Paying to watch competitive games isn't any more strange than paying for sports channels. If you want advertising (presentation videos, interviews, painting guides etc) you can watch it for free on their YouTube channel.

Another thing to note is that's warhammer live is free to watch live. Doesn't help people in an inconvenient time zone but it is something to consider.

Yeah, I know a guy who pays to watch Starcraft events live.

Those same events are then uploaded for free to watch whenever sometime after the event.

GW have been releasing and rereleasing a lot of new stuff and models. My only disagreement is them making Fateweaver and the lord of change no longer to scale with the older figures. Why should I lay $115-140 for something I already own? I guess I can just make them Daemon Princes but now I'm questioning if I should even put the effort in to painting them since they might eventually make DPs even larger. Same mindset could set a future tyranid army at the same size or larger with prices going from $45-80 can now expect paying up to 115-200 in their next update for MCs.

I think the bigger more exposed MCs started with the KDK bloodthrister. The newer and upcoming MCs are beautiful don't misunderstand me but I wish I didn't have to rebuy something I already own. I feel GW should give owners a discount/refund if they send in their models no longer to scale but it won't happen. Overall, the updates to everything last year and a half have been exceptional besides the size change of figures. I won't deny I want to buy them, but it's starting to become unaffordable.

I have to agree that GW has gotten better with connecting with their fanbase, and using their customer feedback to make the games better. Though thier prices are way out to lunch. I don't mind their prices on an Imperial Knight or large models, but terminators, dreads, and characters as well as many others, are way to damn expensive. I would love to buy 2 Death Company Chaplains, but spending $80+ on 2 small models is ridiculous.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
and paying for another company to advertise to you is a mug's game.

I don't understand "mug's game". May you please explain. Is that an Aussie expression or something or did it just go right over my head.

 Defeatmyarmy wrote:
My only disagreement is them making Fateweaver and the lord of change no longer to scale with the older figures. Why should I lay $115-140 for something I already own? I guess I can just make them Daemon Princes but now I'm questioning if I should even put the effort in to painting them since they might eventually make DPs even larger.

The newer and upcoming MCs are beautiful don't misunderstand me but I wish I didn't have to rebuy something I already own. I feel GW should give owners a discount/refund if they send in their models no longer to scale but it won't happen.

Guh...?

One bit:

Why should I lay $115-140 for something I already own?

That's a very good question. Problem is, I think you've come up with answers that aren't "I shouldn't".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
I don't understand "mug's game". May you please explain. Is that an Aussie expression or something or did it just go right over my head.

Aussie and brit. In simplest terms, replace 'mug' with 'fool'.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+mug's+game

@Vermis

The argument is, I used to buy 3 squads/ 2 and a vehicle for that price. Basically that is over the course of 2-4 paychecks I would be able to afford that price. When you add the thought to it that I already own that model, I feel a cheaper alternative would be to just glue my old MC to a large rock and claim it is now to scale rather than pay $115-140.

Prices are emmm not always the best, but I am loving the boxed games they are bringing out, especially warhammer quest.
The community site is better than the old blog, don't do Facebook so can't speak for that.

In general there in my eyes have been improvements but they need to sustain that and not fall back to old ways.

Also people need to remember they are a company and making money is there business

 Defeatmyarmy wrote:
My only disagreement is them making Fateweaver and the lord of change no longer to scale with the older figures.

That's not what out of scale means.

 Defeatmyarmy wrote:
Why should I lay $115-140 for something I already own?

Who says you have to?

 Defeatmyarmy wrote:
GW have been releasing and rereleasing a lot of new stuff and models. My only disagreement is them making Fateweaver and the lord of change no longer to scale with the older figures. Why should I lay $115-140 for something I already own? I guess I can just make them Daemon Princes but now I'm questioning if I should even put the effort in to painting them since they might eventually make DPs even larger. Same mindset could set a future tyranid army at the same size or larger with prices going from $45-80 can now expect paying up to 115-200 in their next update for MCs.

I think the bigger more exposed MCs started with the KDK bloodthrister. The newer and upcoming MCs are beautiful don't misunderstand me but I wish I didn't have to rebuy something I already own. I feel GW should give owners a discount/refund if they send in their models no longer to scale but it won't happen. Overall, the updates to everything last year and a half have been exceptional besides the size change of figures. I won't deny I want to buy them, but it's starting to become unaffordable.

Well if you are happy with older models why not just keep using them? Old models are perfectly fine and legal models so unless you hate the look no reason to not use them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Defeatmyarmy wrote:
Why should I lay $115-140 for something I already own?

Who says you have to?

This. Just because they release a new model for an existing unit doesn't mean that you have to buy it. There's no way that GW was going to get me to buy the new Broadside kit when I already had enough of the old metal/plastic kits (especially with the railgun nerf and no change to the statline to warrant them suddenly doubling in size).

tneva82 wrote:

 Defeatmyarmy wrote:
GW have been releasing and rereleasing a lot of new stuff and models. My only disagreement is them making Fateweaver and the lord of change no longer to scale with the older figures. Why should I lay $115-140 for something I already own? I guess I can just make them Daemon Princes but now I'm questioning if I should even put the effort in to painting them since they might eventually make DPs even larger. Same mindset could set a future tyranid army at the same size or larger with prices going from $45-80 can now expect paying up to 115-200 in their next update for MCs.

I think the bigger more exposed MCs started with the KDK bloodthrister. The newer and upcoming MCs are beautiful don't misunderstand me but I wish I didn't have to rebuy something I already own. I feel GW should give owners a discount/refund if they send in their models no longer to scale but it won't happen. Overall, the updates to everything last year and a half have been exceptional besides the size change of figures. I won't deny I want to buy them, but it's starting to become unaffordable.

Well if you are happy with older models why not just keep using them? Old models are perfectly fine and legal models so unless you hate the look no reason to not use them.

Because the GW hobby is buying GW miniatures?

tneva82 wrote:

Well if you are happy with older models why not just keep using them? Old models are perfectly fine and legal models so unless you hate the look no reason to not use them.

If you use models old enough, there's a chance you'll get pulled up for using non-GW models in stores, as the staffer probably won't recognise them. How much effort you wanted to put in from that point is up to you, but the tab that says "GW" will be well hidden by the base.

Herzlos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Well if you are happy with older models why not just keep using them? Old models are perfectly fine and legal models so unless you hate the look no reason to not use them.

If you use models old enough, there's a chance you'll get pulled up for using non-GW models in stores, as the staffer probably won't recognise them. How much effort you wanted to put in from that point is up to you, but the tab that says "GW" will be well hidden by the base.

I doubt this scenario happens more often than a handful of times, worldwide. If ever. Sounds like pure scaremongering to me.

In case it ever happens, with everyone having acces to phones connected to the internet; it's hardly a insurmountable feat to bring up a picture showing old GW models are indeed GW models.

If someone were to doubt the GW-ness of my old metal skeleton warriors, a quick google search on "gw metal skeleton warriors stuff of legends" brings up a picture of the relevant citadel catalog page:


And that's on the remote chance that I'd ever be playing in a GW store in the first place and a GW employee feels he has time to go around scouring peoples armies for individual minis that he doesn't recognize.

Yes GW plc have improved slightly.

Rather than a thug that beats you up, steals all your money and then relieves them selves on your prone battered body, before running away with all your money.
They just smile before robbing you , and laugh at you as you let them walk away with all your cash.

See how much better things are now.. .

Herzlos wrote:
If you use models old enough, there's a chance you'll get pulled up for using non-GW models in stores, as the staffer probably won't recognise them. How much effort you wanted to put in from that point is up to you, but the tab that says "GW" will be well hidden by the base.

I own one of these. It's fairly easy to find proof.

They have indisputably improved in the PR department. The sense of active distaste and contempt for their customers was becoming palpable.

They have also improved in entry level expenditures (One of the chief reasons their fantasy line failed under the old regime)

Where they are still lost is the rules writing. Having branched out and played games from other companies the absurd levels of imbalance (and sycophantic defense of it) are unacceptable.

General's Handbook V2 and 8th 40k have a lot riding on them. I am very close to just painting what I own from the enjoyment of the stories I grew up with and maybe occasionally playing them in fan made rulesets.

From an engagement point of view, it's a massive step up.

Painting tutorials
Release teasers
Facebook page
Community site
Awesome new models

The prices still aren't the best, but they are at least trying with the box sets.

Luckily I'm not too into the fluff, so I've managed to avoid any distaste for the changes.

GW is in an awkward place in terms of change thanks to their incremental edition change approach where army books and codecies can stretch back even two or three editions of the game.

Warhammers total collapse afforded them the opportunity to do a reboot. Unfortunately it was done during a period where the head of company seemed to believe that the games don't matter at all and the hobby is all about purchasing the jewel like objects of magic and wonder that are citadel miniatures.

They've done a bit of a course correction with the general's handbook, but they can only do so much in terms of a series of small incremental changes.

People might not want 40k to be blown up and replaced with the Age of the Emperor, but it would allow them to make some serious rules changes. The question is, would they be for the better.

The thing that would get me back in would be a mandate that the rules are there to make the miniatures feel awesome on the table top. This would be a 180 degree shift from the current approach of massive numbers of models removed and buckets of dice needed to resolve attacks that basically make the masses of models feel like pointless wound and attack counters while the big monsters, robots and vehicles get to be the only pieces that feel awesome on the table.

GW has definitely changed for the better since Kirby took a back seat, but the actual game experience isn't there yet, so I'm still out.

Warhammers total collapse afforded them the opportunity to do a reboot. Unfortunately it was done during a period where the head of company seemed to believe that the games don't matter at all and the hobby is all about purchasing the jewel like objects of magic and wonder that are citadel miniatures.

Frankly, given the number of people, some of them pretty hard bitten GW cynics, that have lost their gak over some of the recent 40K releases, and the corresponding upturn in profit and revenue, despite the fact that the game is still in the toilet, I'm beginning to think he had a point.

Well this interview offers a lot of insight into what went wrong with GW over the last few years and why it is in a better place now. https://trackofwords.wordpress.com/2017/02/11/black-library-there-and-back-again-with-laurie-goulding /
It shows how the changes are much more than just the community stuff. It also shows the impact of the new ceo.

