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.

It's an interesting point that Boggy Man raises, and actually Jaq Draco Lives (showing your age there, Jaq! ) made a similar point.

If you only like the 40k background, the miniature style, the rule mechanics*, and you only wish to play that game, then of course in comparison to other forms of entertainment - and competition for your time and money - 40k can come out pretty well compared to other hobbies. If that's all I played, and I was into other more expensive hobbies (keeping at the forefront of PC gaming by buying new hardware constantly? Just thinking of a likely example), then I suppose a drop of £300-400, and then £100-200 a year on new stuff isn't too bad. A lot of us here spend at least that each pay-day, and don't collect GW stuff!

But, the issue comes when you 'break the seal' and try something other than 40k, and then start to draw comparisons of value. At least, that's how I found it. I was affected by GW's territorial block; trying to buy from a country with no GW store in it, I could no longer import from the UK. So, I looked elsewhere, and the £250 I had put aside for the (start of!) a new WFB army got spent on other games. I then found I could satisfy the same 'itch' for playing wargames, get the same cool feeling you get of thinking about tactics, list building, painting miniatures and terrain, for a fraction of the price GW were asking me to spend. I think that's the point where you are likely to start to resent the buy-in prices, and also what is commonly referred to as the 'price-gouge' - of having to buy a new codex again, DLC content, even a new rulebook between short periods of time. You look at FoW who have Easyarmy for list building (and give you a free rulebook if you bought the last one), Corvus Belli or Mantic that give free rule downloads, and you start to ask; why aren't GW doing this as well?

And that's before you've started to factor in issues of rule design and balance, of lack of development and new things.

So, I think there certainly are players who will only play a GW game (or, some other system for that matter) - they've tried many other games, and then decided that 40k or WFB is the only game for them. But, I think probably for most of those players there is a conception that they can only get that wargaming experience from GW because it is something they are familiar with, and changing to new models and rules represents something of a risk - human beings by their nature are cautious creatures for the most part. I would hazard a guess that a lot of these players would enjoy some of these other games as much, if not more, than the ones they are familiar with if they were just to give them a try. It's my experience, speaking personally about myself, but also something I have seen happen to a lot of other players coming from a GW-centric background. You can feel indignant about it at first, but ultimately you will benefit in the future if you take the stabiliser wheels off/spread your wings a bit (or whatever you want to say it!)




* I included that one, although I doubt there is anyone who plays the game just for that reason! .

 jonolikespie wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.

Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.

I too need to know this. For, uh, reasons...

I said I would always take a charge in warhammer if it was 7" or better. I said this to my opponent. The employee who was hovering over the game me and my friend were haveing cut in and told me I was wrong. I told him the percentages. He said I was wrong and couldn't due math. I then had to stop the game and tell the employee what the chances were because he would NOT STFU well standing their hovering over my game keep telling me I'm wrong. He just kept telling me I was wrong.

Well with someone standing next to you talking in your ear it's hard to ignore them. So I kept argueing with him. Then whole time he was talking with a gak eating grin and in a condescending tone like I was a idiot. After about 10 min of this I snapped at him and ask him "do you even understand basic percentages or did you fail statistics in high school". He then started to say something and I cut him off asking him what the hell was wrong with him. Their was no need for the argument to have gone on like that.

He then told me I didn't have the right to speak to any employee in the store that way, and that I wasn't welcomed. I then told him before I leave, I wanted the purchese I made before I started playing refunded. He then started back peddling saying I wasn't banned for ever and I was welcome to come back even tomarrow. He told me I was to angry to be in the store at that moment.

I insisted on a return, and he kept trying to convince me to stop demanding to get my money refunded. I got sick of his bs and walked out.

I started playing WHFB about 99-00. A friend of mine got me interested and I picked up my own high elf force and it started there. A few years later, the same friend introduced me to 40K. I debated on buying a force, as it was different than what I was used to. Eventually, he won out and I purchased some space marines. It was fun back then, we would stay up for hours playing warhammer. We had Faygo nights where we would stay up all night painting miniatures until the sun was in the sky again.

The reason I am leaving GW is several things actually.
- Poorly written unbalanced rules
- Too expensive for what you recieve in return $41 USD for 10 orc boyz is insane!
- Poor customer satisfaction (i.e., shutting down websites, lawsuits, and the likes...)

The system that interests myself the most is warmachines/hordes. I was introduced when I went to my local gaming store and seen some individuals playing it. After they had finished their battle, I asked all about it and was amazed on how intricate the history was and how easy it was to start playing. The PDF quick rules are free downloads from their website. The prices are a little high, but the model requirement is much less than it is for any current GW game.

Diablo 3 Reaper of Souls also has my attentions.

