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.

 Vermis wrote:
'Jab jab jab' could be a tactic. A jab is a fairly standard move, and I'd hazard most beat-em-up characters could pull off a short string of them to some extent, to act as a feint, to follow up a feint, to keep the opponent at arm's length, or just do plain ol' damage.

My interpretation would be that "Jab, jab, jab" is a combo but this comb can be used as a tactic to influence the fight (like you wrote as a feint, follow up or otherwise) while closing in on the enemy to initiate/feint a throw would be a tactic to force the opponent to move, duck, or retaliate (instead of defending) without being a combo.

This it is probably very fighting game specific and a sequence of moves and actions in a war-game could be seen as a loose definition of a combo.

 Easy E wrote:
Perhaps these needs to be aken to the Warmachine vs 40K thread a few places down.

Anyone else move from GW? Why? What did you go to?

My new current and growing obsession is 54mm miniatures. I'm doing some Horse & Musket non-serious historical stuff with some very simple rules. It's also been really fun to revisit heavy black lining painting approaches that works so well on larger figures. For rules I've been using different ones as my collection grows. I started with Song of Drums & Shakos and am heading towards the rules in All The King's Men's Wargaming Handbook. I'm having to provide both sides and make all the 54mm appropriate terrain, so the project has been slow going, but fun.

Infinity keeps calling me, but all my terrain making material is more appropriate for wilderness type stuff and wood buildings. I'm not sure if I'd enjoy building the 28mm sci-fi terrain I'd want. I also don't like the look of printed terrain and 2d mats that have terrain details on them, so the current approach of the new O:IS starter doesn't quite do it for me.

Mario wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
'Jab jab jab' could be a tactic. A jab is a fairly standard move, and I'd hazard most beat-em-up characters could pull off a short string of them to some extent, to act as a feint, to follow up a feint, to keep the opponent at arm's length, or just do plain ol' damage.

My interpretation would be that "Jab, jab, jab" is a combo but this comb can be used as a tactic to influence the fight (like you wrote as a feint, follow up or otherwise) while closing in on the enemy to initiate/feint a throw would be a tactic to force the opponent to move, duck, or retaliate (instead of defending) without being a combo.

This it is probably very fighting game specific and a sequence of moves and actions in a war-game could be seen as a loose definition of a combo.

The jab jab thing is an interesting one because good boxing games are simulators of real boxing and using the same moves that real boxers use should work in the same way as in real life.

Whereas beat-em-ups are about outrageous impossible but awesome looking moves that work because the game is programmed to make those moves work.

In other words I would say that the jab jab while being a combination of attacking moves, is not a combo in the computer game (and tabletop game) sense, it is a real world tactic.

Taking this to the tabletop, looking at Napoleonics and a lot of other games, if you hide your infantry or tanks behind the crest of a hill, it makes them difficult to hit with artillery. In 40K, you can stand your infantry out in the open if they have a 2+ invulnerable save and FNP. One is tactics, the other is special rules or a defensive combo if you will.

In short, tactics are things that work in game because they game simulates real warfare and they work in real warfare, so if the player cleverly uses tactics he will do better than a player who doesn't. Combos (special rules) are things that work because the game says they work, regardless of the player's cleverness in using them.

That doesn't mean to say there is not an overlap. If you want to look at it this way, a WW2 game's tank has a special rule of "Tank Hunter" that makes it better at attacking tanks than a self-propelled gun would be. Or some Infinity models have special rules about hacking enemy robots and so on. The player has to know how to use these special rules in combination in pursuit of tactical objectives.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
.

In other words I would say that the jab jab while being a combination of attacking moves, is not a combo in the computer game (and tabletop game) sense, it is a real world tactic.

Taking this to the tabletop, looking at Napoleonics and a lot of other games, if you hide your infantry or tanks behind the crest of a hill, it makes them difficult to hit with artillery. In 40K, you can stand your infantry out in the open if they have a 2+ invulnerable save and FNP. One is tactics, the other is special rules or a defensive combo if you will.

In short, tactics are things that work in game because they game simulates real warfare and they work in real warfare, so if the player cleverly uses tactics he will do better than a player who doesn't. Combos (special rules) are things that work because the game says they work, regardless of the player's cleverness in using them.
.