That is a crazy good interview, but it doesn't surprise me at all.. That is the cooperate environment now.. Management wants to improve on 100% effort..
I have seen it first hand, with bringing in big money consultants to roll out new management tools like total quality, contentious improvement or what ever is the big buzz word program this week.
But no money to repair the machines or give pay raises to regular employees. Hopefully the new GW CEO will continue the current right path and not revert to what was going on
the past few years..

It really did make me think that Kirby tried to "sink the ship" as his last days where coming up.. Just hope no one gets in trouble for give to much information of the inner workings of GW.

I don't think Kirby was trying to sink the ship, most Human Resource types would recommend everything he was doing as being correct.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Warhammers total collapse afforded them the opportunity to do a reboot. Unfortunately it was done during a period where the head of company seemed to believe that the games don't matter at all and the hobby is all about purchasing the jewel like objects of magic and wonder that are citadel miniatures.

Frankly, given the number of people, some of them pretty hard bitten GW cynics, that have lost their gak over some of the recent 40K releases, and the corresponding upturn in profit and revenue, despite the fact that the game is still in the toilet, I'm beginning to think he had a point.

I actually agree. For the majority of their customers, the rules don't really matter. As long as they can provide the idea of playing the miniatures someday, they're probably good enough for GW's purposes. If you can actually put miniatures on the table, move them around, roll some dice and take some miniatures off the table, then that's probably good enough as well.

Odds are though that for each of the people who want high quality rules there are out there, there's a hundred players who either just want a beer and pretzels pew-pew fest with big armies on the table or who never actually play their game.

As long as the 40k and AoS rules are basically just a marketing tool for the miniatures, I'm out. But I'm sure lots more people are in.

Crazy thing is a tight streamlined rule set benefits everyone not just tournament players.

Bad rules don't even benefit the company putting them out.

hobojebus wrote:
Crazy thing is a tight streamlined rule set benefits everyone not just tournament players.

We have people here who actively argue against that. It makes -no- sense.

My argument is not against it, but that it's tangential to GW's purposes.

Actual design work is time intensive. You've got to come up with the base system, test it and then theoretically test new releases against the existing stuff. Writing whatever and forgetting all that means the studio budget can be spent on packaging design, painting up models for the product shots, making product shots, writing contentless puff pieces about the new releases, and a host of other things that are not a balanced, streamlined and tight set of rules.

Though I will argue against streamlined. I'd rather have a more involved set of rules (though not convoluted) and made each model feel valuable/awesome. Streamlining is often the chosen method to enable model count creep where each model becomes an increasingly irrelevant part of a given army.

 frozenwastes wrote:
My argument is not against it, but that it's tangential to GW's purposes.

Actual design work is time intensive. You've got to come up with the base system, test it and then theoretically test new releases against the existing stuff. Writing whatever and forgetting all that means the studio budget can be spent on packaging design, painting up models for the product shots, making product shots, writing contentless puff pieces about the new releases, and a host of other things that are not a balanced, streamlined and tight set of rules.

Though I will argue against streamlined. I'd rather have a more involved set of rules (though not convoluted) and made each model feel valuable/awesome. Streamlining is often the chosen method to enable model count creep where each model becomes an increasingly irrelevant part of a given army.

For a company that has a large retail chain, all filled with players, playing their games exclusively.... and they can't somehow think of a way of playtesting... ?

Sheesh. GW has the best possible way to playtest. A dedicated sycophantic playerbase that turn up at their exclusive stores to game. Given a chance to playtest, they'd bite peoples nuts off for the chance. GW should have the most playtested bang on perfect games out there. But no, they used all those editions to bring in enough changes to force people to buy new versions and the latest models, rather than actually fix the game and problems. Here's hoping the new 40k version is an improvement.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:


Sheesh. GW has the best possible way to playtest. A dedicated sycophantic playerbase that turn up at their exclusive stores to game. Given a chance to playtest, they'd bite peoples nuts off for the chance. GW should have the most playtested bang on perfect games out there. But no, they used all those editions to bring in enough changes to force people to buy new versions and the latest models, rather than actually fix the game and problems. Here's hoping the new 40k version is an improvement.

Further than that, they've got a massive gaming hall right next to their HQ.

It'd be trivial to keep an eye out for players that are playing the game/forces you want to experiment with, go up to them and talk them through a game with your rules in exchange for lunch/beer/gift vouchers. Customers get to feel special, GW gets super cheap feedback.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:


Sheesh. GW has the best possible way to playtest. A dedicated sycophantic playerbase that turn up at their exclusive stores to game. Given a chance to playtest, they'd bite peoples nuts off for the chance. GW should have the most playtested bang on perfect games out there. But no, they used all those editions to bring in enough changes to force people to buy new versions and the latest models, rather than actually fix the game and problems. Here's hoping the new 40k version is an improvement.

You realize that's exactly what they are doing with AoS? The second edition of the GH is being designed with the community, using guys that have been active in the tournament scene.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Odds are though that for each of the people who want high quality rules there are out there, there's a hundred players who either just want a beer and pretzels pew-pew fest with big armies on the table or who never actually play their game..

Just on this, when I hear "beer and pretzels game", I think of something with a low buy-in, where you can quickly set up and learn the rules (possibly while slightly drunk), play it without having to flip through the rulebook, and be done in an hour at the most.

Chikout wrote:Well this interview offers a lot of insight into what went wrong with GW over the last few years and why it is in a better place now. https://trackofwords.wordpress.com/2017/02/11/black-library-there-and-back-again-with-laurie-goulding /
It shows how the changes are much more than just the community stuff. It also shows the impact of the new ceo.

Thank you for the link. That was insightful and a good read. So it seam that what went on with GW is just what goes on with any company. Really nice to know people working on the game are really not idiots like we claim they are. While it's not fun to play with, at least now I can understand and I should stop blaming the writers of codices now for being inept.

 Elemental wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Odds are though that for each of the people who want high quality rules there are out there, there's a hundred players who either just want a beer and pretzels pew-pew fest with big armies on the table or who never actually play their game..

Just on this, when I hear "beer and pretzels game", I think of something with a low buy-in, where you can quickly set up and learn the rules (possibly while slightly drunk), play it without having to flip through the rulebook, and be done in an hour at the most.

Not sure about the hour at the most... you do want to have multiple beers, right?

You can always play more than one game

Plus, would you want to spend a lot of your drinking time looking up rules?

 Elemental wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

Odds are though that for each of the people who want high quality rules there are out there, there's a hundred players who either just want a beer and pretzels pew-pew fest with big armies on the table or who never actually play their game..

Just on this, when I hear "beer and pretzels game", I think of something with a low buy-in, where you can quickly set up and learn the rules (possibly while slightly drunk), play it without having to flip through the rulebook, and be done in an hour at the most.

That's my understanding as well; I can't imagine that the casual gamers want low quality rules, they'd benefit from good rules more than the serious players.

Casual games to me are things like X-Wing, Zombicide.
Serious games to me are things like Napoleonics

Gimgamgoo wrote:For a company that has a large retail chain, all filled with players, playing their games exclusively.... and they can't somehow think of a way of playtesting... ?

Sheesh. GW has the best possible way to playtest. A dedicated sycophantic playerbase that turn up at their exclusive stores to game. Given a chance to playtest, they'd bite peoples nuts off for the chance. GW should have the most playtested bang on perfect games out there. But no, they used all those editions to bring in enough changes to force people to buy new versions and the latest models, rather than actually fix the game and problems. Here's hoping the new 40k version is an improvement.

One salaried playtest coordinator as part of their new community site could do exactly this. GW used to leverage volunteers very, very well. It's something that got lost in the shuffle after the LOTR boom bust. Citadel Journal, the Outrider program and so on. All gone. They should bring them back and involve the community even more.

Elemental wrote:
Just on this, when I hear "beer and pretzels game", I think of something with a low buy-in, where you can quickly set up and learn the rules (possibly while slightly drunk), play it without having to flip through the rulebook, and be done in an hour at the most.

Sure, I guess that works. I was thinking the type of game where the beer, pretzels and company of friends is more important than the activity itself. If you want, you can read all future uses of "beer and pretzels" by myself as "bucket of dice lark."

Herzlos wrote:
I can't imagine that the casual gamers want low quality rules, they'd benefit from good rules more than the serious players.

They don't want low quality rules. They just buy the product anyway despite low quality rules.

Of course good rules are better for everyone. I'm just making the case that GW is only willing to invest so much money into the quality of their rules and it could be that they are investing just enough (eg. general's handbook) whereas in previous years they invested too little (eg. original AoS launch rules).

The last two things I bought from GW were to be used with other rules. A box of wood elf cavalry ended up being a full unit of legion cavalry and a solo in a wood elf proxy hordes army (legion beasts replaced with woodland monsters like dryads and the like). In WHFB 7th (?) at the time, those 8 wood elf glade riders would have been like 90 points in a 2000 point army and were largely irrelevant. In my Hordes army, they represented a third of the army and the rules meant they contributed massively to a game. They felt awesome in play. I want that kind of awesome low model count support before I play a GW game again.

As it stands, the games seem to be about only having the huge monsters and vehicles actually having a big impact and AoS seems to be chocked full of spill over model removal. They're meant for large games because GW wants to sell the idea of large collections. They brought out a Kill Team box, but have done nothing else with it and it's sold out now. My guess is that they were experimenting with different starter box products rather than actually deciding to support lower model count play. As well, Kill Team isn't really what I'm talking about either as it still uses the basic 3rd edition 40k system as its base. It's no wonder it makes individual models irrelevant though as it started out as Rick Priestly's home rules for World War 1 historicals that got rushed into a 40k adaptation.

 frozenwastes wrote:


They don't want low quality rules. They just buy the product anyway despite low quality rules.

I agree, there are a hell of a lot of people that buy the models without ever playing a game, GW know this and that is one of the reasons they have only done the bare minimum game wise for such a long time, there are also people buying these newer boxed sets soley for the cheaper models and totally disregarding the rules, this is also telling them that the rules are not so important to everyone.


