Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can't think of a game I wouldn't recommend over 40k.

Oh dear, I have a tonne of GW models that I've begun to paint and would like to get pretty good at painting before thinking about playing. Would it be advised to just paint the models then? I guess I don't really have much time to learn the rules and would have less time to play anyway.

 Gregga wrote:
Oh dear, I have a tonne of GW models that I've begun to paint and would like to get pretty good at painting before thinking about playing. Would it be advised to just paint the models then? I guess I don't really have much time to learn the rules and would have less time to play anyway.

If you like the figures, then paint the figures. Nothing wrong with that.

 Gregga wrote:
Oh dear, I have a tonne of GW models that I've begun to paint and would like to get pretty good at painting before thinking about playing. Would it be advised to just paint the models then? I guess I don't really have much time to learn the rules and would have less time to play anyway.

What game?

If you have Warhammer minis then it is dead easy to use most of them for Kings of War.

If you have Warhammer 40K minis... your choices are a bit limited - but there is Mantic's Deadzone (a game that I get to play far too little of - tonight will be my first game in two months - I normally work while the game is running). Also... Warpath - very much a work in progress, and no where near ready for prime time.

I know one person that is reversing the trend of using the Mars Attack figures in place of Necrons, and is using Necrons in place of Martians.... (He is also doing stats for this weird guy in a time traveling police call box. I have no idea Who that could be....)

The Auld Grump

Well, also, if you want to play WHFB/40K, then by all means, do so, especially since you've already got tons of models. They're not great games, imo, but that doesn't mean you can't have fun with them.

The time factor could be an issue as, unless things have changed since I last played, normal sized games of WHFB and 40K can take quite a while, especially if you're just learning. You could play a couple of small games to decide if you like it.

Alternatively, you could take TheAuldGrump's suggestion and look into Kings of War for Fantasy. I haven't played it but I've read the rules and watched a couple of games on YouTube and it's a pretty fast game with straightforward, easy-to-learn rules.

For 40K, there's Mantic's Warpath but I don't know a lot about it, other than the most recent ruleset basically look like Kings of War in space, and I'm not sure that's a good thing; having all the models in loose skirmish formations doesn't really jive with the "entire unit is treated as one entity" thing KoW has. But that's just my opinion

TheAuldGrump wrote:If you have Warhammer 40K minis... your choices are a bit limited

RatBot wrote:For 40K, there's Mantic's Warpath but I don't know a lot about it

Linky dinky doo.

(Also, I don't have much against Kings of War, but there's other options there too. )

Totally forgot about Stargrunt. I should look into more generic rule sets.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you are playing "for fun", like they do at GW HQ, 40k is fine.

That means it's about having a few beers and shooting the gak with your buddies as the first priority, versus actually "competing" for a "win". After all, anybody can take some sort of "I win" list at this point, so why bother?

Size-wise, if you're playing 500-1500 pts per player, the game is great. I don't much like 1750 or more, as it's just more stuff.

But if that is the objective I can sit at home with my buddies and Watch Football/hockey and have a beer.. Or play some Video Games with my buddies.. Or just sit in the local pub and shooting the gak with my buddies.. There are alot of other stuff I could be doing if the "Main focus" is sitting around chatting and just taking it easy.. ANd that would cost me alot less then 40k is charging hahah.. I see no point whatsoever to hang out with people rolling "dice", I am not socialy awkward and I am personaly not there to shoot the breeze with people I'm there to play a game...If there is no game to play I would be doing something ells instead...

"competing" for a win is what makes games fun.. if there where No winners and losers "what the feth is the point?". There are alot of better places to go if the "GOAL of the hobby" is to socialize with other people.... If that was my prime focus I would not spend it in some dusty Local, with a bunch of dirty old geezers rolling dice that is for sure hahaha..

This is the Reason I cant recomend "40k" IT BLOWS, and you cant play competitively... It is not a game, Because GW is not a Game company they are are Miniature company "they have said so themselves", they do not do market research and they don't give a gak that their game is unplaybal for serious gamers.... And as I said before if I want to socialize with others I WOULD NOT HANG AROUND IN A Dirty basement....LOLZ

 Elemental wrote:

It's RunicFIN. He has a habit of bursting into threads he deems anti-40K and antagonising & raising the heat level until they get locked. Perhaps that's his intent, who can say?