Surely hiding behind a hill that provides a -1 penalty to attacking rolls is as much using special rules or a defensive combo as the other option? In any case, that save and fnp simply represent physically tough infantry, so trusting in their armour to absorb any incoming fire is as much a tactic as lighter infantry using cover for exactly the same reason.

Whether they're real or not is irrelevant. They're 'real' in the world the game is trying to portray.

I maintain what I said. It's only gamey when you refuse to look beyond the actual mechanics, and fail to see what the mechanics are representing. The former is a combo, the latter is tactics.

Well, I think we will have to agree to disagree about the difference between games and simulations.

 Easy E wrote:
...Anyone else move from GW? Why? What did you go to?

I'm down to about one person I still play 40K with now. There are a few others that want me to keep playing but the options to play other, better games is just too great. I'm into Bolt Action pretty heavy right now. I just bought Dropzone Commander and I'm looking forward to painting and playing that game for awhile. I have friends who play Deadzone and Relic Knights regularly and I'm being pulled to play in that direction too.

I still have my Tyranid army for 40K but I'm thinking I may sell it off while I still can...

This is an amazing time to look at other games. There are so many I want to try and even more coming out.
Relic Knights looks interesting. I'm waiting for the Star Wars Armada and Robotech.
My Nomad army will be complete soon. (I already have well over 300 pts, but I'm talking about wants.)
I'm almost done with my Convergence of Cyriss army.
Next up?
I have no idea, but I know it'll be exciting.

Anecdotal evidence: I'm going back toward GW.

Just discovered Trafalgar. I really like it. It's a great game, just feels like the Warhammer Historical update of Man O'War.

Do Warhammer Historical count as GW?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The way I understand it...
Example of a combo:

Up, Down, Up, Down, Left, Left, Left, Right == Unstoppable overhead cartwheel kick unless the opponent does a good block at the right time.
Example of tactics:
Pin the enemy with a frontal attack, and move a second unit to attack around the flank while his attention is diverted.

I'd say a combo is something that works in auto-mode. It's like a recipe, and it's (mostly) always the same. Tactics actually require some improvisation, you have to think on the field to make things work.
Doesn't mean a combo is some magic tool for brainless players. Some combos are indeed well thought and very clever, but you make all the thinking before the actual game.

In chess:
- Openings are combos. The initial positions are fixed, there are few moves available for both you and your opponent. The best moves and counters have already been thouroughly explored by countless grandmasters, there are somewhere in that huge book. You just have to learn the Karpov or Averbakh Variations to the Rubinstein Complex of the Nimzowitsch Variant of the Indian Defence...
- Endgames are combos. The material is limited, there are few checkmating possibilities left. Again, the best moves are well known.
- Middlegame is about tactics. After the opening, things get blurry, you have broad goals (controlling the center, winning time and material), and tactical tools (pinning, forks...), but there's definitely no "recipe". You have to improvise.

That's how players work, and that's also how the AIs work too.

Another bit of evidence of why I left is the "Legality of Super Heavies" thread going on now. That's a whole lot of mess I want nothing to do with.

Yeah the LoW arguments that go on every day is a headache that I don't need. GW greed to sell bigger more expensive models really turned me off from the game.

I'd agree that going hull down and getting +1 defense or whatever is something 'that works because the game says it works'. I'd even say the 2+ sv and FNP can be said to be tactical. But going back to what I said earlier, I disagree that they're special rules so much as mechanics or universal rules.

(I gather that 40K turned a few special rules into universal rules, which is a tiny step in the right direction IMO; though that doesn't prop up up the daft power some of them [or combinations of them] provide, or other general imbalances, and a 2+ inv sv with FNP - real or not - is a ridiculous advantage to have. But I digress.)

In something like Malifaux, I can easily see equivalent saves causing a trigger: an ability or special rule unique to that miniature, activated because you happen to draw the right suit or combination of suits in defense. Even a 2+ equiv being a trigger for a FNP ability. Or both being activated one after the other, rather than in combination with a different special rule, cos they just obviously work better with eachother. Or both as something that can be passed on to another mini for a while.