Thankfully, it seems that they have finally clicked on to the fact that better rules mean more people will play the game, which in turn is better for everyone, despite what the collectors / painters do, and it looks like they are actually play testing stuff properly nowadays, or at least trying to.

 frozenwastes wrote:
My argument is not against it, but that it's tangential to GW's purposes.

I didn't say it was... ?

 frozenwastes wrote:
Actual design work is time intensive. You've got to come up with the base system, test it and then theoretically test new releases against the existing stuff. Writing whatever and forgetting all that means the studio budget can be spent on packaging design, painting up models for the product shots, making product shots, writing contentless puff pieces about the new releases, and a host of other things that are not a balanced, streamlined and tight set of rules.

Thing is they have a base system already. They've had it since 3rd Ed and that base hasn't changed. They're just added patch after patch after patch to it, like an old Marine you've test painted a thousand times over until he no longer resembles a Marine.

It's time for some simple green, so to speak. Burn away the unwieldy top-heavy unworkable mess that 40K has become and start from that base, working your way up.

 Elemental wrote:
Just on this, when I hear "beer and pretzels game", I think of something with a low buy-in, where you can quickly set up and learn the rules (possibly while slightly drunk), play it without having to flip through the rulebook, and be done in an hour at the most.

That's a good point. I interpret that in much the same way, and in its current state it doesn't fit that bill. We spent a weekend a fortnight ago playing Silver Tower. Got about 3 games in. That worked as a 'beer and pretzels' experience. Couple of weeks before that, a whole day of actual Warhammer Quest. A bit more involved, but it still worked. 40k? I wouldn't even know where to begin.

It's not simple. It's not newbie friendly. It's barriers to entry are still far too high. It's ---not--- a casual game.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
For a company that has a large retail chain, all filled with players, playing their games exclusively.... and they can't somehow think of a way of playtesting... ?

Having come at this from multiple angles (got my start as a playtester... well... I got my start by being a loudmouth on the Internet, which got me into playtesting, but whatever), I've done the whole play testing thing on tons of different products and it can be quite a chore, but the the changes that I've seen with the start and end point of various products makes it always worth it IMO.

Unfortunately despite GW's glacial change, they are still slaves to this insane secrecy nonsense. Their big 'here's what's coming next' exposes on their community website pretty much only happen after some chucklehead stuck in an earthquake with nothing better to do than take crappy photographs has got their hands on a copy of an upcoming WD.

And even if they don't go out to the community at large for help with making 40K great again, then as has been suggested, why not use the damned gaming hall to do it? The fact that they seem to be reaching out to the AoS community and not the 40K one makes no sense, unless it's the secrecy thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
My argument is not against it, but that it's tangential to GW's purposes.

I didn't say it was... ?

Just being clear about what I'm on about. I don't know how many times I've read people on this forum say that bad rules are fine for people who don't take the game seriously. While I am also saying that they are fine, I'm saying "fine as a marketing tool (but not as a game)." I'm hoping that distinction is clear.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Thing is they have a base system already. They've had it since 3rd Ed and that base hasn't changed. They're just added patch after patch after patch to it, like an old Marine you've test painted a thousand times over until he no longer resembles a Marine.

It's time for some simple green, so to speak. Burn away the unwieldy top-heavy unworkable mess that 40K has become and start from that base, working your way up.

So you want the 3rd edition core as the basis of a revised 40k? I don't. Like at all. It was about as blatant of a model count inflation for sales purposes as it gets. "Make things faster so we can keep the game size in points the same, but half the number of points each model costs. All the people who want to collect a standard "army" will buy twice as much!" I want the wargames I play to be designed with decisions focused on the best game play, not pushing model sales.

 Elemental wrote:
40k? I wouldn't even know where to begin.

It's not simple. It's not newbie friendly. It's barriers to entry are still far too high. It's ---not--- a casual game.

Since I'm the one that brought up 40k's sufficiency as a game that people can play without taking it seriously, I meant the way people actually do that with 40k. Not that it is optimal at all for it. Just that it is sufficient. Or maybe that people even do it despite its characteristics. When I say 40k is good enough for GW's purposes (provide a framework for model sales, be playable by a portion of their customer base) I'm not praising it as optimal for those purposes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unfortunately despite GW's glacial change, they are still slaves to this insane secrecy nonsense. Their big 'here's what's coming next' exposes on their community website pretty much only happen after some chucklehead stuck in an earthquake with nothing better to do than take crappy photographs has got their hands on a copy of an upcoming WD.

The secrecy thing is a direct result of other manufacturers being faster to get things to the market than them. Though in this day of 3d design and lowered master production turn around times, they can't win. When the latest release has a new heavy weapon or something, resin bits makers can design, master and cast their version in a matter of days, still beating them to the market. What GW doesn't get is that these accessories are not a threat. So everything is sooper secret even if the cost of lost hype and talk and planning up coming purchases or preordering is higher than a bit of money being diverted to 3rd party bitz manufacturers. <-- not saying it is for sure, just that it's possible.

There's a small gaming convention the next city over and the local GW store is actually involved and one of the conditions is that the GW games have no third party models or bits allowed. So the entire event is manufacturer locked. Playing Bolt Action there? You can only use Warlord 28mm WW2 guys and vehicle kits. The funny thing is that it's actually preventing GW models from hitting the table as the Kings of War community is half made up of people who use GW's fantasy miniatures.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Unfortunately despite GW's glacial change, they are still slaves to this insane secrecy nonsense. Their big 'here's what's coming next' exposes on their community website pretty much only happen after some chucklehead stuck in an earthquake with nothing better to do than take crappy photographs has got their hands on a copy of an upcoming WD.

I know it's irrelevant to the discussion really, but that quote was H.B.M.C. not me.

Sorry about that! Fixed it.

 frozenwastes wrote:


There's a small gaming convention the next city over and the local GW store is actually involved and one of the conditions is that the GW games have no third party models or bits allowed. So the entire event is manufacturer locked. Playing Bolt Action there? You can only use Warlord 28mm WW2 guys and vehicle kits. The funny thing is that it's actually preventing GW models from hitting the table as the Kings of War community is half made up of people who use GW's fantasy miniatures.

Why would GW Games>GW model only rules also force other company games to follow the same rule? Warlord actively promote other company models within their rulebooks, so its not locked into "wanna play Bolt Action? WARLORD ONLY"

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:


There's a small gaming convention the next city over and the local GW store is actually involved and one of the conditions is that the GW games have no third party models or bits allowed. So the entire event is manufacturer locked. Playing Bolt Action there? You can only use Warlord 28mm WW2 guys and vehicle kits. The funny thing is that it's actually preventing GW models from hitting the table as the Kings of War community is half made up of people who use GW's fantasy miniatures.

Why would GW Games>GW model only rules also force other company games to follow the same rule? Warlord actively promote other company models within their rulebooks, so its not locked into "wanna play Bolt Action? WARLORD ONLY"

That's because they're tiny and poor entities trying to grab a market share.

Of course they're whoring out, that's how you get there.

Then you cash in.

morgoth wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:


There's a small gaming convention the next city over and the local GW store is actually involved and one of the conditions is that the GW games have no third party models or bits allowed. So the entire event is manufacturer locked. Playing Bolt Action there? You can only use Warlord 28mm WW2 guys and vehicle kits. The funny thing is that it's actually preventing GW models from hitting the table as the Kings of War community is half made up of people who use GW's fantasy miniatures.

Why would GW Games>GW model only rules also force other company games to follow the same rule? Warlord actively promote other company models within their rulebooks, so its not locked into "wanna play Bolt Action? WARLORD ONLY"

That's because they're tiny and poor entities trying to grab a market share.

Of course they're whoring out, that's how you get there.

Then you cash in.

I mean within the convention. GW only want GW stuff being used in their games, fair enough, but why are other games also manufacturer locked? They'll be free to have their own approach unless GW has insisted on it as a blanket rule across the whole event?

I thought they had, now I'm less sure as they seem to slip a tiny bit again.

On the subject of 'hush-hush, secret squirrel' stuff....

The pace may not be as glacial as first thought. Remember, they're doing a Studio Seminar at Adepticon this year, and have promised...

Warhammer Community post wrote:We’re going to be showing off some upcoming releases for the first time. We can’t say much more at the moment but rest assured, we’ll be showcasing some very cool stuff.

So that in itself is a big old change. They've done Studio Seminars before, but a long old time ago. Sadly, I can't for the life of me remember if they did sneak peaks at those.

But it's a definite shift. Now, how much they show off, who knows? Will it be a collection of forthcoming 'Rumour Engine' style teaser close ups, or full pics of the forthcoming kits? Will it even be kits, or just a run down of books to come? Just got to wait and see.

Are you sure that quote was GW? It sounds exactly like Palladium Books...

Lifted straight from the Warhammer Community post

Joyboozer wrote:
Are you sure that quote was GW? It sounds exactly like Palladium Books...

It's from here.

Games Workshop Studio Preview

Wednesday – 8:00 PM and 10:00 PM

This is cool.

We’re going to be showing off some upcoming releases for the first time. We can’t say much more at the moment but rest assured, we’ll be showcasing some very cool stuff.

Herzlos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Well if you are happy with older models why not just keep using them? Old models are perfectly fine and legal models so unless you hate the look no reason to not use them.

If you use models old enough, there's a chance you'll get pulled up for using non-GW models in stores, as the staffer probably won't recognise them. How much effort you wanted to put in from that point is up to you, but the tab that says "GW" will be well hidden by the base.

Doubtful there's really that many models where GW style is hard to spot though. And that's like '80's models probably.

Hmmm Curious since Apeticon is in March will GW preview 8th edition instead of just minis? What do you think, possible or not? I mean anything is possible but do you think the new GW would do this since the old GW would never do this.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I mean within the convention. GW only want GW stuff being used in their games, fair enough, but why are other games also manufacturer locked? They'll be free to have their own approach unless GW has insisted on it as a blanket rule across the whole event?

For the record this has nothing to do with Warlord Games. GW and a couple local retailers are running the event and the GW manager and the two other store owners arrived at this policy for their event. It's obviously aimed at keeping non-GW parts out of the games there, but has had an inadvertent chilling effect. There's also a prohibition on electronic rules at the event even though the manufacturers of the games that will be played sell ebooks of their rules. This same convention in question also banned X-Wing from being played there.