Or maybe I just find these people who are delusional about GW going down, and doomsaying it 10 years running ( which makes it even more ridicilous ) unbearably unintelligent.

I guess for some the illusion just can´t be broken. They really are unable to perceive how much of a minority they are with their anti-gw antics, and how hugely popular Warhammer 40,000 is around the world. Wargaming in general is now more popular than ever, and it also applies to 40K. Admittedly it´s a bigger slice of popularity split among more companies.

Most of the time it seems that some people are really unable to grasp things at a larger scale than their 2 closest gaming stores, or their local gaming group.

I'm still curious as to this 40K growth you keep mentioning. Is it currently booming in Finland?

It seems to be declining on the whole, outwith some pockets of local growth, and their annual reports back that up.

Sure, they're still at the top, but not by as much as before.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Wargaming in general is now more popular than ever, and it also applies to 40K. Admittedly it´s a bigger slice of popularity split among more companies.

Wargaming in general grew, apart from GW which shrunk.

Warhammer FB already dropped below the top 5 in the US, and it's only a matter of time before the smaller fishes catch up to it.

It may be only a matter of time before 40k drops from that top slot.

Last year had their biggest hitters: new SM codex, new 40k rulebook, in a way a new 40k army (Imperial Knights) but they still had decline.

Herzlos wrote:
I'm still curious as to this 40K growth you keep mentioning. Is it currently booming in Finland?

It seems to be declining on the whole, outwith some pockets of local growth, and their annual reports back that up.

Sure, they're still at the top, but not by as much as before.

I'm curious as well. I haven't seen anything but anecdotal evidence from people looking at their two closest FLGSs as evidence it's doing well while between ICV2 and GWs own reports it is blatantly clear not as much product is being bought as it used to be.

 RunicFIN wrote:

I guess for some the illusion just can´t be broken.

Never a truer word spoken

 RunicFIN wrote:

I guess for some the illusion just can´t be broken.

This is amazing.

I wouldn't recommend anyone getting into GW games, not least because of how much money you have to shell out (for the rules alone!). If they like, say, the 40K universe, then I'd suggest they'd get a box of troops or two and download some generic sci-fi skirmish rules. A lot of 40K kits are good for skirmish games as you get a lot of parts, and can kit out a squad with different weapons.

That's not to say I'd get pissy if they ended up going with 40K anyway. None of my business how other people spend their time and money.

I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.

People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.

People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.

Perhaps, but value is an issue and for the value, every other game beats 40k by a wide margin.
Also, do you have statistics to back up your assertion that money isn't important to people?

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.

People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.

But what advantage does 40K have on other (cheaper) games, that makes 40K worth taking over them?

If someone new to wargames could spend $100 for a new game, or $500 for a new game, what do you think most people would recommend and choose, assuming all subjective factors (aesthetics, fluff, etc) being equal?

From a mechanical and cost viewpoint, there is no real redeeming feature to recommend 40k or Fantasy. GW's specialist games are far better in both of those categories, only they're significantly less popular than many other games being played. Other wargames (Infinity, WM/H, DW, DZC) are all far away cheaper and play easier, thus will likely be recommended over GW games due to cost.

So yes, money is a very real reason why someone wouldn't recommend a specific game. As mentioned, unless someone is absolutely dead set on the 40k universe and looks, just about any game out there will play better for cheaper. As such, people would be less inclined to recommend and start a GW game, partly due to money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Also, do you have statistics to back up your assertion that money isn't important to people?

I can answer this.

Like much of Runic's argumentation, no, there are no statistics to back this claim up.

The same way Runic implied GW grew, despite, you know, having shrunk.

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.

People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.

But what advantage does 40K have on other (cheaper) games, that makes 40K worth taking over them?

If you lack skill, and know that your not that good of a player I would say 40k do have its appeal. The people I know who still play it fall into 3 categories

1: They Suck at playing and got beaten sensless in most other table-top games or card games they have tried, but they still manages to have fun with 40k because it is just less hardcore and random, that they can snatch a win hehe
2: They love the lore to the point that they cant live without it, even if the rules suck..
3 They are whiteknights who are in denial, and still think 40k is a "GREAT GAME", when in fact it is a miniatures collection hobby...

