1 minute ago, Lancezh said:

That exactly another reason, yet people think what works for them is best for everyone else. GW Players are used to paint a gazillion minis with great care.

This is true but keep in mind that GW players aren't all elitist, super fan hobbyiest. I know at least a dozen players and only one among them actually goes to the great lengths to get a professionally painted looking army on the table. That amounts to a little less then 10% of the group and I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of the player base for GW products, just an opinion of course, but in my opinion accurate. I firmly believe the large majority of players out there much rather get the painting done and play, then the other way around.

2 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

This is true but keep in mind that GW players aren't all elitist, super fan hobbyiest. I know at least a dozen players and only one among them actually goes to the great lengths to get a professionally painted looking army on the table. That amounts to a little less then 10% of the group and I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of the player base for GW products, just an opinion of course, but in my opinion accurate. I firmly believe the large majority of players out there much rather get the painting done and play, then the other way around.

Of course not, but i own a shop and therefore get to see the concerns of all ranges of players, not that this gives me any credibility but i'm just giving back of what i hear, noone else complained about the quality of the minis except the hardcore players. And i totally agree with your last sentence 100%

I have seen a lot of new players pick up these minis and not feel overwhelmed with the idea of painting them and to me that is a victory. Most of the people at my FLGS have at least started painting the armies as oppose to the other games I have played where a lot of uniform grey seems to be the army color of choice

32 minutes ago, FatherTurin said:

@BigKahuna X-Wing and Armada...low quality? Um...what? Granted the very first expansions for X-Wing weren't astounding, and there is some inconsistency from time to time (and Black One from heroes of the resistance could really benefit from a wash or some shading), but...really? For pre painted miniatures the quality is absolutely astounding, especially with recent releases like the ARC or Quadjumper (both ugly ships with gorgeous paint jobs). In fact, the only reprint I've ever seen that I think is on par with the base paintjobs is a really good Kath Scarlet I've seen floating around.

Anyway, I guess my point is that this proves that aesthetic is a purely personal opinion. I do agree with you that the style of the minis will help, rather than hurt the game (although they really should do an insert describing the hot water/ice method for straightening spears and repositioning rune golems so they rank up properly).

I think it's great that the minis go together so easily (and only one way). As an example, I've been involved in GW games in some way since the 90s, and even now I screw up assembly. The new Eldrad model that came with the Death Masque box got his foot removed due to a single careless snip, and his staff is certainly not under the fold in his robe where it is supposed to be.

Also, even established companies have some really cruddy quality from time to time. Privateer Press has been doing this for almost 15 years, and their recent Mark 3 two player box comes with an entire faction (the cygnar models) that are almost impossible to assemble properly, and I don't know why, but their plastic formula (or is it resin now?) does not react well to the hot water method of straightening.

With the RWMG core I may have spent as long straightening spears as I did assembling models, but there was only one truly warped piece (one Rune Golem stand that still fit, just needed some forcing) and 0 miscasts. Say what you will about the aesthetics, but their quality control is pretty spot on for their first foray into this type of miniatures game.

Yeah but your making exceptions here "For a pre-painted game the quality is astounding" and "spot on for their first foray into this type of miniatures game". I don't disagree with you, but when you enter a market you are always measured by the leaders in that market and compared to GW mini's, as a whole, X-Wing and Armada miniatures aren't even in the same league. It may be intentional, its clearly a unique approach and a very successful one, but lets call a spade a spade.

Again I don't disagree with you here, I think FG is doing a fantastic job, but they are not playing in the same league here and its worth pointing out that according to every piece of data we have on the economics of this business GW is still very much number one in the market in this area and its for good reason, they do in fact make the highest quality miniatures, they are the leaders in the community that produce the technology and methods everyone else mimics. This is a simple fact.

The thing I question is that this level of "high quality mini's" will in the future be the deciding factor of which games the audience at large chooses. I don't believe it will be, I believe firmly that people are less interested in the designs of the miniatures and far more interested in playing a great miniature game and I think its for this reason GW has lost so much of the market share in the last few years. Simply put while they make the better mini's they make considerably lower quality games, in fact I would argue their game systems are archaic, even the latest and greatest is nothing more then a slightly altered version of all of their previous systems which were never good to begin with. I think FG will win this battle in the long run, because it will be game systems not miniature quality that will rule this market in the future.

5 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

Yeah but your making exceptions here "For a pre-painted game the quality is astounding" and "spot on for their first foray into this type of miniatures game". I don't disagree with you, but when you enter a market you are always measured by the leaders in that market and compared to GW mini's, as a whole, X-Wing and Armada miniatures aren't even in the same league. It may be intentional, its clearly a unique approach and a very successful one, but lets call a spade a spade.

