Tuesday, 23 April 2013

Total power! Showing 4th edition Warhammer some love.




OK we all know that the 80’s have been cool for like ever, well except the 90’s when they were the height of bad taste. Recently I’ve begun to see an increase in 90’s nostalgia. Kids wearing Nirvana Tee-shirts, high top trainers, leggings with over detailed prints and lumberjack shirts are to be seen. Even in gaming there appears to be a bit of reverence for 2nd ed 40K going on.

Where is the love for Warhammer 4th edition? Perhaps it isn’t Oldhammer enough, is it Midhammer?

When 4th came out in 92 I must admit I was excited. My third edition armies to date where on the small side, I couldn’t field a, “legal”, Orc army without using the card counters from Forenrond’s last stand to fill in for my Stikkas. My wolf boys were also counters. My Wood elf army relied on counters also for a fair section of its force.
My friends Chaos consisted of a few RoC warbands and Chaos warriors/Knights, not very rounded. Already much of my empire force relied upon the Perries new Empire range and the later 3rd ed Marauder empire stuff too. A box full of miniatures then was the main draw of the new system to me.

Opening that box was as exciting as opening hero quest for the first time. My younger brother and I invested in the new set agreeing to split the models, high elves for him, his first army, goblins for me. At last I would have my unit of Stikkas. The card scenery was also a bonus, I actually saw the last pack of townscape card buildings being sold in my local GW, when I asked for a pack myself I was told that was it, they never returned. I’d drawn a few buildings in felt tip and even made one of the great modelling workshop town houses from WD so the addition of the house and tower was greatly appreciated.

The rule books in three parts, rules, bestiary and army lists were new, colourful (well except the lists) and enticing. How could we not read them. We played them, never meaning to, they played well. I bemoaned the loss of shield walls, free hacks, advance and trailing forces but liked the march move (we were already doing it) and bloodier combat. I believe I may even have mentioned dumbing down, I continued to play 3rd with friends but 4th only with my brother, though elements of 3rd crept in. We even wrote magic lists for the forces based more on the heroquest magic than 3rd ed magic.




The release of the first army books (Empire and High elf) was closely followed by dedicated ranges for each race, at the time we thought this was great. 

The battle Magic came along and yes we ate that up too. After all GW had been preparing the way for some time in WD with tales of colour magic, colour wizards appearing in AHQ, rules for Dwarven rune weapons and armour for 3rd,  indeed the last ever 3rd ed battle report included trial rules for Amethyst wizards and rune weapons. It was full of colour, cards, magic weapons (3rd ed ones for all but chaos warbands were limited and old and stale) and awesomeness. So yes for a few years I loved 4th edition. Then University, girls (finally!), beer and first job happened, I stopped playing so much, missed 5th entirely and when I picked up again in the late 90’s went straight back to third. Indeed I never stopped collecting, but it was always 80’s stuff. But that’s all a different story. Here’s to the 90’s and Warhammer 4th. Total power!





60 comments:

  1. I'm into 4th right now, it's quite Oldhammer to me.

    In fact I'm painting a 4th edition dwarf/halfling army :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Look forward to seeing it, those 4th ed marauder dwarves are great little figures.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Those dwarfs are 3rd ed!!! And I'll refuse to be told otherwise! same with those empire figs!

    I bemoan the lack of flavor in the 4th ed. but I see the appeal...faster and slicker for sure. As I'm trying to get my new recruits for gaming up to speed I have found that I have incorporated some 4th ed elements just to move things along. In particular the artillery rules etc.

    So I'll never embrace it whole heatedly again but its not without its good attributes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know what you mean, it took me a long time to come to terms with the fact I actually liked 4th. Some of those dwarfs are3rd others like the long beards are very 4th. My bother has a naive unit of them, wish I hadn't looked down my nose at them so much now.

      Delete
    2. The first few batches of those dwarves and the majority of that Empire range were 3rd edition but made with 4th edition on the horizon and reaslistically made for 4th, which was never more apparent than the army list for the Empire that was released in White Dwarf that madce use of a new condensed stat line that lives on to this day.