What y we all need to accept is that some people dont like playing on Deathclocks, and they do not get their thrills playing competitively, and most important they know in their hearts that they will not stand a chans, and this puts them off more competative skill based games,,,

Ask anyone why they dont want to play warmachine/hordes for example and the answer is often, Its too competetive for me, and I dont find it fun... It can be hard on the ego to get OWNED.. some people rise to the challange others wither away..

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.
People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.

Your statement does echo somewhat Kirby's statements in the financial reports that the price is meaningless for a niche market.
The trick is matching perceived value (quality?) to cost.

What is confusing is the target GW market is new, young customers that would depend somewhat on mommy and daddy forking over the money which may balk at the price (not being the dedicated model collectors like their children).
I think they would be attracted more to the Warmachine box set or the even cheaper X-wing set after that initial sticker shock.

Robotech RPG Tactics just hit the shelf now so another starter 2 faction set for around $100 is out there competing.

I agree that GW should be around for years to come.
But their influence without some changes from present will continue to decline since there is no real innovation, changes in advertising or response to competition.

I am unsure how it happened, but I now have Warmachine, Robotech and some recent Battletech stuff I need to work on at my bench and my kids are bugging me to play X-wing games while my nicely painted 40k stuff is collecting dust... it is only evidence at a personal level, but I do not think of myself as all that unique.

 Talizvar wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.
People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.

Your statement does echo somewhat Kirby's statements in the financial reports that the price is meaningless for a niche market.
The trick is matching perceived value (quality?) to cost.

What is confusing is the target GW market is new, young customers that would depend somewhat on mommy and daddy forking over the money which may balk at the price (not being the dedicated model collectors like their children).
I think they would be attracted more to the Warmachine box set or the even cheaper X-wing set after that initial sticker shock.

Robotech RPG Tactics just hit the shelf now so another starter 2 faction set for around $100 is out there competing.

I agree that GW should be around for years to come.
But their influence without some changes from present will continue to decline since there is no real innovation, changes in advertising or response to competition.

I am unsure how it happened, but I now have Warmachine, Robotech and some recent Battletech stuff I need to work on at my bench and my kids are bugging me to play X-wing games while my nicely painted 40k stuff is collecting dust... it is only evidence at a personal level, but I do not think of myself as all that unique.

You are not Unique most of the dudes I play with fall into this category, We play Warmachine/hordes, Flames of War, Bolt action, X-wing, Warzone and Malifaux.. and the 40k stuff is collecting dust on the shelf hehe

 zlayer77 wrote:

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.

People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.

But what advantage does 40K have on other (cheaper) games, that makes 40K worth taking over them?

If you lack skill, and know that your not that good of a player I would say 40k do have its appeal. The people I know who still play it fall into 3 categories

1: They Suck at playing and got beaten sensless in most other table-top games or card games they have tried, but they still manages to have fun with 40k because it is just less hardcore and random, that they can snatch a win hehe
2: They love the lore to the point that they cant live without it, even if the rules suck..
3 They are whiteknights who are in denial, and still think 40k is a "GREAT GAME", when in fact it is a miniatures collection hobby...

What y we all need to accept is that some people dont like playing on Deathclocks, and they do not get their thrills playing competitively, and most important they know in their hearts that they will not stand a chans, and this puts them off more competative skill based games,,,

Ask anyone why they dont want to play warmachine/hordes for example and the answer is often, Its too competetive for me, and I dont find it fun... It can be hard on the ego to get OWNED.. some people rise to the challange others wither away..

I can add a fourth to your list:
4: People that like the look of the models, and just want a reason to use them.