 Boggy Man wrote:
I want to duplicate great historic strategies and prove my tactical mastery.

I've never really felt 40K provides a great teal of tactical depth once the lists are made up. I believe WHF is a bit better but I haven't played that since about 3rd edition. Certainly in most of my games it's been a case of run forward hugging cover and blasting away whilst trying not to get wiped out, with it being pretty apparant early on what the outcome will be. Partially that's to do with the scale - at 28mm on a 4ft deep table all your heavy weapons have everything in range, except for meltas, so you don't need to do anything with tanks other than crawl forward blasting.

I find the tactical/strategic depth to be a lot better in Flames Of War where every game I've had has been really close up to the last turn (except the time I had an infantry force against a tank force, and I have to concede you occasionally spend most of the game dug in), or Malifaux where you're competing for points via hidden objectives, and the game can swing wildly a few times, it takes a bit of getting used to though with the idea that you might do better by not killing your opponents characters.

 Daba wrote:

Yeah, I don't get what point is trying to made with the comparison to Infinity.

WMH is certainly about named characters (since all caster are such), but then I see a considerable amount of 40k that is the exact same thing (Baron-star, Fateweaver, etc.). WH40k does offer the option to have your own unique characters as compared to WMH, and this is (to my knowledge) the same as Infinity. But I fail to see how "space marine captain #532" is any different than "infinity anime character #471". Because you came up with fluff for one? Am I missing something?

Yeah, basically. Don't mind me, I'm just a cranky anime hater. I like a system where you can inject your own personality into the universe. There's really nothing about the style or story of Infinity that appeals to me I'm afraid.

Pacific wrote:...If you only like the 40k background, the miniature style, the rule mechanics*, and you only wish to play that game, then of course in comparison to other forms of entertainment - and competition for your time and money - 40k can come out pretty well compared to other hobbies...

The weird thing is, I love the original Warhammer background, where the universe was vast and you could play space dwarf bikers vs lizard mutants on a Mad-Max style hive world dominated by insane heavy metal guitar-gun cultists and none of it would feel out of place. With every edition and every codex, the 40K universe has gotten smaller and duller.

Herzlos wrote:

 Boggy Man wrote:
I want to duplicate great historic strategies and prove my tactical mastery.

I've never really felt 40K provides a great teal of tactical depth once the lists are made up. I believe WHF is a bit better but I haven't played that since about 3rd edition...

Yeah, that's the big illusion. You look at all those rows of troops and tanks and feel like your decisions are going to matter. Before it was meaningless as most games were decided in the list-writing stage. Now it's a combo of that and what objective cards are pulled.

 Lockark wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.

Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.

I too need to know this. For, uh, reasons...

I said I would always take a charge in warhammer if it was 7" or better. I said this to my opponent. The employee who was hovering over the game me and my friend were haveing cut in and told me I was wrong. I told him the percentages. He said I was wrong and couldn't due math. I then had to stop the game and tell the employee what the chances were because he would NOT STFU well standing their hovering over my game keep telling me I'm wrong. He just kept telling me I was wrong.

Well with someone standing next to you talking in your ear it's hard to ignore them. So I kept argueing with him. Then whole time he was talking with a gak eating grin and in a condescending tone like I was a idiot. After about 10 min of this I snapped at him and ask him "do you even understand basic percentages or did you fail statistics in high school". He then started to say something and I cut him off asking him what the hell was wrong with him. Their was no need for the argument to have gone on like that.

He then told me I didn't have the right to speak to any employee in the store that way, and that I wasn't welcomed. I then told him before I leave, I wanted the purchese I made before I started playing refunded. He then started back peddling saying I wasn't banned for ever and I was welcome to come back even tomarrow. He told me I was to angry to be in the store at that moment.

I insisted on a return, and he kept trying to convince me to stop demanding to get my money refunded. I got sick of his bs and walked out.

I had something similar to that as well. Not quite like your story, but a heated argument. I said how I like to play my way, so "house rules" in my own home, and here is this red shirt with a smug smile on his face saying how wrong I am. I said I can do anything I want at my home and it doesn't effect him any way. He kept insisting on how wrong I was, and then I just exploded and said "I can do anything I want in my own home and even GW says I can" and he just stands there smiling. Yeah I looked like a fool but that is when I realized when did Nerds and Geeks act like High School Jocks and think they are better than others because they can play with plastic toy soldiers.

I walked out of the store and for years didn't come back.

Redshirts can be a funny breed- it's part of the "attitude" they are hired for, which often times ends up similar to zealotry. They act like GW's rules rest in sacred books, full of unknowables that certainly can't be explained by silly things like "statistics."

 Boggy Man wrote:

 Daba wrote:

Yeah, I don't get what point is trying to made with the comparison to Infinity.