For example, the Guild Guardian's 'tactical' action (snort guffaw) in 2nd ed. - 'protect'. You need to 'cast' it like a spell, with a chance of failure. Upon success, you can boost the defense of a friendly model up to four inches away. (possibly as part of a combo) Then, depending on what suits you pull to succeed, you can then heal some hit points on the friendly model or move the Guardian towards the friendly model.

This is what seems 'gamey' to me. You could argue that it's clever tactics to cast 'protect' and use it's triggers, and this represents 'reality' in the game world, but I'd struggle to believe you.

One one hand, it's a special rule unique to the Guardian. It's not a basic ability or quirk of position, formation, terrain etc. that can be widely used to boost the crew's chances. On the flipside, it's an inherent ability that can't be automatically used or activated. As mentioned, it has to be cast like a spell, with a roughly 50% chance of failure on a random card flip, barring fate cheats. That adds at least one extra layer of gaminess.

It's also a bit illogical, along with it's triggers, especially if you argue it as representing Malifaux's 'reality'. You could say that this action represents the Guardian throwing itself or it's shield in front of the target friendly model. But it does this from up to four inches away, without normally moving. (The Guardian's reach for attacking is 2", IIRC) So for the third time, it's cast like a spell. Is it a spell? Is it some kind of forcefield? AFAIK there's been no mention in the fluff of the Guardian's inherent magical ability or forcefield technology. It's just a big robot with a big sword and a big shield, from the looks of things. Where does this ability come from in the background, as opposed to the game rules? Why does it only work about half the time?

Then there's it's triggers. Non sequiturs. If you pull a ram card, you can heal the target. The Guardian used to be only able to heal itself, in first ed. That could've been explained as internal repair mechanisms. Now it can heal anything, not just other robots, up to four inches away, as a side effect of the mysterious protect ability, and based almost entirely on the random vagaries of fate as they relate to the ram suit. What... hat was that pulled out of?
If you pull a mask card in defense, you can basically walk up to the target friendly. How does that follow on from protection, besides being dictated in the game rules? How come you can't decide to have the model do that normally, besides being dictated in the game rules (action allotment, the specific rule, and the reliance on having a mask card) The trigger is called 'vigilance' - how are the concepts of vigilance and a sudden doubling of the Guardian's speed (the effect of the trigger essentially giving it four actions rather than the normal two, but somehow only if it uses that extra speed to walk to the target of the third action) a natural-but-random progression in the 'reality' of Malifaux, rather than being dictated in the game rules?

And that's only one rule and two triggers out of the Guardian's five rules and six triggers. And the Guardian is only one, relatively mundane entity in Malifaux's rules and background. I've described Malifaux as a card game with occasional reference to miniatures; this is why. The cards in your hand and deck, and the special rules they allow you to pull off, seem more important to the game than anything else. The minis are there to move into position to get down to the real business of positive flips, negative flips, fate cheats, soulstone burning, damage flips, triggers and so on.

To misquote the Two Fat Lardies, I think that's what they call playing the rules, rather than playing the game. And yeah, I realise the irony in tacking the term 'gaminess' onto that, but the conclusions amount to the same thing. The meta and the special rules mean more to the game than simulation, to some degree, of proven (or just logical) tactical manoeuvre, support etc. between physical forces.

I dunno if the likes of current Infinity and Warmachine reflect that Malifaux example. I'm still curious to try out the former a bit more (I guess I should download those rules) but from what I've seen in the past and from casual observation, and the inklings PhantomViper provided, I'd guess they're not entirely different. Something like that is what puts me off Saga, a historical game, too. You may get to choose what actions on the battle board to use, but they still depend on just what you roll with the (unique, proprietary) dice. You can't choose actions normally, based on your position on the board and inherent abilities of the characters/models, but on what dice results you get! Any some actions I glimpsed don't seem to bear any resemblance to what the units on the board could possibly achieve, but on arbitrary, off-table effects. Deus ex machina, almost. It seemed less a chart of possible moves and more a chart of semi-random magic spells. It all just seemed off to me.

I realise the word 'simulation' can open a whole other can of worms, too. Bear in mind that when I say that, I'm not calling for, or even advocating, every wargame to be some kind of dry Napoleonic affair with every real-life battlefield effect strictly plotted out. I'd probably leave the hobby meself, in that case. What I mean is I like a game where the rules intuitively reflect and play second fiddle to the settings and the abilities of units or characters in those settings, perhaps even to the point of sinking into the back of the mind; rather than being rules for rules' sake, and turning the game into an exercise of who has the better special rules and how many they can throw into eachother's face by gaming the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Litcheur wrote:
Do Warhammer Historical count as GW?