      Delete
  4. Gaming in the 90's had some good points for sure, I have a lot of fond memories from those years. I think the miniatures lost some individual appeal and, like a dipped paint job, only looked good en masse. I still blame Gary Morley for most of that, never liked his lazy work. It was a dark time (gaming mentality-wise, I didn't suffer from depression or anything) for me personally though so I can't enjoy the nostalgia of the 90's in quite the same way as that of the 80's. I got hooked by the tournament scene and some local leagues, to my shame. I was enticed by the cheap, plentiful plastic figures with their slutty, dry-brushed paint jobs. Having reread W40K 2nd edition I was shocked at how bloody good and versatile it was, it has so many RT nods such as dismounting and an extensive wargear list that the scope to achieve RT style games is right there if you want it. Does WFB 4th edition echo it's predecessors in the same way? I can't remember.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think it's all there, a point system in the rule book for one some fairly low level magic too if you put a cap on it, don't tell me 3rd wasn't just as in need of a cap. There is some utter rubbish in the 90's sculpts but also some gems. Much of the 90's undead send shivers down my spine for all the wrong reason but the mounted wights are pure joy.

    The killer for me model wise was what they did to orcs in the 90's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahh, 'Brokeback' Orcs. It was done to establish a distinct and exclusive Orc IP. I still think of them as the Orcs of Brokeback Mountain.

      Of course, Morley and his proteges aside, there were still talented sculptors working for GW throughout the 90's as you say. Trish Carden, Aly Morrison and Mike McVey spring to mind.

      Delete
    2. Your going to have to explain that one sometime to me,, broke back orcs?

      Delete
    3. The 90's plastic Orcs/Orks (which I presumed you were talking about, tell me if I'm wrong) formed a distinctive S shape when put together. The legs are long but posed very crookedly to give the impression of mass without making the model too tall. The body juts forward from the waist then arches back unnaturally (and impossibly, as if the model had a broken spine) for the same reason while the head juts forward from the shoulders and completes the odd look. Some of the current generation of sculptors have grown to dislike the look and find it restrictive, but GW prioritise protection of IP and insist on keeping the identifiably 'GW' or 'Brokeback' Orc look. That way they can sue any imitators easily. A similar discussion is ongoing at HQ over the look of a new Dwarf range I believe. Incidentally, the 'Brokeback' nickname is because of the Ledger/Gyllenhaal movie. It's a childish reference to the fact that both the cowboys and the models are in fact, 'gay'. I realise this is an inappropriate use of the word and apologise for perpetuating any discriminatory stereotype.

      Delete
    4. Warlord Paul, do you have a source for the claim that the orcs were designed that way in fourth for IP protection? I'm an IP attorney and in my experience IP protection is usually an afterthought of the creative process in all but the most "sophisticated" companies, and even more so 20 years ago. I'm amazed that GW was that ahead of the times!

      Delete
    5. those 90's Orcs were 5th edition orcs, forerunners of 6th edition warhammer. 4th edition Goblins were awesome models and the Orcs, whilst not as good, were still nice models.

      Delete
    6. It is the official party line that they were redesigning a distinctive Orc/Ork to protect their IP, if they are precocious it is possibly because they have been affected by an 'after-market' since the early 90's and were the subject of imitators very early on too. The corporate takeover left several disgruntled ex-staff members with the skills to pick up where they left off outside of GW, there were a few lawsuits even in the early 90's. I remember 'Night Elves' and 'Dark Goblins' from a rival Nottingham company that got shut down. The company themselves became more copyright savvy as early as the 80's after several lawsuits were handed down to games manufacturers from movie and TV executives (see my first ever blog post http://warlordpauluk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/welcome-here-is-my-new-blog-what-i-wrote.html for a funny White Dwarf editorial on this subject).

      Tom Kirby and Alan Merrett are often the ones credited with making IP part of the design process, I am sure they would be happy to answer an email from a professional such as yourself.

      As for my sources, I am chums with several current and former employees of the HQ, and once worked for GW myself. I won't name anyone, just in case. I'm sure you understand. ;)

      Delete
    7. True the rot started with the 5th addition boar boys. The plastic orcs that came after continued the theme and made it worse.

      Delete
    8. Very interesting, I never realised it was for IP reasons. I always thought they were modelled to look like gorillas!