WMH is certainly about named characters (since all caster are such), but then I see a considerable amount of 40k that is the exact same thing (Baron-star, Fateweaver, etc.). WH40k does offer the option to have your own unique characters as compared to WMH, and this is (to my knowledge) the same as Infinity. But I fail to see how "space marine captain #532" is any different than "infinity anime character #471". Because you came up with fluff for one? Am I missing something?

Yeah, basically. Don't mind me, I'm just a cranky anime hater. I like a system where you can inject your own personality into the universe. There's really nothing about the style or story of Infinity that appeals to me I'm afraid.

Fair enough in regards to aesthetics, I know that was something that turned me away from Infinity originally. But I do feel that they've been getting away from the anime vibe and have moved a bit more towards a "current generic-sci fi game/move" vibe, like Halo or Guardians of the Galaxy (first two examples that popped in my head )

Davor wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.

Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.

I too need to know this. For, uh, reasons...

I said I would always take a charge in warhammer if it was 7" or better. I said this to my opponent. The employee who was hovering over the game me and my friend were haveing cut in and told me I was wrong. I told him the percentages. He said I was wrong and couldn't due math. I then had to stop the game and tell the employee what the chances were because he would NOT STFU well standing their hovering over my game keep telling me I'm wrong. He just kept telling me I was wrong.

Well with someone standing next to you talking in your ear it's hard to ignore them. So I kept argueing with him. Then whole time he was talking with a gak eating grin and in a condescending tone like I was a idiot. After about 10 min of this I snapped at him and ask him "do you even understand basic percentages or did you fail statistics in high school". He then started to say something and I cut him off asking him what the hell was wrong with him. Their was no need for the argument to have gone on like that.

He then told me I didn't have the right to speak to any employee in the store that way, and that I wasn't welcomed. I then told him before I leave, I wanted the purchese I made before I started playing refunded. He then started back peddling saying I wasn't banned for ever and I was welcome to come back even tomarrow. He told me I was to angry to be in the store at that moment.

I insisted on a return, and he kept trying to convince me to stop demanding to get my money refunded. I got sick of his bs and walked out.

I had something similar to that as well. Not quite like your story, but a heated argument. I said how I like to play my way, so "house rules" in my own home, and here is this red shirt with a smug smile on his face saying how wrong I am. I said I can do anything I want at my home and it doesn't effect him any way. He kept insisting on how wrong I was, and then I just exploded and said "I can do anything I want in my own home and even GW says I can" and he just stands there smiling. Yeah I looked like a fool but that is when I realized when did Nerds and Geeks act like High School Jocks and think they are better than others because they can play with plastic toy soldiers.

I walked out of the store and for years didn't come back.

I almost made him cry when I snapped at him at the end actually. I take ahwile to piss off, but when I snap I can be vindictive. Something I said at the end actully legit hurt his feelings. A friend tried pressuring me to report what the guy did to me to his manager. But after making the poor sap almost moved to tears, I figured I did enough damage to his pride.

It is prety stupid what some gameing store employee's think is acceptable. A Bartender wouldn't sit their and start arguing with you that "your doing it wrong".

LOL no. Another story, same store different people, this is One man stores I guess and I got this person upset. Why?

Because he was trying to sell me White Dwarf, then maybe a yearly subscription. I said something like "Please to try and sell me that crap, it is over price toilet paper. I shouldn't have to pay for advertising." That started us to argue.

Then I said "Look, we are starting on the wrong foot, I am sorry, my name is Davor" and then we were cordial. But man some people who work at GW can't take any criticism at all.

Was I wrong for saying one of their products is over priced toilet paper? They really need some tougher skin. Did buy a few products from that store afterwards, but still so shocked as he said "people harp on his hobby he worked so hard for over his years".

You need to accept the good with the bad and be honest about it. I guess honesty hurts sometimes.

Davor wrote:
LOL no. Another story, same store different people, this is One man stores I guess and I got this person upset. Why?

Because he was trying to sell me White Dwarf, then maybe a yearly subscription. I said something like "Please to try and sell me that crap, it is over price toilet paper. I shouldn't have to pay for advertising." That started us to argue.

Then I said "Look, we are starting on the wrong foot, I am sorry, my name is Davor" and then we were cordial. But man some people who work at GW can't take any criticism at all.

Was I wrong for saying one of their products is over priced toilet paper? They really need some tougher skin. Did buy a few products from that store afterwards, but still so shocked as he said "people harp on his hobby he worked so hard for over his years".

You need to accept the good with the bad and be honest about it. I guess honesty hurts sometimes.

Actually... if you are using White Dwarfs for toilet paper then you need tougher skin.... That stuff ain't soft, at all!

The Auld Grump, ah, toilet humor... finest kind....