Not any more, probably.

Nice rest-of-your-post, too. Though now I'm wondering if combos are getting mixed up with strategy.

Even though I love playing warmachine, I have to agree that it does feels a lot more like a game than something narrative.

I think there are several factors:
- named warcasters that die pretty much every game make it hard to have a narrative going for your series of games.
- lack of terrain and the way missions/victory conditions are structured never really make you feel that you are fighting for anything real. Too much abstraction is needed.
- Lots of named character models that meet on the field all the time. Gorman meets his body double all the time (mine is the real one) etc.
- Conversion rules/lots of metal figs means that you see the same stock figs all the time.

All that said, it doesn`t really bother me. It is a great game, I have a lot of fun playing, and I havn`t had a narrative 40k game in several years anyways. Spam, stupid deathstars and more and more powermodels on the field made 40k a silly game several years ago.

Flames of war is currently the only game capable of providing me with narrative and tactical games. Even so, I am on a WM run, having tons of fun with just the tactical and good looking game.

 Vermis wrote:

To misquote the Two Fat Lardies, I think that's what they call playing the rules, rather than playing the game. And yeah, I realise the irony in tacking the term 'gaminess' onto that, but the conclusions amount to the same thing.

I did misquote them, and misspelled their name into the bargain. It's 'playing the period, not the rules', by the Too Fat Lardies: http://toofatlardies.co.uk/ Applied to sci-fi/fantasy, I'd say it turns into, and what I prefer is, 'playing the setting, not the rules'. (and adding 'gaminess' onto that seems a bit less daft)

I wonder how much of systems like Malifaux are crafted to inspire loyalty, to some degree, by having unique mechanics and rules? Much like 40K, where many argue it gives them what other games can't (though more in terms of background, I think), it could be difficult to port elements of the card mechanics and unique character rules to different, or more generic systems, keep what players like about those characters, and keep it all balanced. Though am I underestimating how much the background matters compared to the rules?

I understand others like this kind of game, too. I have to say I got my utter frustration with Malifaux by a couple of years of playing with a Wyrd Henchman, no less, who loves the game and persuaded plenty of other local gamers to pick it up. I'd have trouble persuading them otherwise at this point! Though getting back to setting+rules, one of our first trials of it was with my Black Scorpion cowboys, using Ortega profiles...

Anyway. Getting back to to 'what I went to', my ebay Uruk Hai are starting to arrive. Gotta get some unit bases for Mayhem.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

In other words I would say that the jab jab while being a combination of attacking moves, is not a combo in the computer game (and tabletop game) sense, it is a real world tactic.

I thought it was a combo because you can't regularly defend against it if the first punch hits (except a specific combo-breaker) and tactic because it is supposed to manipulate the opponent into doing something specific.

 Vermis wrote:
I've described Malifaux as a card game with occasional reference to miniatures; this is why. The cards in your hand and deck, and the special rules they allow you to pull off, seem more important to the game than anything else. The minis are there to move into position to get down to the real business of positive flips, negative flips, fate cheats, soulstone burning, damage flips, triggers and so on.

You could apply that generality to dice based games. After all, models in Infinity are just there to give you reasons to roll dice against each other. All that maneuvering, weaving through terrain and use of special skills and weapon effects is merely a way to stack a dice off against your opponent in your favour. You could boil a game down to simply coming up with a series of dice offs based on certain conditions. It certainly wouldn't be a very fun game, though.

I'd love to try Lardies chain of command in 28mm. I've read many criticisms that Warlord models are just "meh" but I disagree. The whole multiparty plastic aspect is what made it so hard to leave GW in the first place. A converting is such a fun part of the hobby. Unfortunately all my ww2 terrain is in 15mm and starting a new collection in 28 seems too daunting.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
I've described Malifaux as a card game with occasional reference to miniatures; this is why. The cards in your hand and deck, and the special rules they allow you to pull off, seem more important to the game than anything else. The minis are there to move into position to get down to the real business of positive flips, negative flips, fate cheats, soulstone burning, damage flips, triggers and so on.