Again I don't disagree with you here, I think FG is doing a fantastic job, but they are not playing in the same league here and its worth pointing out that according to every piece of data we have on the economics of this business GW is still very much number one in the market in this area and its for good reason, they do in fact make the highest quality miniatures, they are the leaders in the community that produce the technology and methods everyone else mimics. This is a simple fact.

The thing I question is that this level of "high quality mini's" will in the future be the deciding factor of which games the audience at large chooses. I don't believe it will be, I believe firmly that people are less interested in the designs of the miniatures and far more interested in playing a great miniature game and I think its for this reason GW has lost so much of the market share in the last few years. Simply put while they make the better mini's they make considerably lower quality games, in fact I would argue their game systems are archaic, even the latest and greatest is nothing more then a slightly altered version of all of their previous systems which were never good to begin with. I think FG will win this battle in the long run, because it will be game systems not miniature quality that will rule this market in the future.

Fair enough. I would argue that you can't compare X-Wing/Armada to anything other than Battlefleet Gothic, and in those terms I think FFG is superior in every way, but that aspect is pure aesthetics and personal opinion and here FFG benefits from not having to design a ship from the keel up (except the raider). Again, personal preference and I am more than happy to agree to disagree.

Everything else I totally agree with. I have no idea why GW is so wedded to "you go, I go" mechanics. Alternating activations isn't even the future of miniatures games, I would argue that it's the present, and companies that refuse to get on board with that will be left in the dust.

Not only have I painted half my core already, I 'dipped' my first one ever. Very pleased with the result, I have totally left my comfort zone comfortablely. Also spray painted a primer for first time too

2 hours ago, FatherTurin said:

Fair enough. I would argue that you can't compare X-Wing/Armada to anything other than Battlefleet Gothic, and in those terms I think FFG is superior in every way, but that aspect is pure aesthetics and personal opinion and here FFG benefits from not having to design a ship from the keel up (except the raider). Again, personal preference and I am more than happy to agree to disagree.

Everything else I totally agree with. I have no idea why GW is so wedded to "you go, I go" mechanics. Alternating activations isn't even the future of miniatures games, I would argue that it's the present, and companies that refuse to get on board with that will be left in the dust.

Hey to be fair. The Raider is a Gorgeous ship.

I vastly prefer the "you go i go" system, whether its initiative driven or flatout alternating.

40k for instance you use your entire army (move, psychic, shoot, charge) before the enemy does. As a result it lets you use those otherwise totally junk units first in the hope they roll lucky enough to justify not using the powerhouses on that target - alternating activation is the opposite, because if you can remove them before they get to activate they dont get jack, so you wanna use the heavy stuff right off the bat.
Defensively, it lets you move a unit back into position for a block if your opponent killed the original unit that was there. The whole army activates at once format doesnt allow this, so its insanely hard to bodyblock people from doing certain things such as dive a point or charge the unit with your HQ (hero) in it that was previously screened by another unit to prevent that.

Also, it puts an INSANE weight on first turn. I have lost so many games purely because of that stupid "Steal the Initiative" rule. Majority of the time whoever has first turn wins if they have a way to capitalize on it (heavy long range weapons, turn 1 charges/droppods, or things that need to be manually set up such as my Piranha wall deploying its drones)

As an aside. X-wing has gotten amazing. The u-wing paint job and sculpt is far better than 90% of what I see on the GW tables. They constantly improve the line. The best comparison from early models to newer models in my opinion is the tie advanced that came in wave one compared to the tie advanced in the raider.

Another chime for: holy moly the X Wing models are cool. In fact, I recently learned that some folks just buy 'em for the models - to show off or put on their work desk or whatever. And I could totally see that. They look great.

I recently picked up some new MicroMachines (I think that's what they're called) which are surprisingly almost the exact same size as X Wing figures, and they are terrible alongside what FFG does. They'd be good only to grind up and throw on the board as space debris, or some kind of objective!

FFG has made a lot of progress in the last few years. Check out the core set for Descent 2nd vs. the latest expansions for it. Night and day.

1 hour ago, TallTonyB said:

FFG has made a lot of progress in the last few years. Check out the core set for Descent 2nd vs. the latest expansions for it. Night and day.

Dude you don't even KNOW about the CR-90s of the first set of armada cores compared to the current separate box ones.

I will be honest here. I have been following this game since its announcement and I had high expectations because I like the dial system it uses. However, when I saw the art for this game I was already concerned. Once I saw miniatures I immediately gave up on this game. So did my entire group of friends.

Maybe it is the objective of FFG to cater to X-wing fans, board gamers sitting on a fence to dive into tabletop and those who prefer the gaming aspect above all other aspects of the hobby such as painting, fluff and art. For me painting and the aesthetic part of the miniatures are very important. And in that respect RW falls short with its cartoony looks in art and miniatures. I know some people like it, but judging by my diverse group of friends more people don't than do (from over 10 people I asked, none of them liked it).