Maybe slightly off topic but does anyone else feel like GW are starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to people willing to man one man stores?

My local is a pretty cool guy but the one before him was the 'those pictures you saw on the internet are lies' and 'GW invented the hobby and make the bestest models eva' kind of redshirt. Plus these stories and someone here mentioned a few weeks back their redshirt had only just heard about the hobby.

It seems to me they are really struggling to get people who are enthusiastic about the hobby but not 'too enthusiastic' (to word it nicely).

WayneTheGame wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I just have to add that for all the reasons I dislike GW, I'm still constantly tempted to play again; even though I play Warmachine right now it doesn't feel the same, and I'm not 100% sure I play it because I actually want to, or because it's a tabletop game that isn't 40k that other people play.

I don't quite know why.. must be some sort of corruption

Warmachine won't scratch your 40K itch. This is something I really wish I had figured out before dumping a tonne of money into Warmachine, as it turns out it really wasn't for me. I singled out this post because it's exactly how I used to feel during the transition from 40K. If what you're after is a replacement to 40K, Warmachine is absolutely not the answer. Historical games ended up being what I needed, you just gotta look at what's out there and decide what suits your personal tastes.

Honestly it's kind of a weird thing. I like the idea of Warmachine: a game where almost everything is viable and tactics work, as well as one with streamlined rules. Just... when I play, it doesn't feel that way to me, it feels frustrating for some reason. I really can't explain it. It feels overly complex (not with rules bloat, but with interactions between rules. Almost every game I forget something crucial because there's just so many things to remember) and ultimately I get this weird feeling when I'm playing it. I really can't explain it more than that. I never got that kind of feeling with 40k (although granted that was 12 years ago). I imagine that must be how MtG players feel during those games, analyzing every move and thinking two steps ahead, etc. It made, and makes, me feel uncomfortable when playing.

There's also the issue of there not being much beyond Warmachine and 40k in my area. There is some Bolt Action but it happens on a day when I can't make it to the store, and while I tried a few demo games of that it didn't feel right to me either. Nobody plays historical games, or Infinity, or Deadzone or Malifaux or whatever. I really think my issue with 40k is due to GW, and nothing else. But I'm not sure.

Honestly, you sound just like I did near the end of my tenure with Warmachine. Having left it behind me some months ago, I've had time to digest it and perhaps some of the reasons you aren't that into it are not all that different from my own reasons. Forgetting something crucial, as you mention, was a big part of it for me. Warmachine has a dauntingly large burden of knowledge, some people are into that and others aren't. I also didn't like that half an inch could literally mean the difference between killing the enemy caster or losing yourself the game. Again, some people are into that and others aren't.

I was also not a fan of how sparse the battlefield is in Warmachine. I can certainly appreciate that the reason for this is that terrain of all kinds come with an array of advantages and disadvantages that can seriously impact the game, but I personally like a board with a lot of terrain to bring the game to life for me. This isn't a knock on the game, it's just my personal preference. In my time playing the game, which spanned a little over a year, I grew to loathe that each and every game ended in a brawl in the middle of the table. I know there are legions of fans here who argue against this point vehemently, but I'm just relating my experience. There may be many matches that don't end in in a royal rumble in the centre, but in over a year I never played one and never witnessed one in my play group even after playing steam roller missions. More than anything, I attribute this to really killing the game for me.

If any of this sounds familiar to you Wayne, know that you aren't alone! I'm not trying to knock Warmachine, it's a very tight game and has a level of balance that 40K will likely never have. I'm just relating my experience, as it doesn't sound all that different with your own efforts to cope with the game. As in my case, it may not be for you.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Maybe slightly off topic but does anyone else feel like GW are starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to people willing to man one man stores?

My local is a pretty cool guy but the one before him was the 'those pictures you saw on the internet are lies' and 'GW invented the hobby and make the bestest models eva' kind of redshirt. Plus these stories and someone here mentioned a few weeks back their redshirt had only just heard about the hobby.

It seems to me they are really struggling to get people who are enthusiastic about the hobby but not 'too enthusiastic' (to word it nicely).

Absolutely, it is the one factor that Kirby mentioned in his pre-amble to explain the sales problems -- the difficulty of finding the right people to man the shops.

To be a successful solo shopman you need to endure boredom and loneliness mixed with periods of panic and frustration when three customers come in at once and two go out again while you deal the first one whilst also trying to unpack and stock a new shipment of goods.

An iron bladder is handy because you need to close the door to go for a wee, denying customers entry. There is constant pressure from HQ to sell, with no information about new releases until a few days beforehand.

You must be super-keen all the time, while toeing the company line and not having your own ideas -- known as "having the right attitude".

