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.

So when it comes to wargaming (for me, 40k in particular) I find myself observing how I end up buying models from GW that actually look quite crap and I would never imagine fielding merely for their "looks", but the reason I buy them is because they are damn good on the battlefield.

On the other hand models I really loved - say in a previous codex - who got nerfed in the newest codex suddenly lose their appeal to me, even if they still look aesthetically pleasing. I just dont want to field them anymore because their rules are meh or crap now, while oftentimes models that look meh I end up loving because their rules are awesome.

The funny thing is I am not a tourney player, never will be, and I try to aspire to this ideal of simply fielding stuff that look cool and not give a derp about the ever changing and ever evolving ruleset because let's face it - we put a lot of time and effort into the assembly and painting of our models to let rules get in our way of playing with them and having fun with them, yet time and again I find myself falling into the GW trap.

So, if you had the option between a meh model with cool rules, and a cool model with meh rules, which would you invariably end up choosing?

Models before rules. OCD to field a fully painted army and if I buy one for the rules even though I hate the model, I'll know it'll never get finished.

Models before rules for me. It's a big reason why it took such a long time for me to get into Warmachine, and honestly the aesthetic has never stopped bothering me and has made painting my stuff not so enjoyable.

It's a combination, really. If I don't like the way a model looks, but like the way it plays,I'll probably convert it heavily. If I like the model, but hate how it plays, I will probably leave it decorating my shelf.

Being forced to choose- models before rules. I'll field something that has poor rules if it looks cool enough. And I can always convert a little to make a bad model look better if I absolutely HAVE to field it.

Rules.

If the rules are awesome but the model sucks, I'll just make one that I like. All things can be overcome with conversion.

Models. Mostly because I enjoy painting (despite how glacial my pace is) and I can't bring myself to paint models I don't like. My gaming group has never been particularly competitive, so I don't have to worry about facing the latest netlist that's winning tournaments.

So this leads me to have no problems buying a model based entirely on if I think it looks badass.

Personally I pick model over rules any day!! If I don't love the look of the models theres no way in hell im going to buy them, or even paint them haha!!!

Rules come second, models always first.

A little of both. However, if I don't like a model, I don't care how good it's rules are. I won't buy it.

I'm looking at you, Imperial Knights, Space Marine Centurions, Taurex, and Grey Knight Dreadnights. You can all stay at the game store.

50/50.

I will use appropriate models from any company, with any rules that I like.

So, I have a dwarf warband for Mordheim that has no GW dwarfs.

I have a Vampire Counts army that is about 50% GW miniatures - but is played using the Kings of War rules.

I have no brand loyalty - if I think that the Avatars of War dwarfs are a better value than GW dwarfs then I will buy them.

If I think that the KoW rules are better than those of WHFB then I will use them - even if I am using a force largely comprised of GW models.

Make good models at a reasonable price, and I will buy them.

Make good rules at a reasonable price, and I will play them.

Make overpriced crappy models for an overpriced crappy system and you will find me not using either.

The Auld Grump

Models all the way. I have 8 metal Lictors from 5th edition.

And they're awesome... but the rules say otherwise.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
50/50.

I will use appropriate models from any company, with any rules that I like.

So, I have a dwarf warband for Mordheim that has no GW dwarfs.

I have a Vampire Counts army that is about 50% GW miniatures - but is played using the Kings of War rules.

I have no brand loyalty - if I think that the Avatars of War dwarfs are a better value than GW dwarfs then I will buy them.

If I think that the KoW rules are better than those of WHFB then I will use them - even if I am using a force largely comprised of GW models.

Make good models at a reasonable price, and I will buy them.

Make good rules at a reasonable price, and I will play them.

Make overpriced crappy models for an overpriced crappy system and you will find me not using either.

The Auld Grump

Exactly this. Make models I like and I will play with them. Make rules that I like and I will play with them. Make rules that I like and models that I don't like, and I will happily play with other models. I tend to be more brand loyal to model companies I really like, and I will buy from those companies even if a deal isn't always the best or a model option isn't exactly the best for one reason or another. In other words, some models get an additional line in the pros column simply by being from a certain company or sculptor.

Often it is convenient to play with the rules designed for particular models, and in some cases folks tend to get bent out of shape of you don't play with the models produced by the company that makes the game. In such cases I will sometimes wind up avoiding the game as a result.

I do almost exclusively buy models to play with though. I don't think I've ever bought a model without having some sort of gaming purpose in mind, even if the model doesn't ever actually get used for its intended purpose. I don't purchase miniatures just for the joy of panting and displaying.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Models before rules for me. It's a big reason why it took such a long time for me to get into Warmachine, and honestly the aesthetic has never stopped bothering me and has made painting my stuff not so enjoyable.

I second this. I like the look of Khador....kinda. I'm curious how this survey measures across different games (WH40K, WM, FOW). The FLGS around here has a big Warmachine following and a lot of the people there told me I was preaching to the choir when I said I only want to get models I like. But it was hard to relate to them because they all seemed to love the looks of the very common power lists of their respective factions, and also never painted them even though they love also love painting.