      Delete
    9. @Ork Lords of Legend. I think gorillas were the basis for the look, just not the reason for change. Brian Nelson was lead on the project and was backed up by Aly Morrison if I recall correctly, one of them could give you better information on their inspiration. I am sure one of them must be on Facebook or something.

      Delete
    10. Incidentally, now that I think about it, I am sure the brokeback Orcs were designed in 1998 and came out around 1999, around a similar time as the 6th edition in 2000 anyway. The 5th edition plastics were horrible monopose sword/shield or archer models.

      Delete
    11. Those mono-pose orcs were definitely 4th, got some at the time, then decided I hated them. Now ironically quite love their ugly simplisity and will eventually have a unit of both uint my 4th ed army.

      Delete
    12. You are quite right, they were released during 4th edition, they survived almost all of 5th edition too, bizarrely. I used the plastic archers I have in a battle report as I think they have an ugly but adorable cuteness. Not quite so keen on the sword and shield ones but I still use them for games of Warhammer Quest, which works best with shocking but nostalgic plastic miniatures.

      Delete
    13. The plastic were bad but the leads were OK, I know Ernie isn't a fan of the Gorfang Rotgut model but I like him a lot. When it comes to ranges that ruined the work that came before one of the ranges that annoyed me the most, mainly because I love them so much, were the Skaven of 4th edition because they were huge and the plastics for them were massive - nearly the size of the original rat ogres. 4th edition rat ogres made me really angry, they were sooooooooooooooooo bad, the orignals, whilst monopose and static were so beautiful!!!!!

      Delete
    14. I look at the 90's now and view them as a decline, but this was a time when I was getting more into the hobby, not less. I got hooked on the adrenaline of competition for sure and I had no 'eye' to appreciate models and the quality of the sculpt really. Now as I look back everything is through a prism of nostalgia, regret and decades of forming opinions, which makes it hard to be objective. I think possibly the decline was real but not a straight, downward line, more a declining graph of peaks and troughs.

      Those Rat Ogres were appallingly bad though, good call.

      Delete
    15. As previously stated, the High Elves were gorgeous, the 2nd batch of Dwarf stuff (from that particular Dwarf range) was good but not as good as the first batch released towards the end of 3rd, the Chaos Beastmen were a triumph (possibly the best Beastmen they ever released) and the Dark Elves were a poor imitation of an evil version of the 4th edition High Elves. However, let us not forget that this was a Warhammer that embraced using older models, they didn't try to make these models antiquated and periaherd. In my opinion though the worst model to come out of this editions releases was Nagash aka Coco the Clown, it was bad, and unsurprisingly, Gary Moreley's. It was a mixed bag overall.

      Delete
    16. I can't disagree with any of that, a mixed bag of ups and downs for sure.

      I once spoke to John Stallard about the Nagash model, in 1996 I think, all he would say was that it was a big regret to have approved it. Gary Morley always deflected the blame elsewhere for the model and claimed he had a better vision for Nagash that was cramped by marketing. I don't believe him frankly, he was always too lazy and unfocused and his work was too often unfinished or rushed for me to buy that explanation. It also wouldn't explain why every sculpt he has ever done is sandpaper for the eyes.

      Delete
    17. Somewhere, it could be the blood forum Harry posted his negash, he got someone to re-sculpt the face so it looks like the one in the book. Just for that change the figure looks great.

      Delete
    18. The picture in the book's great, if he got it looking like that then it could well look awesome! In fact, that's one one of the other nice things about the 4th edition, the Army books! Whilst being a rip off compared to the original Warhammer Armies book they did have lots of lovely pictures and lots of back ground.

      Delete
    19. Thats where you and I differ, we've talked about this before, I find the fluff in the 4th army books largely a bad point.

      Delete
    20. @Warlord Paul: Thanks for the information. It sounds like you're an ex employee who's reasonably "in the know." With all the complaints lodged at GW for being incompetent, I find it very interesting to see an example of how savvy they really are...or at least how savvy they can be.

      Delete
  6. I think of Oldhammer as a way of playing not just an edition

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite, to be honest I use pretty much the same rules what ever edition I play, namely what ever comes to mind until told otherwise.