Your reward for all this is low wages, very little prospect of advancement since middle management has been savagely downsized, and little in the way of useful skills and experience.

It is no wonder they are having recruitment problems.

The lack of veterans and the toxicity of feedback for GW employment can't be helping either. Just with ex-gamers there are plenty of ex-staffers who on the whole don't paint a pretty picture of working there.

I can see many people who still play being put off after asking around, so it naturally follows that a lot of the new employees will probably not know anything about the company before they start.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Honestly it's kind of a weird thing. I like the idea of Warmachine: a game where almost everything is viable and tactics work, as well as one with streamlined rules. Just... when I play, it doesn't feel that way to me, it feels frustrating for some reason. I really can't explain it. It feels overly complex (not with rules bloat, but with interactions between rules. Almost every game I forget something crucial because there's just so many things to remember)

I know just what you mean. I picked up the Warmachine 1st ed book and a couple of minis around the time I gave up on GW, and was never taken with it. I'd say it's (or it was) similar to GW's core two (and Malifaux, for that matter) in that what's touted as 'tactical gameplay' is actually buckets o' special rules that have to be arranged in c-c-c-combos. I.e. listbuilt.

I don't wonder that Creeping-Deth is getting his tactical buzz from historical games instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
If you feel that way about WMH, then you can forget about Infinity and Malifaux as well. All of those games are defined by the need to think ahead and have a plan if you intend to win the game.

I don't really like Malifaux, after several games. I like Infinity after one. Reason being, and this is simplified a bit, the models in the demo game had more basic stats than special rules.

 Vermis wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Honestly it's kind of a weird thing. I like the idea of Warmachine: a game where almost everything is viable and tactics work, as well as one with streamlined rules. Just... when I play, it doesn't feel that way to me, it feels frustrating for some reason. I really can't explain it. It feels overly complex (not with rules bloat, but with interactions between rules. Almost every game I forget something crucial because there's just so many things to remember)

I know just what you mean. I picked up the Warmachine 1st ed book and a couple of minis around the time I gave up on GW, and was never taken with it. I'd say it's (or it was) similar to GW's core two (and Malifaux, for that matter) in that what's touted as 'tactical gameplay' is actually buckets o' special rules that have to be arranged in c-c-c-combos. I.e. listbuilt.

I don't wonder that Creeping-Deth is getting his tactical buzz from historical games instead.

Not only are you wrong, you aren't even talking about the same game as WayneTheGame. MK I WM is so different from MKII both in spirit and in actual gameplay that it can actually be considered an entirely different game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:
I don't really like Malifaux, after several games. I like Infinity after one. Reason being, and this is simplified a bit, the models in the demo game had more basic stats than special rules.

Go play something other than a demo game of Infinity then... The models have just as many special rules as the Malifaux ones, you just played a demo = a very simplified version of the actual game!

PhantomViper wrote:I know this is going to sound rude, but it seems like you just wan't a game where you can just roll some dice and never give any actual thought about what is happening on the table or possibly you are using the game as just an excuse to socialize instead of actually enjoying the gaming experience?! Why do you like table top wargaming in the first place?

The 40K/WMH/Malifaux style of game is not the only, or even the best, representation of depth in wargaming.

WayneTheGame wrote:I like straightforward tactics versus chess-like thinking on your feet (that's not say I don't want any tactics at all, I do)

But that's what tactics are, at least in my understanding. I think you've been confused or misled by those games mentioned. The thing is, if chess was that kind of game, pawns would have at least a couple of tricks and exceptions to pull out of their sleeves before a knight could capture them, and the queen could pull off half a dozen extra rules just from being in a square adjacent to a friendly rook, or sumthin'.

Each chess piece has it's own abilities, but limited, and all relating only to movement. That's the thing: it's about manoeuvering your pieces so that each can use it's position and basic, mundane abilities to block, divert and capture your opponent's pieces. The only way a chess piece benefits from a buff or combo is when it's target 'enemy' piece is hemmed in by 'friendlies'. And that's a situation of your own making, not because a specific piece's rule card arbitrarily grants you extra bonuses.

Wargames are a bit more complicated, obviously - guns, cavalry, flank charges and all that. But then I've seen a few people sneer at the less special-rules-heavy games - particularly some historical wargames - 'cos they're all just men, with largely the same abilities, and they might as well go play chess if that was their only choice.
Sometimes I would agree, to some extent, but that's the kind of challenge I like, most of the time. Your English Civil war army might have pikes, shot, cavalry and a couple of guns - just like the other side. But have you strategised, and can you tactically play well enough to outmanoeuvre your opponent's army and position your units to use their mundane abilities to best effect? Rather than memorise, rely on, and fuss over a load of extraneous extravagant exceptions and/or at just which point in the alignment of the heavens you're allowed to use them.
There are more abilities, levels and 'flavour' in ECW gaming, and other periods, and especially in sci-fi and fantasy games; but even in some sci-fi and fantasy games there's more of an emphasis on basic stats, USRs, manoeuvre and tactics, than on specific unit or model special rules. If you've given up on 40K and WHFB, and don't like WM/H or Malifaux, you're definitely not limited to mindless dice-rolling games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
Go play something other than a demo game of Infinity then... The models have just as many special rules as the Malifaux ones, you just played a demo = a very simplified version of the actual game!

