'

Yeah, I kind of feel like GW is getting stale, because they are afraid to move away from the "formula" and be truly innovative. Then, the times someone does go off the reservation, it comes out jarringly "different". It's like they can't find the happy medium.

You see this in Rules Design, the Artwork, Model lines, etc.

[ashc]

Actually some cool stuff came out of the 'Red Period'. I have tracked down a fair few Chaos models from that time because to me they are the epitomy of 'Chaos'.

[JDman]

Im in the boat that the new stuff is very warhammery and the quality has become incredibly better over the years.

Sometimes they make a bad kit or two (I remember when the 6th edition chaos ogres came out ugg), but the quality and feel has only increased in my opinion.

Sure I like going through old figs sometime to get something a little unique, but for the most part they are mostly bad.

[Yodhrin]

I feel that the lack of artistry is due to a lack of real artists. When I got into the hobby I enjoyed the work of Tony Ackland, Wayne England, David Gallagher, Ian Miller, Pete Knifton, Russell Nicholson and many others. Real artists who seemed to be encouraged to work in their own style when illustrating the warhammer world. I remember the wonderful full colour paintings that adorned products (slaves to darkness, lost and the damned, bloodbowl, adpetus titanicus etc) there was even a painting of dark angels marines inspired by scarface! The art these days is rather dull. Churned out like its a job rather than a passion. Perhaps artistry isn't the right word at all. Perhaps its passion. Everyone seemed so much more passionate about producing quality product circa 85-92. Now it seems a little too much like 'another day at the office!'

This post positively reeks of nostalgia. Fist and foremost; drawing badly is not a style, and a lot of the art from your "glory days" period was simply bad, in a technical sense(and yes, in fact art -can- be bad, only the perception is subjective; if you draw a face that looks like a half-melted waxwork, people can like it, but it's still badly drawn). I'll take Adrian Smith any day of the week.

As to CAD; feh. It's the same snobbish Ludditry that you heard from "traditional" painters about how tablets and photoshop and PCs were sucking all of the "soul" out of art; funnily enough, they all changed their tune when someone famous enough, without being too mainstream for their hipsterish criteria, used a pretentious enough piece of technology(iPad) - that's art, apparently. What is it with modellers and wearing bottle-bottom rose-tinted specs? I like that the artists who work for GW and FFG have technical skill as well as artistic flair, I like that advances in technology allow everybody to have really nice looking models not just those of us who enjoy that sort of thing, and you know what? I like Finecast as well; I like not having my clippers shatter and nearly take out my eye, I like not having my modelling knife skitter off a metal surface and into my finger, and I love how easy it is to convert - I wouldn't go back to using metal if they offered to pay me.