I like the deathclock in Kings of War (assuming that you mean chess clocks) since it forces me to confront one of my own weaknesses. (I spend too much time plotting and planning - the chess clock makes me do the planning during my opponent's turn, so I don't use up my valuable time on tactics, only to lose when that time runs out. )

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

I like the deathclock in Kings of War (assuming that you mean chess clocks)

KoW also uses Deathclocks? Sweet, I didn't knew that.

 zlayer77 wrote:

If you lack skill, and know that your not that good of a player I would say 40k do have its appeal. The people I know who still play it fall into 3 categories

1: They Suck at playing and got beaten sensless in most other table-top games or card games they have tried, but they still manages to have fun with 40k because it is just less hardcore and random, that they can snatch a win hehe

This is part of the train of thought that 40K is primarily aimed at children. Much easier to do most of the 'playing' beforehand, doing all that mathhammering and listbuilding and piling on what the internet and your pocket calculator says should beat other armies fairly comfortably. It's a little harder for kids to think in terms of abstract, layered strategy and tactics (not a slight against them; just a point of mental development) and a little harder for anyone to ask a gaming forum what it thinks when you have to come up with solutions mid-game, on the fly.

'Course, lack of tactical options in 40K plays a part too.

2: They love the lore to the point that they cant live without it, even if the rules suck..

I've seen too many say that about themselves, too. That's why I constantly harp on about divorcing the rules from the minis and background, and using alternative, compatible rule sets, even if it starts to sound monotonous and parrotlike. It can't be hammered in too much, IMO.

What y we all need to accept is that some people dont like playing on Deathclocks, and they do not get their thrills playing competitively, and most important they know in their hearts that they will not stand a chans, and this puts them off more competative skill based games,,,

Ask anyone why they dont want to play warmachine/hordes for example and the answer is often, Its too competetive for me, and I dont find it fun... It can be hard on the ego to get OWNED.. some people rise to the challange others wither away..

I can see what you're saying, but along with your '40K is less hardcore' comment above, I'm not sure I completely agree. In line with the discussion going on, I can see people being hooked by the fluff, but with a lot of the subsequent enjoyment coming from the ability to tailor lists to best, competitive, hardcore, horrifying effect. It might not demand as much skill as pulling off a good crossfire or flanking maneuvre, but I don't think that'll be much consolation to the guy sick of being blasted by Wave Serpent/Wraithknight spam. He definitely 'will not stand a chance' either.

It's all a kind of arms race anyway. In that case, the difference between tactical games and 40K largely boils down to skill vs. money. Tactical games demand time and effort to develop your skill; 40K demands your life savings for the biggest, bestest models in each new edition or codex shuffle. I know which one my pocket likes the sound of most.
Although I can see why young 'un's don't relish the idea of 'grinding' through a lot of defeats to 'level up' before they can be seen as a badass master of the game; but to me the idea of being seen as a great player because you can buy the right toys whiffs fairly badly, and it's my hope that most of these people hanker for a more... cerebral pastime later in life. Though that's all tempered by concern of what we've been talking about: that they're so in love with the fluff and simple buy-model-shoot-guns nature of 40K, that it'll all become indivisibly cemented in their heads as 'the' way to wargame. (Despite reports of 40K's plummeting popularity... I wonder how many of those leaving GW move onto other games, or are part of the "if I can't play 40K I'll play nothing" set?)

PhantomViper wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

I like the deathclock in Kings of War (assuming that you mean chess clocks)

KoW also uses Deathclocks? Sweet, I didn't knew that.

I think that Kings of War may have started using them before Warmahordes did - back in one of the Betas.

The Auld Grump

This is one of those threads I wish were made a poll

I play WMH, but I'll never use a clock unless forced to. I enjoy a more...leisurely, gentleman-like experience.

Yes. Mordheim. Right now. Forever. Also, Talisman.

RunicFN, could you please enlighten us as to what evidence made you come to the conclusion that GW is growing? They are releasing more product at a faster pace and a higher price than ever before. Yet somehow, revenue keeps going down. They're closing more stores than they're opening every year. You can go on and on all you want about how GW is the best war gaming company ever and everyone loves them, but all factual evidence (and most anecdotal evidence) says you're completely wrong, GW is shrinking and losing their customer base faster than they're gaining new customers. Have you ever read a financial report? A turd painted gold is not worth $1100 an oz no matter how loudly you try to convince everyone it is. Please, show me one piece of actual evidence about how GW has grown either in revenue or customer base over the last 5 years. I would bet my collection that you can't. Since you want to insult our intelligence, I would like to point out that it seems YOU are the one who is unable to grasp numbers in a simple year end financial report. Those alone contradict all of your valiant efforts to white knight for GW.