I will, then. But if I'm that mistaken about Infinity, and it is so much like Malifaux, and both of those are a similar style of game to current WM, then how mistaken am I about WM?

 Vermis wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:I like straightforward tactics versus chess-like thinking on your feet (that's not say I don't want any tactics at all, I do)

But that's what tactics are, at least in my understanding. I think you've been confused or misled by those games mentioned. The thing is, if chess was that kind of game, pawns would have at least a couple of tricks and exceptions to pull out of their sleeves before a knight could capture them, and the queen could pull off half a dozen extra rules just from being in a square adjacent to a friendly rook, or sumthin'.

Each chess piece has it's own abilities, but limited, and all relating only to movement. That's the thing: it's about manoeuvering your pieces so that each can use it's position and basic, mundane abilities to block, divert and capture your opponent's pieces. The only way a chess piece benefits from a buff or combo is when it's target 'enemy' piece is hemmed in by 'friendlies'. And that's a situation of your own making, not because a specific piece's rule card arbitrarily grants you extra bonuses.

Wargames are a bit more complicated, obviously - guns, cavalry, flank charges and all that. But then I've seen a few people sneer at the less special-rules-heavy games - particularly some historical wargames - 'cos they're all just men, with largely the same abilities, and they might as well go play chess if that was their only choice.
Sometimes I would agree, to some extent, but that's the kind of challenge I like, most of the time. Your English Civil war army might have pikes, shot, cavalry and a couple of guns - just like the other side. But have you strategised, and can you tactically play well enough to outmanoeuvre your opponent's army and position your units to use their mundane abilities to best effect? Rather than memorise, rely on, and fuss over a load of extraneous extravagant exceptions and/or at just which point in the alignment of the heavens you're allowed to use them.
There are more abilities, levels and 'flavour' in ECW gaming, and other periods, and especially in sci-fi and fantasy games; but even in some sci-fi and fantasy games there's more of an emphasis on basic stats, USRs, manoeuvre and tactics, than on specific unit or model special rules. If you've given up on 40K and WHFB, and don't like WM/H or Malifaux, you're definitely not limited to mindless dice-rolling games.

And what makes you think that those tactics and manoeuvring also don't apply to games like WMH or Infinity? Those basic principles apply to every single GOOD miniature game out there, in fact that is the single most rewarding thing about the miniature wargaming hobby to me at least, knowing that through positioning and manoeuvring, you managed to implement your strategy and deny you opponent's and so win the game.

Game like WMH and Infinity and Malifaux, have a further layer involved in that if you wan't to take the most out of your models, then you'll have to do things in a certain order but that doesn't mean that you don't have to apply tactical principles to win the game, much to the contrary. And that is why people say that those games have a greater degree of tactical depth, because not only do you have to concern yourself with "normal" tactics and positioning, you have to implement those tactics in a certain way as well.

 Vermis wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Go play something other than a demo game of Infinity then... The models have just as many special rules as the Malifaux ones, you just played a demo = a very simplified version of the actual game!

I will, then. But if I'm that mistaken about Infinity, and it is so much like Malifaux, and both of those are a similar style of game to current WM, then how mistaken am I about WM?

Very mistaken. Combos are something that all games have to a greater or lesser degree, from the recon + artillery of FoW to the smoke grenades + MSV of Infinity, etc, but that doesn't mean that the point of the game is to pull of those combos and you'll win. In all of those games you still have objectives that you have to fulfil, terrain that you have to control or some other type of mission that you have to pull of and if any of them has anything in common is that more than any combo that you might or might not pull of, positioning and movement are the most important things in all of those games.

Granted, the rules complexity that those 3 games have isn't for everyone, especially because they are all pretty unforgiving in that you can loose the game in a single turn if you mess up your positioning, but at the end of the game that is why you won, because you outmanoeuvred your opponent, not because you pulled out ubber-combo number 23!

Infinity is not a combo game.

 Daba wrote:
Infinity is not a combo game.

No miniature game that I know of is a "combo game", but Infinity has combos like every other game out there.

Sounds to me like he just doesn't like miniature based wargames?

Is a "combo" using different units with different abilities in order to achieve a synergistic effect?