      Delete
  7. Hey Erny, Great post! Total Power indeed! Poor neglected 4th. I missed it and 5th and all of the Silver Age stuff in the 90's for pretty much the same reasons as you. But coming back to it now I feel that both 4th and 5th are marvellous. Sure they don't have the richness of 3rd but, good golly, sometimes one just craves hamburgers and fries! (And Magic Cards!) Any chance of 4th report from you and your brother?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not a bad idea PW! Hamburgers and fries it is. Bummer, he wife has me on a diet, I really want real burgers and fries now!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I second the request for a 4th ed report. I like 4th a lot, the magic phase is very brutal but that's just part of the charm. As Paul says, the later editions can be played in a narrative way just like the editions from the 80s. I remember a white dwarf article which had a 4th or 5th ed scenario in which the orcs had a grumpy shaman who started in his hut at the start of the game. Each turn you had to roll to see if he was in a good enough mood to come out of his hut and help out in the battle, but if he stayed in the hut for that turn he had a chance to search around in his hut to find extra magic items. Very characterful!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Speaking as the afore mentioned brother it would be a pleasure, although it could be that my favourite 4th Army, High Elves, comes out to play instead of my Skaven.

    On the mini's front, as much damage as Gary Morely did, such as the Nagash model (aka Coco the clown) and the Chaos Dwarfs with worse hats then Madonna during her 80's days, there were also some amazingly great mini's. Can anyone argue against the High Elves of that edition? OK, maybe not the Swordmasters (they were a bit poo) but all of the rest were delicious, the crème-de-la-crème being the original (and the best) Tyrion and Teclis sculpts. No one should look down their nose at 4th edition, it had such an important role to play and will forever hold a special place in my heart.

    Oh and Ork Lords of Legend, that battle report? It pitted Dark Elves Vs Orcs and took place over two White Dwarfs and included modelling workshops for making Orc huts out of pringles tubes!!!!!! Classic!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I still have some pringle tube huts to this day! I will see if I can dig them out for a blog post.

      Delete
    2. Ah yes that was the one! Maybe you guys could use that scenario for your battle report?

      Paul: I hope you find the huts, they would make an excellent retro post!

      Delete
    3. The issue the first half appeared in also had a great painting article by Rick Priestly on painting High Elves, first and last painting article he wrote I believe.

      It was the first mention of his High Elf Prince "Teflon" that appeared with random refence in his articles over next year or two.

      Delete
    4. Ok, pringle huts it is, I am on it!

      Delete
  11. Well I do have dark elf and orc armies painted up..

    I think we may go high elf vs chaos though.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Who said it only had to be the one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like to try something rather special actually, something that will look awesome on Dearest Brother Earnies Blog, I want to do a 4th editon series, doing The Battle Maugthrond Pass (the scenario from the main boxed set), The Battle of Eight Peaks (the scenario from from the Dwarf Army Book) and the Revenge of the Doomlord (the Scenario from the Undead Book) all with either the exact models that it was always supposed to be or with reasonable substitues. Ernie and I played all of the games but with card substitutions for Eltharion, Grom, Blacktooth, Stone Throwers, Skarnsick, the sheer number of night goblins and Dieter Hellsnickht - either it was the picture cards from the boxed set or it was cereal packet stand ins. Between us Ernie and I should be able to cover all of it, bar maybe the Kislevites in the Doomlord scenario unless you've picked some of these up now Ernie?

      Delete
    2. Dude, you need a blog. First of the 90's revival blogs.

      Delete
    3. "Dude, you need a blog. First of the 90's revival blogs."

      *LIKE*

      Delete
    4. Maybe this will happen, I'll investigate adn may just give you what you crave. I think I know the first article that will that would appear......................

      Delete
    5. "Maybe this will happen, I'll investigate adn may just give you what you crave. I think I know the first article that will that would appear......................"

      *LIKE*

      Delete
  13. Hi all, I'm selling a near complete 4th ed collection if anyone is interested?

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6juPKO6ZQZg/UPVxmdkB5fI/AAAAAAAAAEI/wBMKRgob7jA/s1600/whfb4th.JPG

    High elf and Skaven armies books are also included, though not pictured.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My new Nagash face was done by Rikard. It was done to match Mark Gibbons fantastic artwork. He is a talented chap ...