You could apply that generality to dice based games. After all, models in Infinity are just there to give you reasons to roll dice against each other. All that maneuvering, weaving through terrain and use of special skills and weapon effects is merely a way to stack a dice off against your opponent in your favour. You could boil a game down to simply coming up with a series of dice offs based on certain conditions. It certainly wouldn't be a very fun game, though.

Infinity is a simulation of imaginary near future infantry skirmish. That is to say the basis of the game is people moving around to shoot at each other with line of sight weapons, with SF elements such as robots and hacking added on to make it different to modern infantry warfare.

Naturally Infinity uses rules and dice to resolve situations because tabletop miniatures do not move themselves around and fire real little bullets and so on. (I note with amusement in passing that in Little Wars, the shooting method actually is to shoot matchsticks out of spring-loaded cannon models...) But that is not the purpose of the game. The purpose is to try and ensure that the basic tactics you use in Infinity are things that work in the real world, such as flanking fire or suppression fire.

Other games, such as Malifaux, or Magic The Gathering, are not simulations of real conditions. M:TG is a completely artificial logical system designed to let players enjoy working out the system to use it to their advantage.

I think you might have an improper idea of what a simulation is. It's not about replicating real conditions. They are in fact, artificial logical systems meant to isolate variables. MTG is indeed a simulation of a wizard duel.

People think simulations are about covering all the variables needed to accurately represent a real situation. It's actually the opposite. They specifically zero in on variables of interest to the participants.

Games and simulations aren't opposites. They're not even on the same spectrum.

Yes, simulations cover the factors of interest. The level of simulation is based on the factors you want to include. For example professional pilot training flight simulators are made as realistic as possible without actually being in the air.

I also think you have an improper idea of what Malifaux is. The cards merely replace dice in a normal tabletop wargame. Yes, there are other mechanics like your hand and adding additional cards to an action, but that's basically like having a system in a dice based game that lets you reroll dice by having a 'cheat pool'. Even the unit cards themselves are basically just a codex/army book/other sort of army list.

-Loki- wrote:You could apply that generality to dice based games. After all, models in Infinity are just there to give you reasons to roll dice against each other. All that maneuvering, weaving through terrain and use of special skills and weapon effects is merely a way to stack a dice off against your opponent in your favour. You could boil a game down to simply coming up with a series of dice offs based on certain conditions. It certainly wouldn't be a very fun game, though.

-Loki- wrote:I also think you have an improper idea of what Malifaux is. The cards merely replace dice in a normal tabletop wargame. Yes, there are other mechanics like your hand and adding additional cards to an action, but that's basically like having a system in a dice based game that lets you reroll dice by having a 'cheat pool'. Even the unit cards themselves are basically just a codex/army book/other sort of army list.

Vermis wrote:I have to say I got my utter frustration with Malifaux by a couple of years of playing with a Wyrd Henchman, no less

I think I have a wee inkling of what it's like. I've also heard Malifaux's card system as 'better than dice' because it's 'less random'; referring to to the ability to cheat fate with the cards in your hand, so I agree with you in that particular comparison of dice and cards.

But you miss my point in that it's the amount of card-flipping in Malifaux that puts me off. Even that simple cheat fate mechanic is an extra level of gaminess in my eyes, though in the context of it being one drop in a bucket of 'em. Obviously models with higher starting stats are going to have an advantage, but that might not be much cop if both stats in a duel are starting relatively low (about 3-6, say) and you have fifteen variables to add onto them. (And I'm no eejit when it comes to maths, but I don't like being reduced to counting on my fingers, late at night, in what's supposed to be relaxation) It makes a bit of a mockery unless you have a much higher starting stat. And then your opponent cheats fate by drawing a 12, a 13, or a red joker. Or burns a soulstone and adds even more. Then you make the damage flip, which might be better served by a die. And then, like I say, you have to go through the whole thing again to resolve any triggers, some of which are automatic.