For example in Napoleonics, you would try to threaten enemy infantry with cavalry, to make them form squares, you then bombard the squares with artillery and move up infantry to attack them.

Is that what would be called a "combo"

Malifaux has a lot of combos and options but I've never really felt that they have a massive impact on the game, possibly because each master has a widely different style and combos. They usually result in extra movement and shooting rather than for example attaching a chaplain to assault marines for more rerolls

 Eilif wrote:

To be honest I'm not sure that KoW would hold my interest as well if it were my only game. I like it more than GW rules, but it doesn't have the crunch and background of GW games. However the low cost of rules and my sourcing of cheap models means that it doesn't have to be. At present, it's one of at least 3 minaitures games that I play fairly regularly and a half dozen or so that I play over the course of the year. Jumping off the GW train means that I now have enough gaming dollars to ride many different games.

It's not my only game, either - but I use the models from anywhere else as you do, and therefore I've got a GW-esque Elf army, an old-school GW-ish Ogre army (closer to the old Mercenaries in theme, but hey), a Gondor army, and an old-school Undead army with Middle-earth/Mordor overtones. My Orcs (and Goblins) and Dwarves and Chaos/Abyssal Dwarves will all be very World's Edge Mountains in their themes, and my Skaven will be full-fledged Skavenblight. An Empire army using a mix of GW and Perry. Romans from the south using Warlord and Foundry models, along with their Greek neighbours using the same.

Basically, enough GW armies using mostly or significant numbers of GW figures to keep using the GW fluff, if not the rules, mashed up with Middle-Earth, the Classical Era and the Dark Ages, along with slightly Generic Fantasy (which fits with WFB pretty well, anyway). Which is why I really enjoy KoW.

I started 40k back when I was first starting college in 2012. I really enjoyed the game then, first borrowing a friend's Imperial Guard army, building my own an jumping right into my second army at christmas with some Blood Ravens; I had followed 40k's fluff for years, played the games, read the books, and was playing the game with a few friends I hadn't really had much contact with for a few years due to work, school and the like. I only had one complaint in those days; vehicles were too durable. Nothing is was as frustrating as watching possessed rhinos just laugh off shot after shot with no effect.

That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed myself and looked forwards to each game. This was much the same for most of 6th's lifespan too; I got a Death Korps Army, Minotaurs, some Forgeworld books. Before Apocalypse got updated, we played monthly apocalypse games and our group had over 20 regular members, dwarfing every other 40k group in Canada this side of the Prairies.

I started getting more annoyed over time with the codexes and business practices; Daemons were, and still are, annoying as all hell, while Tau and Eldar were and remain so obscenely broken that even the people who owned the armies largely refuse to play them. Constant price creeps upwards, bland, boring codexes with totally out of control balance; I haven't seen a Tyranid in months, and every Guard army has Pask in a Punisher, this has all ground down mine, and others enthusiasm. 7th has been pretty comprehensively disappointing for everyone, and while the group has only grown, so too has the work involved in making an average game enjoyable. We have fun in spite of GW's best efforts, but it's always a challenge, and sales have dropped dramatically at the store; new kits just aren't moving with their huge prices, and the knowledge that not only will the business not change, but the fundamental problems with the game's mechanics will not be fixed for years, if ever, has resulted in a profound shift within the group. The massive imbalance in codexes has ruined Apocalypse for us, and your average night ends with an hour or two of people expressing their frustrations with the whole enterprise.

Once considered the vastly inferior game due to downright broken magic, Fantasy is starting to see signs of an upsurge; nothing dramatic, just a few people dusting off old collections to take a break from frustrating 40k. Half a dozen people, myself included, have Bolt Action armies; its similarity to 40k's concepts, but with all the changes we wish 40k had, makes it easy to learn and enjoy. Warmachine comes and goes; many people have armies, but few people in the group are highly competitive by nature, which Warmachine is more catered too, so it's played for a week or two then dropped again.

The big winner has been, however, the Heralds of Ruin Kill Team ruleset. Small-scale, easy to play, quick to play, and stripped of most of the incredibly frustrating elements of 40k, kill team has proven reasonably balanced, full of the customization and fun we wish 40k had bothered to develop. There's a few WAACers in a group as large as ours who haven't quite grasped why we're playing this, and try their hardest to break the system, but even the cheesiest kill team list feels so much more manageable than even a "nice" Eldar or Tau list.

Most importantly, I think, is the popularity of Kill Team has actually benefitted the store; people are buying a few things again. You get so much diversity in a Kill Team list just by buying a Cadian squad of Tactical Marine kit; the cost/reward ratio becomes so much more favourable. Combined with lots of fluffy rules and upgrades for every faction, not just Marines (It boggles the mind that they make one extremely balanced book with lots of fluff incentive through Chapter Tactics, and then ignore that idea for EVERY OTHER ARMY, insane), it's proving quite popular. Still needs some tweaks, and holy gak are Harlequins frightening, but on the whole, this is where I'm going to be getting my tabletop fix for the most part.