Basically it's a handful of small retailers and one GW manager trying to put the genie back in the bottle in terms of the internet being both a means of letting people know about all sorts of miniatures and model kits and being an easy means of transferring rules information through electronic rulebooks.

Warlord is not in any way involved except through any involvement they might have through the local retailer who sells their product. I have no idea what their current convention support approach looks like.

There's actually a surprising amount of gaming going on in the middle of nowhere across the prairie provinces of Canada, but getting gamers to actually come out to public events and meet one another has always been an uphill battle. Store politics and policies like this have contributed to the obfuscation of the gaming scene going back decades. Fortunately the internet/social media has finally started to change things and it is now very easy to find local opponents without the involvement of the local store interests.

This has nothing to do with GW as a whole except for how the closest GW store manager happens to be working with a couple other store owners for an event where they dictate what can and can't happen there down to not mixing miniatures with rules made by other companies. The GW store sells 40k and AoS, one other store sells Bolt Action and one other store sells all three as well as Flames of War and other stuff. So it makes sense that they want to be the source for those games and don't want people who are there to find out about miniature gaming to know they can a) use whatever miniatures they want with whatever rules they want, b) that rules can be had in electronic formats and that c) you can even get miniatures on the internet and there are all sorts of companies that make them.

Their self interest here makes sense, it's just laughable and out of touch given that it's 2017 and not 1997.

-

 frozenwastes wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I mean within the convention. GW only want GW stuff being used in their games, fair enough, but why are other games also manufacturer locked? They'll be free to have their own approach unless GW has insisted on it as a blanket rule across the whole event?

For the record this has nothing to do with Warlord Games. GW and a couple local retailers are running the event and the GW manager and the two other store owners arrived at this policy for their event. It's obviously aimed at keeping non-GW parts out of the games there, but has had an inadvertent chilling effect. There's also a prohibition on electronic rules at the event even though the manufacturers of the games that will be played sell ebooks of their rules. This same convention in question also banned X-Wing from being played there.

Basically it's a handful of small retailers and one GW manager trying to put the genie back in the bottle in terms of the internet being both a means of letting people know about all sorts of miniatures and model kits and being an easy means of transferring rules information through electronic rulebooks.

Warlord is not in any way involved except through any involvement they might have through the local retailer who sells their product. I have no idea what their current convention support approach looks like.

There's actually a surprising amount of gaming going on in the middle of nowhere across the prairie provinces of Canada, but getting gamers to actually come out to public events and meet one another has always been an uphill battle. Store politics and policies like this have contributed to the obfuscation of the gaming scene going back decades. Fortunately the internet/social media has finally started to change things and it is now very easy to find local opponents without the involvement of the local store interests.

This has nothing to do with GW as a whole except for how the closest GW store manager happens to be working with a couple other store owners for an event where they dictate what can and can't happen there down to not mixing miniatures with rules made by other companies. The GW store sells 40k and AoS, one other store sells Bolt Action and one other store sells all three as well as Flames of War and other stuff. So it makes sense that they want to be the source for those games and don't want people who are there to find out about miniature gaming to know they can a) use whatever miniatures they want with whatever rules they want, b) that rules can be had in electronic formats and that c) you can even get miniatures on the internet and there are all sorts of companies that make them.

Their self interest here makes sense, it's just laughable and out of touch given that it's 2017 and not 1997.

-

You're mostly right, but I wouldn't want to play against KoW fillers if I was playing WHFB, and I generally hate most non-GW models in 40K, including the plastic-toy-like IK replacement by dreamforge, etc.

It just breaks the setting, like those pink armies with butterflies on them.

That's like... your opinion dude.

There should never ever be a strict rule to demand a Ruleset to only being played with the ruleset's designers company's miniatures. Never ever.

morgoth wrote:


You're mostly right, but I wouldn't want to play against KoW fillers if I was playing WHFB, and I generally hate most non-GW models in 40K, including the plastic-toy-like IK replacement by dreamforge, etc.

It just breaks the setting, like those pink armies with butterflies on them.

Wow really? So if someone had a fantastic looking painted converted army with a mix of GW and non-GW parts you wouldn't play them?

That's not what he said.

Even GW tournaments at Hq were permissive of using bits from elsewhere.

 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

morgoth wrote:


You're mostly right, but I wouldn't want to play against KoW fillers if I was playing WHFB, and I generally hate most non-GW models in 40K, including the plastic-toy-like IK replacement by dreamforge, etc.

It just breaks the setting, like those pink armies with butterflies on them.

Wow really? So if someone had a fantastic looking painted converted army with a mix of GW and non-GW parts you wouldn't play them?

Actually, I would love to play them if they have non-GW parts that fit perfectly in the GW universe, I even own alternative sculpts which I love - but I picked them because they look awesome and fit perfectly in the existing GW product aesthetics (they also cost 2x the price of the GW minis...).

What I really profoundly dislike is when people get models that simply don't fit in the existing setting, even more so when it's obvious they did it for money saving reasons (like the Dreamforge Leviathan).

I, for one, support Event Organizers who try to ensure everyone has a great time in the fictional universe of their choice.

morgoth wrote:


You're mostly right, but I wouldn't want to play against KoW fillers if I was playing WHFB, and I generally hate most non-GW models in 40K, including the plastic-toy-like IK replacement by dreamforge, etc.

It just breaks the setting, like those pink armies with butterflies on them.

This is the problem with the hobby these days, people believe it's the hhhhobby.

My KoW armies are a nice mix of GW, Mantic and half a dozen other company's models. I can pick the figures that suit the stats and I like the look of most. So much freedom.

This ridiculous culture of "rules writer's models only" leads to poor rules that rapidly become unbalanced as new figures are released to sell them.

Also, Morgoth, you realise some companies just make rules and not figures? I guess we're meant to play them with counters.

#sigh

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

morgoth wrote:


You're mostly right, but I wouldn't want to play against KoW fillers if I was playing WHFB, and I generally hate most non-GW models in 40K, including the plastic-toy-like IK replacement by dreamforge, etc.

It just breaks the setting, like those pink armies with butterflies on them.

This is the problem with the hobby these days, people believe it's the hhhhobby.

My KoW armies are a nice mix of GW, Mantic and half a dozen other company's models. I can pick the figures that suit the stats and I like the look of most. So much freedom.

This ridiculous culture of "rules writer's models only" leads to poor rules that rapidly become unbalanced as new figures are released to sell them.

Also, Morgoth, you realise some companies just make rules and not figures? I guess we're meant to play them with counters.

#sigh

Good for you, it's not like bringing in non-Mantic models doesn't improve things anyway.

There's no ridiculous culture, WHFB and 40K go with a setting, with a universe which has clearly defined visual aesthetics.

I, and most people I know who have taken interest in 40K or WHFB, like the universe as it was defined.

You can't expect me to want to play against your little ponies or half-LoTR half-WHFB half-cheap fantasy army just because I would like to play a game of WHFB.


The companies you mention don't have a universe defined, so you can't really break the coherency by bringing anything.

But clearly, you do realize 40K has way more than just rules, it's a whole big package and people who like any parts of this package can have fun with people who like any other part of this package so long as everyone respects the package.

What's not to like about that?

So you wouldn't play against old armies than? Armies that do not fit the powerporn fantasy of 2017? Like 80s miniatures?

But clearly, you do realize 40K has way more than just rules, it's a whole big package and people who like any parts of this package can have fun with people who like any other part of this package so long as everyone respects the package.

What's not to like about that?

Replace 'package' with 'trap' and you might begin to understand. It's more about keeping you inside GW's ecosystem and away from anything else, than about fulfilling your every gaming need.

What makes it ironic is that Dreamforge's aesthetic should just scratch the surface of the variation of guard regiments suggested by the fluff in the 'package'. I remember 3rd ed mentions of feudal/medieval worlds, which should alllow you to stick a rifle in the hands of a Perry or Fireforge plastic figure. And what about the tiny handful of alternate guard miniatures (struggling against the Cadian monoculture) like Valhallans or Steel Legion? Do appropriate proxies from WWI - WWII ranges totally ruin that 40K aesthetic?

RoninXiC wrote:
So you wouldn't play against old armies than? Armies that do not fit the powerporn fantasy of 2017? Like 80s miniatures?

I dislike many of the old miniatures, they're ugly.

So you wouldn't play against someone who plays with the wrong miniatures?

 Vermis wrote:

But clearly, you do realize 40K has way more than just rules, it's a whole big package and people who like any parts of this package can have fun with people who like any other part of this package so long as everyone respects the package.

What's not to like about that?

Replace 'package' with 'trap' and you might begin to understand. It's more about keeping you inside GW's ecosystem and away from anything else, than about fulfilling your every gaming need.

And how is that a trap?

I'm keeping myself to Eldar and I'm not interested in other collections.

I'm happy with Eldar fighting the other 40k races.

And I'm happy with the price/quality/universe compromise.

 Vermis wrote:


What makes it ironic is that Dreamforge's aesthetic should just scratch the surface of the variation of guard regiments suggested by the fluff in the 'package'. I remember 3rd ed mentions of feudal/medieval worlds, which should alllow you to stick a rifle in the hands of a Perry or Fireforge plastic figure. And what about the tiny handful of alternate guard miniatures (struggling against the Cadian monoculture) like Valhallans or Steel Legion? Do appropriate proxies from WWI - WWII ranges totally ruin that 40K aesthetic?

Yes well it looks like it doesn't belong.

And also I hate roughriders and your medieval lasrifle boys.
I'm not happy about the Imperial Guard Russians and Germans either but hey what can you do about it...
I'm quite sure proxies would make it even worse, but I'd have to see it to discuss it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoninXiC wrote:
So you wouldn't play against someone who plays with the wrong miniatures?

I would rather avoid that when possible, yes.
And I would totally avoid it if it goes full poney.

From a tournament point of view, you also have to consider the potential for opponent confusion.

Now, some Proxy stuff will likely be OK - so alternate Guard sculpts where it's obvious what's a lascannon and what's an autocannon, and that Tank A is clearly intended to be a Leman Russ equivalent by the sculptor.