Yeah, you still have to move your minis in Malifaux. You move to get in range to shoot, including to get round any meagre cover the target has, move to get in range to charge, move to sit on an objective or move to gain or pass on some effect with a friendly model. Seems like plenty but it's no more than most if not all other wargames, and to me it's like a quick prelude to all that card flipping, ignoring the setup for what seems to me to be a good long while in favour of a line of cards on the edge of the table, trying to shoot off a load of sometimes-arbitary special rules. It nudges me out of the miniatures game and the action on the table to go... somewhere else. That's not what I like or want.

As we both say, it's not the cards that are the problem, per se. But it's the whole convolution of the card mechanics and the 40Kish piling on of special rules that demands more use of said mechanics, that gets me. In fact, like I've mentioned before, it all seems 40Kish to me - a similar kind of complication and perception of control but with dice rather than cards - roll to hit, roll to wound, chart, roll to save, chart, modify this, modify that, get a ++ save, ignore that wound, activate some-or-other special rule that your model no doubt has...
If the card flips were simpler, with fewer steps, fewer chains and fewer ded kewl roolz depending on them, I'd moan a bit less about Malifaux. If a game had duels with a simple opposed flip, or a single flip on the part of the attacker or caster, with some simple modifiers. (Believe it or not, plenty of dice wargames play like this with little ill effect.) Maybe adjusted stats so that the range of flip results don't introduce so much randomness that perhaps needs to be reigned in by a cheat fate flip. Maybe some other changes. I dunno right now.

The problem is, if applied to Malifaux, it'd take away from the veneer of uniqueness that both Wyrd and the players like so much, maybe making some ask 'well why don't they use dice?'. But that's not what I'm demanding of or even suggesting to Wyrd and it's fans. I'm just saying what I think the problems with Malifaux are, that put me off it personally, and what kind of card mechanics I might possibly like instead. In the meantime, there are plenty of other dice mechanic games that I like instead.

Frozenwastes: after typing out all this, I guess I prefer a game that focuses more on the models and terrain and general abilities rather than special little snowflakes and the whole odd song and dance they have to carry out to prove their special little snowflakeness. I've already given my explanations and caveats as to why I used the term simulation in that context, as opposed to metagaming. So there.

(I've also tried out MtG too, and I don't like that either, but it makes a bit more sense than if it were ostensibly about directing 3D representations of soldiers over a 3D representation of a battlefield)

Vermis, if I'm reading your right, your real issue with Malifaux is that you find the basis for your decision making to be unreliable and the process itself seems disconnected from the situation on the table top and instead relies more on your hand of cards or how many resource points you have left. And then the process is not short and repeated many times through the course of play. So not only do you not get to make meaningful decisions in a way you do like, you have to spend a lot of time engaging with a way you don't like.

I don't play Malifaux much because most of my local opponents don't get that it's all about weighing the odds of the cards in your hands and making decisions based on whether or not you have the resources to carry your plan for that turn through. They want it to be a typical miniature game where you make decisions on more traditional miniature wargaming factors. It's just not. And now that I think about it, I kind of wish it was different as well. I prefer games where decision making is more based on position, threat, tempo, maneuver, reinforcement, etc.,. I think it's why I play a lot of wargame rules from the 60s and rules that are their successors.

---

 Vermis wrote:
I think I have a wee inkling of what it's like. I've also heard Malifaux's card system as 'better than dice' because it's 'less random'; referring to to the ability to cheat fate with the cards in your hand, so I agree with you in that particular comparison of dice and cards.

But you miss my point in that it's the amount of card-flipping in Malifaux that puts me off.

Just to be fair, I wasn't actually responding to you. I can see the amount of card flipping pissing people off. I was responding to Kilkrazy putting it as a comparison to MtG, I'm assuming because it uses cards. The card mechanic is just like having dice in any other game and a pool of dice you can sub in as rerolls for yourself or your opponent (and forcing them to take the lower roll), then another pool of dice that are pre rolled that you can replace a roll with. The game is nothing like MtG.

I decided to not continue with 40k after the release of 7th (if you've heard this story from me before, I apologize). My two armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, were both eventually invalidated by new codices, and so in order to continue playing I'd be forking out about $200...not a position I'm really comfortable with right now (especially given the state of 40k).

I'm loathe to get rid of my 40k models, so I've been working on the idea of going back to "old-GW" and playing with the 3rd, 4th, or 5th rulesets (probably the 5th since it received a lot of accolades until the Grey Knights came onto the scene).