So, like other's, I haven't really left 40k, but I'm certainly minimizing how much 7th edition I have to put up with. There's even been a few suggestions to go play 5th edition with 4th ed codexes with hullpoints added in. I'm looking forwards to trying that out myself.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is a "combo" using different units with different abilities in order to achieve a synergistic effect?

For example in Napoleonics, you would try to threaten enemy infantry with cavalry, to make them form squares, you then bombard the squares with artillery and move up infantry to attack them.

Is that what would be called a "combo"

In the way that I define it (and hear it defined more often), yes, that is what a combo is.

 Pacific wrote:
Most of those players there is a conception that they can only get that wargaming experience from GW because it is something they are familiar with.

Yeah I totally agree with this. I used to feel that exact same way. I was unhappy with GW but I didn't find any of the alternatives appealing. "No one else has Space Marines, so meh" (I really did feel that way). But you have to give things a chance. It takes a while for other games to work their way into your head (kinda like a song), but then all of a sudden you can't think about anything else. Now when I look at my Space Marines I can't even remember what the big deal was? The miniatures seem blocky and toy like after a while looking at truescale figures. The fluff is just Matt Ward fanwank, I don't like the company, and the game isn't even that fun. The first step is the hardest, stepping out and trying a new system. Once you're clear you realise that there is a whole world of awesome games out there for you to explore, and cool miniatures, and they're every bit as interesting as 40k. What's more you can even go on their forums and meet the devs... and nag them about stuff

I think it's a shame if you limit yourself to just 40k, it's like never dating more than one girl, or never visiting another country, or living in another city. You can't even tell if you like it because you have no comparison, and no idea what you're missing out on. I think everyone should try new stuff.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is a "combo" using different units with different abilities in order to achieve a synergistic effect?

For example in Napoleonics, you would try to threaten enemy infantry with cavalry, to make them form squares, you then bombard the squares with artillery and move up infantry to attack them.

Is that what would be called a "combo"

In the way that I define it (and hear it defined more often), yes, that is what a combo is.

To me that is "using tactics".

 Kilkrazy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is a "combo" using different units with different abilities in order to achieve a synergistic effect?

For example in Napoleonics, you would try to threaten enemy infantry with cavalry, to make them form squares, you then bombard the squares with artillery and move up infantry to attack them.

Is that what would be called a "combo"

In the way that I define it (and hear it defined more often), yes, that is what a combo is.

To me that is "using tactics".

Pretty much.

A combo to me is using multiple things specifically designed to work together. For example, in Malifaux: You see your Teddy is just out of charge range. So you first activate Baby Kade, and use his ability 'Where's Teddy?' to teleport Kade into base to base contact with Teddy, which then pushes Teddy 6" towards the enemy. Then, if your opponent doesn't activate that model to avoid the threat in his turn, Teddy is in charge range next turn.

That's using a model that has a specific ability that works only with another model. That's a combo.

Simply doing something like forcing your opponent into a closer formation to hit them with blast weapons is, as you said, called tactics. There's no specific interation between the units that only works between those units.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is a "combo" using different units with different abilities in order to achieve a synergistic effect?

For example in Napoleonics, you would try to threaten enemy infantry with cavalry, to make them form squares, you then bombard the squares with artillery and move up infantry to attack them.

Is that what would be called a "combo"

In the way that I define it (and hear it defined more often), yes, that is what a combo is.

To me that is "using tactics".

Well, yes... Correctly using the combos available to you is part of the tactical gameplay of a game, along with other things like correct target selection and using movement and positioning. All of those things are using tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:


A combo to me is using multiple things specifically designed to work together. For example, in Malifaux: You see your Teddy is just out of charge range. So you first activate Baby Kade, and use his ability 'Where's Teddy?' to teleport Kade into base to base contact with Teddy, which then pushes Teddy 6" towards the enemy. Then, if your opponent doesn't activate that model to avoid the threat in his turn, Teddy is in charge range next turn.

That's using a model that has a specific ability that works only with another model. That's a combo.

Simply doing something like forcing your opponent into a closer formation to hit them with blast weapons is, as you said, called tactics. There's no specific interation between the units that only works between those units.

And what is the difference from your example and Kilkrazy's?

In Kilkrazy's example the player is using the cavalry's ability to force infantry into squares as a way to maximize the impact of another one of his units (his artillery).
In your example you are using Baby Kade's ability to increase Teddy's threat range as a way to maximize his damage.

Its the exact same thing.