Others? Not so much. If the models aren't the same scale, it interferes with True Line of Sight - and like or dislike that rule - it's still a rule to be adhered to.

It's the same personal rule I apply to proxy models - can I, at a glance, tell what's what? If my opponent has to take time each turn to remind what's what, the proxy has gone too far. And that I apply to proxy GW models as well. Don't arrange a game with me if your Lascannons might be Lascannons, Missle Launchers and Heavy Bolters in the same list, because you don't have the right models. Personally, I'm ok with say, all Lascannons in fact being Heavy Bolters. That helps eliminate the confusion. But when it's all jumbled up, the visual cues go out the window. That slows down play, and can lead to tactical blunders because what I thought was a Heavy Bolter suddenly rips the side off my Transport, incinerating the troops inside.

Proxying things is completely different to outright replacements.

It's one thing to say your lascannon is a plasma gun. It's another to use a completely different style of miniatures.

Still proxy in my lexicon - provided that I can spot the difference between your Guardsmen and your Stormtoopers, and know what they're carrying from across the board, I'll probably be fine - again provided they're reasonable sized (so actual 28mm would be too diddy, and thus give you an arguable edge when it comes to TLOS)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still proxy in my lexicon - provided that I can spot the difference between your Guardsmen and your Stormtoopers, and know what they're carrying from across the board, I'll probably be fine - again provided they're reasonable sized (so actual 28mm would be too diddy, and thus give you an arguable edge when it comes to TLOS)

It's not proxy to most people, maybe you should alter your lexicon.

Otherwise, beer cans are also proxy drop pods, which I think most people will disagree with.

Whereas, nobody really cares whether your land speeder storm is a real storm or just a regular land speeder.

morgoth wrote:


Whereas, nobody really cares whether your land speeder storm is a real storm or just a regular land speeder.

But it breaks the immersion if its one thing acting as another.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Whereas, nobody really cares whether your land speeder storm is a real storm or just a regular land speeder.

But it breaks the immersion if its one thing acting as another.

Slightly, but it doesn't break the universe.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Still proxy in my lexicon - provided that I can spot the difference between your Guardsmen and your Stormtoopers, and know what they're carrying from across the board, I'll probably be fine - again provided they're reasonable sized (so actual 28mm would be too diddy, and thus give you an arguable edge when it comes to TLOS)

some see a big difference between "proxy" and "count as" (at least here)
The red Rhino is a chimera, the blue rhino is an razorback with laser/plasma gun and the black rhino is a drop pod = proxy and not accepted outside play testing and asking the opponent before.

coming up with an IK army 100% out of PuppetWar Walker is considered "count as" and no one cares

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Whereas, nobody really cares whether your land speeder storm is a real storm or just a regular land speeder.

But it breaks the immersion if its one thing acting as another.

Or when one is shooting up a Speeder Squadron, where all the models are the standard HB loadout, but amongst them there's one with a Multimelta instead, and one with Assault Cannon underslung.

But proxy or 'counts as' - makes no difference to me. So long as it's clear what's what, and it doesn't look like you've modelled, proxied or 'counts as'd' for advantage, I'm flexible.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Deathworld-Forest

Some times i wonder if i'm too bitter and cynical, then i see stuff like this and realise no i'm right.

£80 for that is nutz.

It's a boxed set of what appears to be four lots of terrain, which would normally be a more palatable £20 each.

I'm still flabergasted they want near £100 for terrain, i bet i could go to a pet shop and get something similar together for £20.

Personally, I don't care what figures are used as long as they FIT. Star wars converted space marines, as cool as they could be, don't fit. I might play someone, but I'll be shaking my head the entire time. same with things like pink glittery necrons (actually seen this), or brony space marines, etc. I get creativity, but at the end of the day I want immersion into the world.

Back on topic a bit, those deathworld forests look really cool, but not at that price point.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's a boxed set of what appears to be four lots of terrain, which would normally be a more palatable £20 each.

That's only "more palatable" if you consider GW prices reasonable in the first place. Those terrain pieces are awful...just abject in every way. £20 borders on daylight robbery for one of the sets.

Let's not even talk about the rules for them.

In general it seems GW are getting a little bit better but they're coming from a position so far behind how a modern gaming company should be run they're still a long way off where they should be IMO. The lack of information about new releases is ridiculous and prices remain too high, though at least there are now more boxed sets that represent actual deals which will help people get started.

hobojebus wrote:
I'm still flabergasted they want near £100 for terrain, i bet i could go to a pet shop and get something similar together for £20.

£20? Extravagance. Card and glue. So far.

I'll bet something more leggy wouldn't be impossible with a bit of cheap wire and cheap putty, too. And not much worse than the £80 option.

(But maybe they'll hold a seminar about it. That'll make it worth the price. )

morgoth wrote:


There's no ridiculous culture, WHFB and 40K go with a setting, with a universe which has clearly defined visual aesthetics.
I, and most people I know who have taken interest in 40K or WHFB, like the universe as it was defined.
You can't expect me to want to play against your little ponies or half-LoTR half-WHFB half-cheap fantasy army just because I would like to play a game of WHFB.

The companies you mention don't have a universe defined, so you can't really break the coherency by bringing anything.
But clearly, you do realize 40K has way more than just rules, it's a whole big package and people who like any parts of this package can have fun with people who like any other part of this package so long as everyone respects the package.

What's not to like about that?

Nothing, and there you seem to agree with me.
The ridiculous culture I was referring to wasn't that. It was this commonly seen discussion on dakka.

Person 1: "If you like rank and file, why don't you try KoW"
Person 2: "No, the models are gak"

(And you could replace the statement by 'Person 1' with another game or genre)

My point is that Person 2, said you could play the game. Nothing about the models. An average hhhhobbyist from GW, seems to immediately link a game with the figures. A vast majority of games out there don't require models by the same manufacturer. I'm certainly not saying I'd play my 40k Necrons against someone's my little pony collection. I too would want the immersion. But for some games, a unit of fantasy skeletons with swords and shields are skeletons with swords and shields regardless of the manufacturer. 28mm Dark Age Irish from Gripping Beast and 28mm Dark Age Irish from Footsore are all Dark Age Irish.

I just wish that people in the hhhobby could understand that this is the case in the rest of the hobby.

hobojebus wrote:
I'm still flabergasted they want near £100 for terrain, i bet i could go to a pet shop and get something similar together for £20.

I guess they hope that eventually people like morgoth will start refusing to play on tables containing anything but GW (tm) terrain since it would break their immersion to know the models representing troops or trees in a fictional universe were sold by a different company in the real world (or even built from scratch! )

Personally, my suspension of disbelief, as well as enjoyment of the game, would take a lot bigger hit facing an opponent who's army fielded these:

rather than one who's army included these:

 Vermis wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I'm still flabergasted they want near £100 for terrain, i bet i could go to a pet shop and get something similar together for £20.

£20? Extravagance. Card and glue. So far.

I'll bet something more leggy wouldn't be impossible with a bit of cheap wire and cheap putty, too. And not much worse than the £80 option.

(But maybe they'll hold a seminar about it. That'll make it worth the price. )

I'd actually split the difference. Battlefield in a Box is fantastic, comes pre-painted, and runs between $40 and $60 for the bigger stuff (based on my LGS' prices).

http://www.gf9.com/

 Zywus wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I'm still flabergasted they want near £100 for terrain, i bet i could go to a pet shop and get something similar together for £20.

I guess they hope that eventually people like morgoth will start refusing to play on tables containing anything but GW (tm) terrain since it would break their immersion to know the models representing troops or trees in a fictional universe were sold by a different company in the real world (or even built from scratch! )

Personally, my suspension of disbelief, as well as enjoyment of the game, would take a lot bigger hit facing an opponent who's army fielded these:

Spoiler:

rather than one who's army included these:

Spoiler:

Thanks for the ad hominem.

And sorry, I make my own terrain and game tables.

morgoth wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I'm still flabergasted they want near £100 for terrain, i bet i could go to a pet shop and get something similar together for £20.

I guess they hope that eventually people like morgoth will start refusing to play on tables containing anything but GW (tm) terrain since it would break their immersion to know the models representing troops or trees in a fictional universe were sold by a different company in the real world (or even built from scratch! )

Personally, my suspension of disbelief, as well as enjoyment of the game, would take a lot bigger hit facing an opponent who's army fielded these:

Spoiler:

rather than one who's army included these:

Spoiler:

Thanks for the ad hominem.

And sorry, I make my own terrain and game tables.

Then I'm afraid I'd have to refuse playing at your place.

Using anything other than exclusively GW models, GW terrain and GW realm of battle boards would ruin my immersion of the 40K universe.

 Zywus wrote:
Then I'm afraid I'd have to refuse playing at your place.

Using anything other than exclusively GW models, GW terrain and GW realm of battle boards would ruin my immersion of the 40K universe.

Here, here. The point of the game is to enjoy the experience. It really gets to me when it's clear someone painted their army in colors produced by another manufacturer, like Tamiya or Vallejo. It takes so much away from the game, I usually have to walk away.

For that matter, I refuse to play against armies with models that were assembled using anything other than official GW glue. If I suspect the models were removed from the sprue with anything other than a GW hobby knife, I am out of there.

That better be citadel brand sand and slate on that base buddy, or get outta my face!

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Then I'm afraid I'd have to refuse playing at your place.

Using anything other than exclusively GW models, GW terrain and GW realm of battle boards would ruin my immersion of the 40K universe.

Here, here. The point of the game is to enjoy the experience. It really gets to me when it's clear someone painted their army in colors produced by another manufacturer, like Tamiya or Vallejo. It takes so much away from the game, I usually have to walk away.

For that matter, I refuse to play against armies with models that were assembled using anything other than official GW glue. If I suspect the models were removed from the sprue with anything other than a GW hobby knife, I am out of there.

So take it the other way: what about games like Warmachine and X-Wing? Would you refuse to play someone who used non-PP miniatures? What about playing a game of 40k with all my Astra Militarum as:



I think morgoth's position is a bit extreme, but not unreasonable. Some of the 3rd party or proxy models are pretty awful.