Even though I will not be getting into RW, I will follow it in media and I wish it success. It definitely has its place in the miniature game world. It is not a competition for the giants, as I believe it caters to different market, but it will definitely help attract new people to the hobby.

3 decades ago I started to play WHFB.

And love(d) it to bits. Despite it's many flaws.

I only stopped playing once age of sh!tmar destroyed the old world.

While I think that RW cannot compete in model quality when compared to WHFB I certainly think the models (once painted) look very good on the table. Bear in mind you tend to look at these models at arms length or a bit more.

My point is; I find it hard to believe that model quality alone would stop anyone playing this game.

The game thus far seems exactly what I craved to scratch my fantasy-armies-clashing itch.

Just my 2 cts. Peace. and happy war-gaming.

I have to land on the side of Elkerlyc on this one.

I know some people don't like it, but judging by my diverse group of friends more people liked it than didn't (from over 10 people I asked, two of them would rather use their existing models than RMG's. But they still want to play the game.)

21 minutes ago, Elkerlyc said:

My point is; I find it hard to believe that model quality alone would stop anyone playing this game.

The game thus far seems exactly what I craved to scratch my fantasy-armies-clashing itch.

Maybe those who pay little attention to rules quality and much on miniature quality. Not many gamers consider realism and balance a key feature on wargaming.

It seems to me that most of you are gamers above all. For you the rule aspect is the most important one. However, for many people this hobby is much more than that. I spend much more time painting and reading fluff than playing the game. I take my time to paint each miniature and I spend more time looking at them from close distance than on the tabletop. I enjoy looking at the art in the rulebook.

For gamers the miniatures are just the means to play the game and painting is secondary. Although some people still enjoy it, they don't want to spend hundreds of hours painting. I believe RW is for gamers above all. I also think it was designed in that way to cater to that market.

It is not only miniature quality that I don't like, but the entire artistic direction FFG took with this project. This alone is a good reason not to play the game, since I enjoy it more than actual playing.

24 minutes ago, druchii7 said:

Maybe those who pay little attention to rules quality and much on miniature quality. Not many gamers consider realism and balance a key feature on wargaming.

Looks over content?

Exactly this I find hard to believe.

[edit]

Allow me to elaborate a little.

I can see the point if you are a painter/modeller first and foremost.

But even these can have a heck of a time painting the snot out of the RW models.

I myself feel painting is a 'must' (looks and feels better with painted models!) but certainly the game quality (mechanics outweigh the minute details of individual models.

29 minutes ago, Elkerlyc said:

Looks over content?

Exactly this I find hard to believe.

[edit]

Allow me to elaborate a little.

I can see the point if you are a painter/modeller first and foremost.

But even these can have a heck of a time painting the snot out of the RW models.

I myself feel painting is a 'must' (looks and feels better with painted models!) but certainly the game quality (mechanics outweigh the minute details of individual models.

I think there's a wide variety of players:

Top gamers who seek top realism and top balanced experience

Top gamers who seek "chess minded" games, the important is to win even if you use unrealistic/antiaesthetic tactics, as far as they're legal.

Casual players who seek simple fun and aren't too concerned on win or lose and like the overall game rather than focusing on particular aspects.

Fluffy people who prefer to read and write fluff overall and enjoy overall narrative matches, narrative campaigns, hating unrealistic tactics and ugly but powerful armylists

Top artistic players who enjoy the artistic part of the game and find the game as a simple addition to the game, always seeking for the best miniatures and not too concerned about aesthetics

Etc.

Green and blue people might be quite comfortable with RMG. Yellow and red not so much IMO.

People might combine more than one. You might love the rules and be disappointed with the miniatures. You might like the competitive aspect of the game but beg a lot more fluff... why not?

<incomprehensible ranting>

IMO if they continue with the cartoonish style they should at least go a bit more stupid (but not "edgy" like skull motives on every inch of Ardus' gear or the boring version of Chief Vitalstatistix).

While I like the skeletal drummer in the unit upgrade set for example, I'd go for a heavy metal skellington with a guitar anytime.

They don't even need to improve the quality - take a look at the Carrion Lancer. He's there already.
Same quality level as the golems, single assembly option for now but hell is that skeleton on top having fun or what?
Plus you have the saddle nailed into it's carapace with 2x4s AND the reigns attached by ramming a sword through its "neck"?
All of that makes it the best model in the game so far - it has character even though it is not that original.

Give me more silly stuff like Ankaur Maro surfing on bone magic!

The Latari elves at least have the battlecats going for them.

I hope that Uthuk Y'llan won't just be bodybuilders with some spikes.
That fat blob is where it's at.



I don't know what to do about Daqan. They look so dull with the combo of cartoonish style but serious poses.