I'll always put the models first though. I realize that if my army is going to get smashed then I'm better off looking at the situation like I'm an outside observer rolling dice to watch future-history happen, instead of just getting destroyed by an opponent.

Tydil wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Models before rules for me. It's a big reason why it took such a long time for me to get into Warmachine, and honestly the aesthetic has never stopped bothering me and has made painting my stuff not so enjoyable.

I second this. I like the look of Khador....kinda. I'm curious how this survey measures across different games (WH40K, WM, FOW).

I think it has a lot to do with your outlook on miniature gaming in general. I think you'd find that people who play a lot of smaller or indy games will be far less wed to a models+rules ecosystem than people who primarily play games with a tight focus on the nexus between models and rules, and especially people who play only one or very few games. For example, the OP was almost asking the question in a strictly GW context.

In my experience, wargamers who tend to play a lot of different games usually develop pretty diverse collections. They tend to have experience shopping around for models and with looking for the right models to use for games that are not associated with a proprietary rage of miniatures. As a result, they tend to have less concern for the nexus between a set of rules and a set of miniatures. Rules are rules, and models are models. Some companies make great rules and great models. Some companies make great models and bad rules. Some make great rules and bad models. Some make rules and not models. Some make models and not rules. And you can find a rule set to use just about any miniature out there. On the flip side, if you need a model for a set of rules, 10 to 1 you can find something that will make a fair representation, though it may require some work.

If you don't like something, find something that works for you. I really like the idea of the Zees in Dreadball, but I really dislike the models. Now, it turns out Dreadball models are pretty well dirt cheap and it'll cost a lot more to do alternate models, but I like the rules enough to pay a premium to put what I want on the table. So does that mean models are more important to me, or rules? I like the rules, and I'm going to use them. I dislike the models, so I am going with something I do like. I am buying models because of the rules, but I am not buying models I dislike just because I like the rules.

In other words, it's sort of an unfair dichotomy. There's no reason I would buy a bunch of chimpanzee models but for the Dreadball rules, but even though I like the rules for the Zees, and I'm buying models because of those rules, I'm not buying the "official" models. So what is driving my purchase, models or rules?

The models will get me to buy one, the rules will get me to buy more- simple as that.

Rules, why buy the model if I don't like the game? I have plenty of good looking models, I don't need more for the sake of it.

So many amazing models with equally amazing rules are out there we have the luxury of being able to be picky and not settling for anything less than both.

I voted rules first since that seems to be less common these days. Still, I generally expect both if I'm to pay money for a gaming mini.

disclaimer: I do not play GW games and don't have to deal with codex creep or edition shifts. That would influence my opinions and make me view good rules as a more temporary aspect than I currently do.

gealgain wrote:
The models will get me to buy one, the rules will get me to buy more- simple as that.

Pretty much.

Models, cause if I went by rules all the stuff I liked I would probably hate the next edition.

So its a lot easier to just go by models in that way.

I assume you mean models that I'm buying in order to field as what they represent, not buying to proxy or convert to something else.

If I'm actually shelling out money for a model, the rules have to be good, even if I don't love the model. I've bought models I didn't love the look of, because they were good enough to justify it. There's a limit to this though; I have not and never will purchase a Stormtalon. I refuse to field something so atrocious looking on the battlefield.

TheAuldGrump wrote:I will use appropriate models from any company, with any rules that I like.

So, I have a dwarf warband for Mordheim that has no GW dwarfs. I have a Vampire Counts army that is about 50% GW miniatures - but is played using the Kings of War rules.

I have no brand loyalty - if I think that the Avatars of War dwarfs are a better value than GW dwarfs then I will buy them. If I think that the KoW rules are better than those of WHFB then I will use them - even if I am using a force largely comprised of GW models.

Make good models at a reasonable price, and I will buy them. Make good rules at a reasonable price, and I will play them.

Make overpriced crappy models for an overpriced crappy system and you will find me not using either.

This is my approach as well. I consider rules and models to be completely separate even when a company makes both. Maybe even especially when a company makes both. It's far more likely that a company will pass off crap models or crap rules when they think the other will help support their sales.

weeble1000 wrote:

Tydil wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Models before rules for me. It's a big reason why it took such a long time for me to get into Warmachine, and honestly the aesthetic has never stopped bothering me and has made painting my stuff not so enjoyable.

I second this. I like the look of Khador....kinda. I'm curious how this survey measures across different games (WH40K, WM, FOW).

I think it has a lot to do with your outlook on miniature gaming in general. I think you'd find that people who play a lot of smaller or indy games will be far less wed to a models+rules ecosystem than people who primarily play games with a tight focus on the nexus between models and rules, and especially people who play only one or very few games. For example, the OP was almost asking the question in a strictly GW context.

In my experience, wargamers who tend to play a lot of different games usually develop pretty diverse collections. They tend to have experience shopping around for models and with looking for the right models to use for games that are not associated with a proprietary rage of miniatures. As a result, they tend to have less concern for the nexus between a set of rules and a set of miniatures. Rules are rules, and models are models. Some companies make great rules and great models. Some companies make great models and bad rules. Some make great rules and bad models. Some make rules and not models. Some make models and not rules. And you can find a rule set to use just about any miniature out there. On the flip side, if you need a model for a set of rules, 10 to 1 you can find something that will make a fair representation, though it may require some work.