Wayniac wrote:
Personally, I don't care what figures are used as long as they FIT. Star wars converted space marines, as cool as they could be, don't fit. I might play someone, but I'll be shaking my head the entire time. same with things like pink glittery necrons (actually seen this), or brony space marines, etc. I get creativity, but at the end of the day I want immersion into the world.

Back on topic a bit, those deathworld forests look really cool, but not at that price point.

This is just an example, not GW models, but I have all my Mantic Enforcers (fully modeled correctly) but with the paint scheme being that of the Iron Man various armor marks. Would that break your "not fitting" line of thought? And, while asking that, I want to mention that when Mantic did their kickstarter, they offered multiple paint set options, and one was designed to be the red and gold if you wanted to go the playboy philanthropist route of armor...Mantic personally "okay'd" that line of thinking/painting in their first Deadzone kickstarter.

 jreilly89 wrote:



I think morgoth's position is a bit extreme, but not unreasonable. Some of the 3rd party or proxy models are pretty awful.

No problem with those, some GW models look worse
and a good paint job always helps (well painted awful models > bad painted good models)

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Personally, I don't care what figures are used as long as they FIT. Star wars converted space marines, as cool as they could be, don't fit. I might play someone, but I'll be shaking my head the entire time. same with things like pink glittery necrons (actually seen this), or brony space marines, etc. I get creativity, but at the end of the day I want immersion into the world.

Back on topic a bit, those deathworld forests look really cool, but not at that price point.

This is just an example, not GW models, but I have all my Mantic Enforcers (fully modeled correctly) but with the paint scheme being that of the Iron Man various armor marks. Would that break your "not fitting" line of thought? And, while asking that, I want to mention that when Mantic did their kickstarter, they offered multiple paint set options, and one was designed to be the red and gold if you wanted to go the playboy philanthropist route of armor...Mantic personally "okay'd" that line of thinking/painting in their first Deadzone kickstarter.

Yes. If we were playing Warmachine and you had all your guys modeled as Batman, I'd be pretty annoyed.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Personally, I don't care what figures are used as long as they FIT. Star wars converted space marines, as cool as they could be, don't fit. I might play someone, but I'll be shaking my head the entire time. same with things like pink glittery necrons (actually seen this), or brony space marines, etc. I get creativity, but at the end of the day I want immersion into the world.

Back on topic a bit, those deathworld forests look really cool, but not at that price point.

This is just an example, not GW models, but I have all my Mantic Enforcers (fully modeled correctly) but with the paint scheme being that of the Iron Man various armor marks. Would that break your "not fitting" line of thought? And, while asking that, I want to mention that when Mantic did their kickstarter, they offered multiple paint set options, and one was designed to be the red and gold if you wanted to go the playboy philanthropist route of armor...Mantic personally "okay'd" that line of thinking/painting in their first Deadzone kickstarter.

Yes. If we were playing Warmachine and you had all your guys modeled as Batman, I'd be pretty annoyed.

Even if the company recommended it? Like I mentioned, in my case, the company flat out offered a paint set they built using army painter for exactly the purpose of what my project is. If PP offered a P3 paint set for one of their armies that was essentially a "dark night" set that was an obvious rip on Batman (yes, I know it should be Dark Knight, but putting it that way for copyright yada yada), would you have issue with it? Cuz...that would be a company promoted paint scheme then.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Personally, I don't care what figures are used as long as they FIT. Star wars converted space marines, as cool as they could be, don't fit. I might play someone, but I'll be shaking my head the entire time. same with things like pink glittery necrons (actually seen this), or brony space marines, etc. I get creativity, but at the end of the day I want immersion into the world.

Back on topic a bit, those deathworld forests look really cool, but not at that price point.

This is just an example, not GW models, but I have all my Mantic Enforcers (fully modeled correctly) but with the paint scheme being that of the Iron Man various armor marks. Would that break your "not fitting" line of thought? And, while asking that, I want to mention that when Mantic did their kickstarter, they offered multiple paint set options, and one was designed to be the red and gold if you wanted to go the playboy philanthropist route of armor...Mantic personally "okay'd" that line of thinking/painting in their first Deadzone kickstarter.

Yes. If we were playing Warmachine and you had all your guys modeled as Batman, I'd be pretty annoyed.

Even if the company recommended it? Like I mentioned, in my case, the company flat out offered a paint set they built using army painter for exactly the purpose of what my project is. If PP offered a P3 paint set for one of their armies that was essentially a "dark night" set that was an obvious rip on Batman (yes, I know it should be Dark Knight, but putting it that way for copyright yada yada), would you have issue with it? Cuz...that would be a company promoted paint scheme then.

Yeah, company or not, that's pretty immersion breaking. Likewise, someone converted and painted a Captain America Space Marine. It's cool for a trophy, but if the guy had a whole army of them, I'd think it's pretty annoying.

Alright, well, then please don't play me in Warpath or Deadzone then. Cuz you'd be facing a LOT of Tony Stark stuff. Lol. And I'd really hate having to apologize for the mouth-frothing that would occur as you ate the rulebook in retaliation!

Sorry guys, done with the semi-off topic stuff of relating other companies minis as an example!!

 jreilly89 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Then I'm afraid I'd have to refuse playing at your place.

Using anything other than exclusively GW models, GW terrain and GW realm of battle boards would ruin my immersion of the 40K universe.

Here, here. The point of the game is to enjoy the experience. It really gets to me when it's clear someone painted their army in colors produced by another manufacturer, like Tamiya or Vallejo. It takes so much away from the game, I usually have to walk away.

For that matter, I refuse to play against armies with models that were assembled using anything other than official GW glue. If I suspect the models were removed from the sprue with anything other than a GW hobby knife, I am out of there.

So take it the other way: what about games like Warmachine and X-Wing? Would you refuse to play someone who used non-PP miniatures? What about playing a game of 40k with all my Astra Militarum as:



I think morgoth's position is a bit extreme, but not unreasonable. Some of the 3rd party or proxy models are pretty awful.

It is an unreasonable position. In your armymen example the problem one might have is that the models are of low quality or do not fit with the aestetic of the universe. Regardless of who produced them.

I'd much rather face an army made up exclusively of Orcs from Spellcrow, Kromlech etc than an army consisting of a hundred identical 2nd edition monopose plastic goff boyz.

Or to illustrate further. Would you prefer your opponent has some of these in his army:


or some of these:



If you have a problem with awful models, that's one thing. If your problem is wholly about whether a model is produced by GW or not, without consideration for whether or not the models are awful or not, that's a unreasonable position.

 Zywus wrote:

If you have a problem with awful models, that's one thing. If your problem is wholly about whether a model is produced by GW or not, without consideration for whether or not the models are awful or not, that's a unreasonable position.

Very well said. Million times this.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Yeah, company or not, that's pretty immersion breaking. Likewise, someone converted and painted a Captain America Space Marine. It's cool for a trophy, but if the guy had a whole army of them, I'd think it's pretty annoying.

Why would red, white and blue colour schemed Space Marines break your immersion any more than the whole plethora of ridiculously colourful chapters which already exist in the fluff?

 Zywus wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Then I'm afraid I'd have to refuse playing at your place.

Using anything other than exclusively GW models, GW terrain and GW realm of battle boards would ruin my immersion of the 40K universe.

Here, here. The point of the game is to enjoy the experience. It really gets to me when it's clear someone painted their army in colors produced by another manufacturer, like Tamiya or Vallejo. It takes so much away from the game, I usually have to walk away.

For that matter, I refuse to play against armies with models that were assembled using anything other than official GW glue. If I suspect the models were removed from the sprue with anything other than a GW hobby knife, I am out of there.

So take it the other way: what about games like Warmachine and X-Wing? Would you refuse to play someone who used non-PP miniatures? What about playing a game of 40k with all my Astra Militarum as:



I think morgoth's position is a bit extreme, but not unreasonable. Some of the 3rd party or proxy models are pretty awful.

It is an unreasonable position. In your armymen example the problem one might have is that the models are of low quality or do not fit with the aestetic of the universe. Regardless of who produced them.

I'd much rather face an army made up exclusively of Orcs from Spellcrow, Kromlech etc than an army consisting of a hundred identical 2nd edition monopose plastic goff boyz.

Or to illustrate further. Would you prefer your opponent has some of these in his army:


or some of these:



If you have a problem with awful models, that's one thing. If your problem is wholly about whether a model is produced by GW or not, without consideration for whether or not the models are awful or not, that's a unreasonable position.

The only thing that was ever stated is that models breaking the immersion can make it less fun for some people including me.

Nobody cares who makes the models I think.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Then I'm afraid I'd have to refuse playing at your place.

Using anything other than exclusively GW models, GW terrain and GW realm of battle boards would ruin my immersion of the 40K universe.

Here, here. The point of the game is to enjoy the experience. It really gets to me when it's clear someone painted their army in colors produced by another manufacturer, like Tamiya or Vallejo. It takes so much away from the game, I usually have to walk away.

For that matter, I refuse to play against armies with models that were assembled using anything other than official GW glue. If I suspect the models were removed from the sprue with anything other than a GW hobby knife, I am out of there.

So take it the other way: what about games like Warmachine and X-Wing? Would you refuse to play someone who used non-PP miniatures? What about playing a game of 40k with all my Astra Militarum as:



I think morgoth's position is a bit extreme, but not unreasonable. Some of the 3rd party or proxy models are pretty awful.

So where does it stop?
Modding?
Kit-bashing?
Custom jobs?
Scratch builds?
I started with the 7th ed Space Wolves codex, I've been playing for what equates to the blink of an eye to some players but I took to tournaments quick and in the two years I played tournaments I've seen some truly terrible efforts using 100% GW products. One really comes to mind was Grey Knights - Usually lovely models, but the owner had used a GW spray paint that clearly reacted badly with the undried glue and damn near ate his models, the blisters in the paint were bad - so bad I suspect they were in the plastic.
My favorite was a guard army. The guy used small army men from a $2 shop and about two kits of IG to spread proper iconography. Only reason I know that is he told me.

morgoth wrote:
There's no ridiculous culture, WHFB and 40K go with a setting, with a universe which has clearly defined visual aesthetics.

I remember people saying the exact same thing when the Tau came out.