That and fewer Descent sculpts. Make some effort to breathe new life into these old characters.

</incomprehensible ranting>

47 minutes ago, druchii7 said:

I think there's a wide variety of players:

Top gamers who seek top realism and top balanced experience

Top gamers who seek "chess minded" games, the important is to win even if you use unrealistic/antiaesthetic tactics, as far as they're legal.

Casual players who seek simple fun and aren't too concerned on win or lose and like the overall game rather than focusing on particular aspects.

Fluffy people who prefer to read and write fluff overall and enjoy overall narrative matches, narrative campaigns, hating unrealistic tactics and ugly but powerful armylists

Top artistic players who enjoy the artistic part of the game and find the game as a simple addition to the game, always seeking for the best miniatures and not too concerned about aesthetics

Etc.

Green and blue people might be quite comfortable with RMG. Yellow and red not so much IMO.

People might combine more than one. You might love the rules and be disappointed with the miniatures. You might like the competitive aspect of the game but beg a lot more fluff... why not?

Still... If all you want is paint models there is no point in buying a game. Any game. You just pick and choose the best models you can find in your opinion. But if you *also* want to play a game? There is no way excellent models can compensate a poor ruleset. IMO.

52 minutes ago, druchii7 said:

I think there's a wide variety of players:

Top gamers who seek top realism and top balanced experience

Top gamers who seek "chess minded" games, the important is to win even if you use unrealistic/antiaesthetic tactics, as far as they're legal.

Casual players who seek simple fun and aren't too concerned on win or lose and like the overall game rather than focusing on particular aspects.

Fluffy people who prefer to read and write fluff overall and enjoy overall narrative matches, narrative campaigns, hating unrealistic tactics and ugly but powerful armylists

Top artistic players who enjoy the artistic part of the game and find the game as a simple addition to the game, always seeking for the best miniatures and not too concerned about aesthetics

Etc.

Green and blue people might be quite comfortable with RMG. Yellow and red not so much IMO.

People might combine more than one. You might love the rules and be disappointed with the miniatures. You might like the competitive aspect of the game but beg a lot more fluff... why not?

You nailed it. Couldn't say it better.

I play infinity so you all can see that I still like complex rules and playing game itself. You can stay many things about Infinity, but so far I have had no issue with complexity and fortunately my player base is not extremely competitive. The miniatures are amazing (again my own opinion because many don't like them).

Like you say, most people is this hobby have two or more of those preferences stated above by Druchii, but they definitely have different ratios of it. Elkerlyc, its not about painting only, it is the full package that matters to me. Except arguably good rules and balance (still too early to say it for sure) and rather average miniatures, game aesthetics and dull fluff, at this point RW has less to offer than other games. It is definitely just my personal opinion again and it might change it terms of fluff and future designs.

I also agree with Polda. If FFG went for more fun and ridiculous style like you described, I would be more inclined to like it. I don't know it is just me, but the miniatures lack flavor, something that makes you think "this is cool" when you look at them. As much as I don't like GW (I don't buy their miniatures anymore), their miniatures have that X-factor that FFG is lacking.

15 minutes ago, Elkerlyc said:

Still... If all you want is paint models there is no point in buying a game. Any game. You just pick and choose the best models you can find in your opinion. But if you *also* want to play a game? There is no way excellent models can compensate a poor ruleset. IMO.

I'm not that kind of player, but I know a few. They put a lot of interest on high level painting and playing is an addition. They play, probably not much, and some speak more about painting techniques than about strategy during the launch breaks on tornaments.

I'm not an artistic guy, I don't like paint buy enjoy having my army painted. That's why I paint despite finding it a boring activity after the first 45 minutes.

I'm not a fluffy guy either, but I read a few of the fluff pages and might read the rest (or not).

There's an overwhelming variety of player profiles.

@Polda Obscenes (the blobs) certainly have flavor, but I am so sick of them. The Uthuk have so much more to offer than obese cannibals. Grotesques from BattleLore are much more to my liking, with a huge, mutated arm and the ability to shoot bones out of their body at range.

1 hour ago, sevsterino said:

You nailed it. Couldn't say it better.

I play infinity so you all can see that I still like complex rules and playing game itself. You can stay many things about Infinity, but so far I have had no issue with complexity and fortunately my player base is not extremely competitive. The miniatures are amazing (again my own opinion because many don't like them).

I learned Infinity from the guys that own Warsenal and used to finish in the top 10 of ITS, that game is complicated but I love it...wish I still played it more...Top quality models, that to me are better than anything I see coming out of GW...and an actually fun game system...but I like RWM more just because idk I just have not not enjoyed a game yet even when I am being destroyed...but I can understand if the models aren't your cup of tea and you don't want to invest your time and energy into painting things you don't like...