For some of the remaining 40k-itches I have, I've been looking to supplement them in other ways and so far it's been very positive, I'm so glad I took the plunge! My desire for a WWI-style Imperial Guard army is perfectly matched by All Quiet on the Martian Front, fielding large numbers of tanks and troops against alien menaces without breaking my bank. My wish for a new Necromunda/Inquisitor/skirmish game looks like it will be met by Infinity, whose models have been becoming continuously better IMO in terms of quality and aesthetics. And while I certainly love the look of those new Imperial Knights Forgeworld is pumping out, the idea of playing them in 28mm games and taking up significant portions of the table (as well as my income!), seems silly. I'd love to see these models in 15mm scale, but since there is essentially NO chance of that happening, AQMF and Dystopian Wars are filling that niche quite well.

I think that is another reason why people leave Accolade. I mean why does GW think they need to invalidate people's army just so they can make more money?

I guess it goes to show you that Games Workshop has no more innovation and can only rely on disrespecting their customers.

 Accolade wrote:
I decided to not continue with 40k after the release of 7th (if you've heard this story from me before, I apologize). My two armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, were both eventually invalidated by new codices, and so in order to continue playing I'd be forking out about $200...not a position I'm really comfortable with right now (especially given the state of 40k).

I'm loathe to get rid of my 40k models, so I've been working on the idea of going back to "old-GW" and playing with the 3rd, 4th, or 5th rulesets (probably the 5th since it received a lot of accolades until the Grey Knights came onto the scene).

For some of the remaining 40k-itches I have, I've been looking to supplement them in other ways and so far it's been very positive, I'm so glad I took the plunge! My desire for a WWI-style Imperial Guard army is perfectly matched by All Quiet on the Martian Front, fielding large numbers of tanks and troops against alien menaces without breaking my bank. My wish for a new Necromunda/Inquisitor/skirmish game looks like it will be met by Infinity, whose models have been becoming continuously better IMO in terms of quality and aesthetics. And while I certainly love the look of those new Imperial Knights Forgeworld is pumping out, the idea of playing them in 28mm games and taking up significant portions of the table (as well as my income!), seems silly. I'd love to see these models in 15mm scale, but since there is essentially NO chance of that happening, AQMF and Dystopian Wars are filling that niche quite well.

I'm definitely keeping some or most of my 40k stuff. I still like the setting - just have to headcannon our some od the more ridiculous new stuff like Mruder He-Wrote. The setting can be explored in a number of other ways than the GW tabletop game. FFG RPGs are right up there, modified 3rd party systems such as Kings of War, Warpath, or Deadzone. iirc there was a warmahordes mod under substantial longterm development (mentioned in this thread?). Plus as I originally got into the hobby mainly for modeling and painting 40k, I'm still happy to do just that. Soldier on with my Blood Ravens, Tanith First, Iron Warriors, Renegade Guard and Newcrons. All obtained as cheaply as possible ofc... $24 new tac marine squads is very reasonable!

To replace 40k, I'd really like a scalable game that can work at skirmish and large scale, for example with optional movement trays for "horde" infantry like guardsman, gaunts, boyz etc. that provide pie plate mitigation or other such things as a tradeoff and reward for speeding up play. Other more elite units such as SMs could still e treated as individually valuable - ideally at a higher cost and effectiveness than the current 14 ppm SM bodies comapred to 5 ppm guard bodies. Larger dice allowing more results with less rolling would also be ideal here, some people have an obsessive attachment to the humble d6 whereas I'd much rather a d10+ basic dice system.

In the meantime I'm really happy with smaller skirmish scale games with fast rules. Dreadball is my #1, still need to start deadzone (finally painting!) and X-Wing (and Armada + Imperial Assault) purchase is *so close* now. Plus a DZC starter. Oh and the 50% off Bolt Actiond deal that's finished has that on my radar once I can hopefully speedpaint up some troops with some quick airbrush and washing. Ex-GW indeed... though the urge to make them 40k capable is still strong, I shall try to resist.

Davor wrote:
I think that is another reason why people leave Accolade. I mean why does GW think they need to invalidate people's army just so they can make more money?

I guess it goes to show you that Games Workshop has no more innovation and can only rely on disrespecting their customers.