The truth is what people really mean by such sentiments is that they want others to conform to their desires. They want to be the judge of what fits in with the "clearly defined visual aesthetics."

But clearly, you do realize 40K has way more than just rules, it's a whole big package and people who like any parts of this package can have fun with people who like any other part of this package so long as everyone respects the package.

What's not to like about that?

Crappy stuff gets included and great stuff gets excluded based on who is selling it?

The down side should be fairly obvious. Which is why I think it's more about trying to control what other people do with their hobby. Fit in with the aesthetic I like as I claim it's somehow objective and not my opinion! Stuff clearly part of the history of 40k doesn't fit either! Respect my package!

No thanks!

If I were to pick an aesthetic for a 40k or WHFB project, I'd go something like this:



But I would never think that just because I like that others should conform to it or that it is *the* objective aesthetic. Even if I can back it up by saying it is at least the original aesthetic rather than the current "moar skullz 12 year old power fantasy" aesthetic.

Vermis wrote:
Replace 'package' with 'trap' and you might begin to understand. It's more about keeping you inside GW's ecosystem and away from anything else, than about fulfilling your every gaming need.

Well said. GW is still largely about maintaining an ignorant and segmented customer base so they can charge more. They can pass off bad rules, charge silly amounts for white glue, and jack their prices up to pretty crazy levels as long as they can maintain their virtual monopoly based on customer ignorance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

So take it the other way: what about games like Warmachine and X-Wing? Would you refuse to play someone who used non-PP miniatures? What about playing a game of 40k with all my Astra Militarum as:

Spoiler:

It'll always be imperial guard to me. "Astra whatever" is such a perfect example of financial interests clobbering creative interests. 40k became the most played miniature game on the planet and spread around the world with Imperial Guard and then GW discovers they can't own it legally so they scrap it. Lame. If GW was competing on a quality level in terms of rules and figures they wouldn't need to fall back on such lame renaming. The appearance of third party bits sellers that caused all these legally motivated changes was the direct result of GW scrapping their own bits service. They made a bonehead move and then tried to quash the result with lawyers and then threw their hands up in the air and changed the names of things to extra stupid fake latin. Treating a symptom instead of addressing the root cause.

As for the plastic army men, heck yes as long as they were painted. Maybe even once if they weren't painted. As for third party models in X-Wing, 3d printing the huge variety of ships and variants that have shown up in the star wars media over the years is definitely a thing. As for Warmachine, yes, I use Reaper Miniatures in my armies.

The hobby would likely not exist without people playing wargames with Airfix plastic soldiers in the 1960s. It's part of the history of the hobby and should be respected rather than derided.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Why would red, white and blue colour schemed Space Marines break your immersion any more than the whole plethora of ridiculously colourful chapters which already exist in the fluff?

I've thought that I'd quite like a couple of SM squads in white with green and purple trim. They'd be the 'Space Rangers' or the 'Star Commanders' or something.

frozenwastes wrote:
I remember people saying the exact same thing when the Tau came out.

Now you mention it, so do I! I got into the (hh)hobby just before they were released, and the online uproar about 'silly clean-looking anime rubbish' was pretty noticeable.

If GW was competing on a quality level in terms of rules and figures they wouldn't need to fall back on such lame renaming.

Well said yourself. I've thought that with the quality increase in GW's plastics, they could put out good, reasonably-priced generic minis (fantasy ones anyway) and clean up with WFB and non-GW army-building gamers alike. Third-party sellers and businesses like Mantic, AoW and Shieldwolf might barely have a look-in. But thanks to the fact it's GW, they isolated themselves even further, with the overblown EndTimes/AoS aesthetic (looking ironically like a WoW ripoff), raised prices, and doubling down on the 'buy this expensive box because it's got deadly roolz!!!' thing.

The hobby would likely not exist without people playing wargames with Airfix plastic soldiers in the 1960s. It's part of the history of the hobby and should be respected rather than derided.

Spoiler:

 Vermis wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:
I remember people saying the exact same thing when the Tau came out.

Now you mention it, so do I! I got into the (hh)hobby just before they were released, and the online uproar about 'silly clean-looking anime rubbish' was pretty noticeable.

It's been going on for years. People have this idea that 40k or the Old World (or the Age of Sigmar since that blew up) should look like it looked when they got into the game. Just like how I think the current design approach is very adolescent power fantasy and am not a huge fan. The main difference though is that I am aware it's preference and that I like the late 80s aesthetic because I started playing in the mid 1990s and that's what was presented at the time. The shift to something like we have today happened in 1997 with the rebranding for 3rd edition. I thought it hit a peak with Murderfang and his Murdeclaws from the town of Murderville, but releases still come out that push it even further. I thought the Tau were a nice reinjection of some of the cleaner lines of the past GW aesthetic.

I've thought that with the quality increase in GW's plastics, they could put out good, reasonably-priced generic minis (fantasy ones anyway) and clean up with WFB and non-GW army-building gamers alike. Third-party sellers and businesses like Mantic, AoW and Shieldwolf might barely have a look-in. But thanks to the fact it's GW, they isolated themselves even further, with the overblown EndTimes/AoS aesthetic (looking ironically like a WoW ripoff), raised prices, and doubling down on the 'buy this expensive box because it's got deadly roolz!!!' thing.

GW created their competition during the decline of LOTR. Their churn and burn approach to their customer base combined with massive yearly price hikes pretty much created the market for the hundreds of small competitors. It was also a perfect storm with the internet and online shopping maturing during that same time period. GW could have crushed them had they actually learned from the success of LOTR rather than just being scared of the effects of the popping of the bubble. Prior to the crash of LOTR GW had an approach of getting their product into as many hands as possible. Since the crash they've been going for an intentionally smaller customer base but one where each customer pays more money. They could have crushed the competition had they reversed course only slightly. Instead they consigned Warhammer to slowly bleed out and then die and ceded massive market share to their competitors.

I hope that's official Airfix static grass.

Seriously though, belter.

Those army men are actually Tamiya rather than Airfix. Don't tell the Airfix police! They'll send someone to tell us how the Tamiya figures don't mesh with the defined aesthetic of the Airfix package.

Found some classic army men painted up. Looks to be modern Chinese recasts of 1950s Marx stuff.


The main reason not to use these for 40k would be the scale would be way off. They're almost twice the height of a marine. I think they look pretty good painted up. A lot better than a lot of 40k stuff I've seen. Though if someone wants to pay top dollar for GW's stuff and then not paint it, that's their business.

 frozenwastes wrote:

The main reason not to use these for 40k would be the scale would be way off. They're almost twice the height of a marine.

Give it another year or so...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Yeah, company or not, that's pretty immersion breaking. Likewise, someone converted and painted a Captain America Space Marine. It's cool for a trophy, but if the guy had a whole army of them, I'd think it's pretty annoying.

Why would red, white and blue colour schemed Space Marines break your immersion any more than the whole plethora of ridiculously colourful chapters which already exist in the fluff?

Because it's pretty clearly trying to bring an outside universe into 40k? Same reason I posted above why I wouldn't play against a guy's Iron Man army, even though it's company sponsored: smashing two unintended universes together and ruining my immersion.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Because it's pretty clearly trying to bring an outside universe into 40k? Same reason I posted above why I wouldn't play against a guy's Iron Man army, even though it's company sponsored: smashing two unintended universes together and ruining my immersion.

Do you feel the same about official GW figures that are a direct rip-off of some other IP setting? Like Sly Marbo? Tau? Stormcast?

Given that GW used to encourage custom Space Marine Chapters, how close is too close in terms of inspiration from other worlds? What if the creator didn't realise the link?

Honestly if you're arguing against the GW IP continuum... why do you even play with GW miniatures or rules?

I find it incredibly self-centered to be unable to recongize that most people into 40k appreciate the 40k setting and that it is a core driver of their involvement in the hobby.

I'm only telling you I don't want to play your non-40k-themed army, what is there to disagree with?

Personally, I understand not wanting to play against action figures or army men or W/E in 40k; you want to play 40k with 40k models. Fair. But to deny a game because you don't like the way your opponent painted his army? Not gonna lie, that makes you kind of an ass. It's HIS army. He painted HIS models the way HE got enjoyment out of it.

You don't want to play against my Mantic models or someone else's army men or MLP toys in 40k because they're a different scale and they don't "fit"? Okay, I get it. No sweat. You don't want to play against my Mantic army in a Mantic game because you don't like how I've painted them? You aren't worth playing against. You don't decide my paint scheme.

And yes, every game is by permission (except tournaments, which you grant permission by paying entry). But don't ever try to dictate how someone needs to paint their army, otherwise it's "wrong". That's all I'm saying.

Herzlos wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Because it's pretty clearly trying to bring an outside universe into 40k? Same reason I posted above why I wouldn't play against a guy's Iron Man army, even though it's company sponsored: smashing two unintended universes together and ruining my immersion.

Do you feel the same about official GW figures that are a direct rip-off of some other IP setting? Like Sly Marbo? Tau? Stormcast?

Given that GW used to encourage custom Space Marine Chapters, how close is too close in terms of inspiration from other worlds? What if the creator didn't realise the link?

Well, if we want to get into it, Tau and Stormcast are garbage, and if I could, I'd rip them from the game Sly Marbo is fine because he's a single reference. If there was an army of Sly Marbos, Predator and Die Hard ripoffs, I'd refuse to play against that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Personally, I understand not wanting to play against action figures or army men or W/E in 40k; you want to play 40k with 40k models. Fair. But to deny a game because you don't like the way your opponent painted his army? Not gonna lie, that makes you kind of an ass. It's HIS army. He painted HIS models the way HE got enjoyment out of it.

You don't want to play against my Mantic models or someone else's army men or MLP toys in 40k because they're a different scale and they don't "fit"? Okay, I get it. No sweat. You don't want to play against my Mantic army in a Mantic game because you don't like how I've painted them? You aren't worth playing against. You don't decide my paint scheme.

And yes, every game is by permission (except tournaments, which you grant permission by paying entry). But don't ever try to dictate how someone needs to paint their army, otherwise it's "wrong". That's all I'm saying.

This only makes you an ass in the way that people refusing to play against unpainted armies does. Either both are sacred, or neither are.