If you don't like something, find something that works for you. I really like the idea of the Zees in Dreadball, but I really dislike the models. Now, it turns out Dreadball models are pretty well dirt cheap and it'll cost a lot more to do alternate models, but I like the rules enough to pay a premium to put what I want on the table. So does that mean models are more important to me, or rules? I like the rules, and I'm going to use them. I dislike the models, so I am going with something I do like. I am buying models because of the rules, but I am not buying models I dislike just because I like the rules.

In other words, it's sort of an unfair dichotomy. There's no reason I would buy a bunch of chimpanzee models but for the Dreadball rules, but even though I like the rules for the Zees, and I'm buying models because of those rules, I'm not buying the "official" models. So what is driving my purchase, models or rules?

You are a smart man. I completely agree. I play games because of the rules. Dreadball, Deadzone, SAGA, Chain Of Command - these are quality rules. For SAGA and CoC, there is a great variety of choices for models - vikings are vikings and WWII Germans are WWII Germans, after all. No one has IP on what a viking looks like.

For Dreadball and Deadzone, no one really cares about proxies, so go for what you like. I tend to use Mantic's models, but hey, to each his own.

As far as what faction I'll play, I go for rules all the way. I play the faction that plays the way I like to play - aggressive, attack, charge, destroy. Because of the games I play, I have a choice of models. I like having the choice of what viking I'll use. I like having the kick ass viking model that no one else has.

Yes, it's more work playing games where the rules and models are separate. But it's SO rewarding to come to the table with a kick ass model that no one else has.

Models over rules all day every day, lord knows I have over the years horded enough things I find nice looking but rather somewhat underpreforming on the table.

It's definitely a combination of rules/fluff/models, but I generally go for rules (in the sense of picking what feels the most fun to play) because I can get alternative models for everything.

I can buy cool models with no game purpose to paint, and I can buy meh models and quick-paint them to play. Particularly when I get down to 15mm the models are less obvious anyway.

For instance, in Malifaux I went for Gremlins, because they are hillbilly Gremlins and will be quite fun, before I saw the figures. It turned out I quite like the figures anyway, but I bought them primarily as game tokens (which were good fun to paint).

I chose "Models first", mostly because it's the pretty toys that keep me in the hobby. I only play with painted models and refuse to spend time painting models I don't like. However, it's now over 20 years since I first started wargaming, and I've reached a point where I don't feel that I have to choose. I play the models I want and I choose rules that are not only well-written and fun-to-play, but also don't interfere with the models I've chosen. As has been said above Models (many of which are made without a set of rules) and Rules (may of which are made without a set of models) are not magically and permanently conjoined.

Often (though not always) gaming as I do resuts in choosing a ruleset with a unit creation mechanic. Though not a fan of "breaking" a ruleset, if a unit performs abnormally (not good enough or too well to be balanced), such a ruleset allows me to adjust the stats accordingly so that it performs as it should in relation to other units. When playing a more fixed game like 40k, or KoW, if the stock model is unsuitable and the statline in question fulfills a particularly useful purpose, I'll simply buy a model that well-represents the unit in question that also meets my aesthetic preferences.

I only get to game with my friends every other week so my credo is that life is too short to play with unpainted figures, crappy models, or bad rules.

When it comes to wargaming, you really can have it all.

 Eilif wrote:
When it comes to wargamig, you can have it all.

Not with my kids, man . I have trouble finding hobby time these days and I am way behind on my painting. Got to find time when you can, but it's hard for me to paint when my son is saying, "Play dinosaurs with me daddy. Play dinosaurs with me."

Generally, I will only play games that have very good examples of both rules and models.

If I'm thinking of trying a new games system I will usually get pulled in by the miniature style, but will then try and play a few games and see if the rules system takes my fancy (and also if I can find someone to play the game with!) If the rules system isn't one I enjoy, I might buy a couple of miniatures just for painting if I really like them, but that's as far as it will go.

Models for sure. I'm primarily a hobbyist and fluffmonkey, the actual gaming and rules are a distant third.

I'm all about aesthetics, but I won't use woefully subpar units too often unless I really, really like the models.

Where is the 'have your cake and eat it' option?

I'm a warmachine/hordes player. Which means I get both cool models and great rules.
I'm an infinity player, which means I get both amazing models and great rules.
I'm a dropzone commander player, which means I get both amazing models and solid rules.

Then again, I'll play great games like flames of war or Dux bellorum with 'appropriate' models, rather than official models. I got a great deal on a whole bunch of Mantic corporation. The models are 'ok' at best (basic grunts are fine, machine gun crews are terrible!)So I'll happily play a game with solid rules, even if the models are iffy.

And I'll buy pretty models (hasslefree etc) or even 40k stuff with the sole aim of painting it up, knowing I have either no rules to go with them, or rules that I don't want to use.

Rules or models? Depends entirely on the circumstances.