    Also a word in support of Gary Morley ... Whilst he was abit hit and miss ... He banged out sculpts at a hell of a rate over 15 years for GW and worked on about half the fantasy armies. I am pretty sure that Jes or ally have turned out a couple of sculpts back then they wouldn't want held up as shining examples of their work. I find it hard to imagine where GW would be today without the huge contribution Gary made over the years. Many people who slag him off are not even aware of half the models that were his. In addition many of the names of sculptors that are thrown around these days he had a hand in training ... so they wouldn't be where they are today without Gary ... by all accounts he was a good guy and a good teacher.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Forgot to say.

    I loved 4th edition. I have that piece of box artwork on the wall of my hobby room.
    It was also part of the Big box era which was a great time for the hobby ... happy days.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yep I sometimes get the impression that the remit for sculpts in the mid 90's was high quantity, high speed, low quality. A fact perhaps borne out by Priestley's recent interview where he comments on the lack of funds GW had after the management buy out. Can't blame Morely for company policy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. There was a time that each sculptor was doing a sculpt a day!
    (Compared to a 18 month lead time for a plastic sprue. :D)

    There was also a cartoony house style that was adopted.

    They sculpted that way because they were required to not because they are not capable of sculpting any other way. Some of the stuff done for LotR is unrecognisable as having been done by the same sculptors as stuff being worked on for fantasy at the same time. This is because there the brief was different and realism was required. Sausage hands and huge weapons are not a result of any lack of skill on the part of the sculptor. :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary is not my cup of tea as a sculptor. I also don't go for the opinion that GW scuppered his models by interfering.

      Take a look HERE and HERE at the stuff he was doing independently a couple of years ago to showcase his talents while he was looking for a job.

      Some are OK but I think most have serious issues and some are just plain vile. Some have sausage hands (like poor old General Armistead) while Saladin has the worst chainmail I have ever seen.

      Some of the detail is quite good, but a lot of the models are rushed and lack character. This is what I have always maintained about his work and this time GW are not even involved.

      Delete
  19. I was once a Morley sculpt hater, but have grown to actually like his sculpts and have a huge respect for his work. He did ALL the Blood Bowl stuff for 3rd (ie 4th contemporary) while also working on a lot of the fantasy stuff! I don't like the 3rd edition BB sculpts much, nor the 4th stuff - but I recognize the accomplishment and it's a shame Morley catches so much flack for stuff that applies to ALL the WHFB ranges of that time (except the rank and file Empire stuff).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. ;)

      Delete
  20. Phreedh - what about the $th edition High Elves, are you saying those are bad?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm a big fan of the fat hands/big weapons style, but not for any logical reason, it's simply because it's the style I saw in White Dwarf when I was young! Give me any of those Morley sculpts and I'll have orange paint on it in no time.

    Paul: I had a look at the links you posted, and wow his style certainly hasn't changed! I can definitely see why you (and many others) don't like it though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand the whole nostalgia thing 100%! I also accept the beauty of art is in the eye of the beholder. I begrudgingly accept it with bitterness, but I accept it. :)

      Delete
  22. I see the quality of 3rd and own the rules, but when it comes to plonking figures on the table and having a simple, fun game... well, 4th is my choice.

    http://cthulhuchris.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/warhammer-battle-report.html?m=1

    Maybe it's because it is easy to limit the heroes when you play solo... But to be honest any two players are capable of that. Certainly the ones who want to play older editions I'd have thought!

    Cheers
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Erny, I really love your blog. I have to mention that I am a huge Warhammer 4th and 5th edition fan.

    My plan is to collect and paint several 4th edition armies and play them using 5th edition rules.

    If anyone is interested in this topic, please visit my blog:
    http://hero-hammer.blogspot.com/

    I hope there is a community of 4th/5th edition fans like me, but it is not so easy to find.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Guter I only just found this really nice comment I've seen you blog in the past few days and I'm really impressed with the quality and the 90's spirit you've captured. Hope you save some of those green skins for this years Orctober.

      Delete