A huge part of our problem with them lately. The setting can be expanded without invalidating the past. For example: if Chaos took the Cadian gate and screwed Cadia, the existing cadian range would still be fine to use as there are hundreds/thousands of regiments in service around the galazxy who could conceivably continue their traditions on new worlds they were given. It also allows GW the opportunity to re-release a Cadian range that *isn't* ridiculously heroic scale, perhaps with a more veteran feel. Or Gue'vesa auxillaries as humans increasingly side with the greater good as they feel the imperium is collapsing, new tech released by Ad mech... so much stuff they could add without invalidating.

 Accolade wrote:
I decided to not continue with 40k after the release of 7th (if you've heard this story from me before, I apologize). My two armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, were both eventually invalidated by new codices, and so in order to continue playing I'd be forking out about $200...not a position I'm really comfortable with right now (especially given the state of 40k).

I'm loathe to get rid of my 40k models, so I've been working on the idea of going back to "old-GW" and playing with the 3rd, 4th, or 5th rulesets (probably the 5th since it received a lot of accolades until the Grey Knights came onto the scene).

Same here, only I still enjoy painting the models. I won't be buying anything from GW anytime soon, I have more plastic stuff around than I could paint in the next 10 years.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
I decided to not continue with 40k after the release of 7th (if you've heard this story from me before, I apologize). My two armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, were both eventually invalidated by new codices, and so in order to continue playing I'd be forking out about $200...not a position I'm really comfortable with right now (especially given the state of 40k).

I'm loathe to get rid of my 40k models, so I've been working on the idea of going back to "old-GW" and playing with the 3rd, 4th, or 5th rulesets (probably the 5th since it received a lot of accolades until the Grey Knights came onto the scene).

Same here, only I still enjoy painting the models. I won't be buying anything from GW anytime soon, I have more plastic stuff around than I could paint in the next 10 years.

That's a problem I wish I had.

Consider me on the cusp of putting my 40k stuff on the scrapheap of entropy. In fact its probably already there as i haven't played in ages and the last time i did it was a boredom fest.

I've already scrapped my Templars and i'm under no illusions about the the new Dark Eldar codex that is just around the corner. Its a crying shame, but they might have to go as i just can't see me playing them anymore, i'll keep my IG/Tau as a 'backup' policy but that's it really. All GW is good for now is the paints.


Warmahordes is my main tonic and its an utter blast, epic wins and fails all at the same time, and at no point is there any mention of accursed "narrative" or "that's OP" claptrap. Plus you can use colossal units without any bitching whatsoever (yes a Cryx Kraken with phantom hunter is a bit of a shock... when your opponent forgets his shield guard model...).

However since i can only attend one club currently, i am aware that others maybe more enthused with 40k elsewhere so i am not totally burning bridges. But 40k is just clunky and obsolete as far as i'm concerned, not to mention some members of the community are just pig ignorant of the other games out there.

The only snag is that GW models are a joy to paint, shame the game is naff

 Art_of_war wrote:
Consider me on the cusp of putting my 40k stuff on the scrapheap of entropy. In fact its probably already there as i haven't played in ages and the last time i did it was a boredom fest.

I've already scrapped my Templars and i'm under no illusions about the the new Dark Eldar codex that is just around the corner. Its a crying shame, but they might have to go as i just can't see me playing them anymore, i'll keep my IG/Tau as a 'backup' policy but that's it really. All GW is good for now is the paints.


Warmahordes is my main tonic and its an utter blast, epic wins and fails all at the same time, and at no point is there any mention of accursed "narrative" or "that's OP" claptrap. Plus you can use colossal units without any bitching whatsoever (yes a Cryx Kraken with phantom hunter is a bit of a shock... when your opponent forgets his shield guard model...).

However since i can only attend one club currently, i am aware that others maybe more enthused with 40k elsewhere so i am not totally burning bridges. But 40k is just clunky and obsolete as far as i'm concerned, not to mention some members of the community are just pig ignorant of the other games out there.

The only snag is that GW models are a joy to paint, shame the game is naff

Agreed. PP models aren't the same quality (though their metals can rock) But the game is far superior in terms of tactical and strategic play.
You also might want to try Infinity and Malifaux for great models to paint. I'd put their models as higher quality than GW.