Frozen wastes has already shown why arguing against people who think like morgoth is futile..

The truth is what people really mean by such sentiments is that they want others to conform to their desires. They want to be the judge of what fits in with the "clearly defined visual aesthetics."

Their line in the sand isn't straight, it's a meandering, wandering, occasionally tightly coiled, line that's unique to each person and basically boils down to "I can't handle other people having a different take on this universe, despite the fact this universe has been specifically engineered from the get go to allow for diverse ideas, and even includes as canon (or has at various points) the various "out of universe" references that are apparently such an issue."

Or even more succinctly "stop liking what I don't like."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If there was an army of Sly Marbos, Predator and Die Hard ripoffs, I'd refuse to play against that.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Sly Marbo is fine because he's a single reference. If there was an army of Sly Marbos, Predator and Die Hard ripoffs, I'd refuse to play against that.

Soo, Catachans?

morgoth wrote:


I'm only telling you I don't want to play your non-40k-themed army, what is there to disagree with?

you telling him he's doing his hobby wrong, perhaps?

 Azreal13 wrote:

If there was an army of Sly Marbos, Predator and Die Hard ripoffs, I'd refuse to play against that.

Spoiler:

Nice try. That's as much Rambo and Predator as it is Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and just basic Vietnam War inspiration. It's not as immersion breaking as:





Again, I'm fine with subtle influences or inspiration, but saying "LOL Tony Stark built an army of 40k Marines" is pretty dang stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

morgoth wrote:


I'm only telling you I don't want to play your non-40k-themed army, what is there to disagree with?

you telling him he's doing his hobby wrong, perhaps?

Where do you stand on the painted vs. unpainted debate, by chance?

Well, the problem with that Batman mini is that he has guns. And we all know Batman hates guns.

And...I'm not ignoring your other points. I'm just going to answer when I have access to a real keyboard instead of my phone.

JReilly, I'm just gonna ask you to look at my plog (pblog?) to see what I mean for my models, instead of inserting another company's models into a thread about GW. There are no "repulsor weapons" or anything that would involve PITA book keeping or anything. See if you'd still have issue with it. Like I said, I wouldn't use those Mantic Models in a GW game as space marines (without being a one-off game that I created first with a friend). Just hypothetically in the case of playing Warpath with those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what's wrong with the red and gold tau suit?! That looks perfectly acceptable under any circumstances to me.

jreilly89 wrote:ruining my immersion.

To you, and Morgoth: I can understand immersion. Background and characterful modelling are the biggest of the few factors that keep me hovering around GW. But in this case I think reality needs to intrude a little. The grand heroes and stoic warriors are little models that you push across hairy green mdf or injection-moulded tiles. The rules, despite how much the special rules bloat is called 'characterful', are still just an abstract system of numbers and dice rolls. Without that little paragraph saying "Murderius Codlatinus is a dead scary bloke. He gets extra attacks and gives extra Ld to everyone around him" it'd be practically meaningless. (Heck, from a certain PoV, the arbitrary feel of those kind of modifiers make 'em practically meaningless anyway) It's not exactly the Matrix.
Red and yellow armour might knock a chip out of some kind of fourth wall, but with all of the above, and the creativity and personal investment exhibited by the painter, it's negligible and so not worth getting wound up about. As has been said, they're not your minis. They're not scribbling new fluff into your books with biro. You just have to be a tiny bit gracious (or unclench) and play against them for an hour or so. Going so far as to refuse to play against them because they don't fit into some rigid view of the official fluff comes across like some of the worst Napoleonic button-counting grognards. Worse, because it's a fictional setting that - at one time, at least - encouraged personal interpretations and a tongue-in-cheek attitude.

TL;DR: toy soldiers - serrius biznis.

(This is in no way influenced by the fact that I was going to paint Malifaux constructs in red and yellow. )

morgoth wrote:Honestly if you're arguing against the GW IP continuum... why do you even play with GW miniatures or rules?

Because without the mindset that GW background MUST be used with GW models MUST be used with GW rules, I can pick and choose what I like. I like GW's high elf models and Ulthuan background, but I think WFB and AoS rules are execrable. But there are half a dozen other rulesets I can slip the models and setting into. (It matters not one whit that they don't get 'always strikes first', or whatever) I like Heresy's sci-fi troopers and won't touch 40K with a ten-foot skull-encrusted pole. I can use them with Warpath, ViDe:FuCo, or a range of other sci-fi rules, and still call them Imperial Guard. I like Epic rules, and this might be more an issue of availability, but I can mix Vanguard novan elites and Onslaught juno transports into an SM army, or use Heroic & Ros colonial brits as IG.

It's great.

Azreal13 wrote:Frozen wastes has already shown why arguing against people who think like morgoth is futile..

If there was an army of Sly Marbos, Predator and Die Hard ripoffs, I'd refuse to play against that.

Spoiler:

That's the other thing: 40K is largely based on 'ripoffs'. Space versions of their fantasy Tolkien and Moorcock ripoffs; Dune ripoffs; Nemesis the Warlock ripoffs; Judge Dredd ripoffs; Alien ripoffs; Terminator ripoffs; whatever anime that Tau rip off; even historical ripoffs... I think it puts complaints about one more tiny pop-culture reference into perspective.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

If there was an army of Sly Marbos, Predator and Die Hard ripoffs, I'd refuse to play against that.

Spoiler:

Nice try. That's as much Rambo and Predator as it is Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and just basic Vietnam War inspiration.

Things that are inspired by the Vietnam conflict are fine, but other things just as inspired by the Vietnam Conflict are not.

Their line in the sand isn't straight, it's a meandering, wandering, occasionally tightly coiled

Plus it took me several seconds to realize that Tau suit was an Iron Man copy, hardly immersion breaking if it's not noticeable until you look for it.

It just looks like a variant on

 Vermis wrote:

jreilly89 wrote:ruining my immersion.

To you, and Morgoth: I can understand immersion. Background and characterful modelling are the biggest of the few factors that keep me hovering around GW. But in this case I think reality needs to intrude a little. The grand heroes and stoic warriors are little models that you push across hairy green mdf or injection-moulded tiles. The rules, despite how much the special rules bloat is called 'characterful', are still just an abstract system of numbers and dice rolls. Without that little paragraph saying "Murderius Codlatinus is a dead scary bloke. He gets extra attacks and gives extra Ld to everyone around him" it'd be practically meaningless. (Heck, from a certain PoV, the arbitrary feel of those kind of modifiers make 'em practically meaningless anyway) It's not exactly the Matrix.
Red and yellow armour might knock a chip out of some kind of fourth wall, but with all of the above, and the creativity and personal investment exhibited by the painter, it's negligible and so not worth getting wound up about. As has been said, they're not your minis. They're not scribbling new fluff into your books with biro. You just have to be a tiny bit gracious (or unclench) and play against them for an hour or so. Going so far as to refuse to play against them because they don't fit into some rigid view of the official fluff comes across like some of the worst Napoleonic button-counting grognards. Worse, because it's a fictional setting that - at one time, at least - encouraged personal interpretations and a tongue-in-cheek attitude.

TL;DR: toy soldiers - serrius biznis.

That's the other thing: 40K is largely based on 'ripoffs'. Space versions of their fantasy Tolkien and Moorcock ripoffs; Dune ripoffs; Nemesis the Warlock ripoffs; Judge Dredd ripoffs; Alien ripoffs; Terminator ripoffs; whatever anime that Tau rip off; even historical ripoffs... I think it puts complaints about one more tiny pop-culture reference into perspective.

What I'm trying to get it as I spend a large amount of money and time on hand painted models, so I should be able to enjoy the hobby the way I want to. I don't go to tournaments, I play at a LGS, and usually with friends, who share (generally) my opinion on what is and isn't acceptable.

Also, if you think Morgoth and I are really too uptight about this, then you should have no problems facing someone who plops down paper cup Drop Pods or Sprue-Crons. That, or just accept people don't want to play the game the way you do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

If there was an army of Sly Marbos, Predator and Die Hard ripoffs, I'd refuse to play against that.

Spoiler:

Nice try. That's as much Rambo and Predator as it is Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and just basic Vietnam War inspiration.

Their line in the sand isn't straight, it's a meandering, wandering, occasionally tightly coiled

Things that are inspired by the Vietnam conflict are fine, but other things just as inspired by the Vietnam Conflict are not.

Thanks for cutting out this part:

Again, I'm fine with subtle influences or inspiration, but saying "LOL Tony Stark built an army of 40k Marines" is pretty dang stupid.

So, in summary, I have to play the game the way you want me to?

Yes. Because my way (having a live and let live attitude) is clearly the better way.

Thanks for cutting out this part:

It's a separate sentence, I didn't cut anything out, I quoted the part I was responding to. I didn't materially change what you had written in any way.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Nice try. That's as much Rambo and Predator as it is Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and just basic Vietnam War inspiration.

A Vietnam where everyone's Sly, or Arnie, or (to the credit of GW and the cover artist [one of the Kopinskis?]) Carl Weathers.

Why doesn't the basic Vietnam reference bother you, by the way? Why doesn't the transposition of an old real-world event and location into a far-future setting with giant supersoldiers, savage aliens, psychic demons and world-breaking catastrophes break your immersion?

And the Batman marine is hilarious, and the Tau-ny Stark is brilliant. I wouldn't mind playing a game against either.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Well, the problem with that Batman mini is that he has guns. And we all know Batman hates guns.

And...I'm not ignoring your other points. I'm just going to answer when I have access to a real keyboard instead of my phone.

JReilly, I'm just gonna ask you to look at my plog (pblog?) to see what I mean for my models, instead of inserting another company's models into a thread about GW. There are no "repulsor weapons" or anything that would involve PITA book keeping or anything. See if you'd still have issue with it. Like I said, I wouldn't use those Mantic Models in a GW game as space marines (without being a one-off game that I created first with a friend). Just hypothetically in the case of playing Warpath with those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what's wrong with the red and gold tau suit?! That looks perfectly acceptable under any circumstances to me.

Time, I assume you're referring to these?



The original for reference:



I'll be honest...I'm not a fan. I really do think it takes away from the game too much. At this point, I'd say go full force and just plop these down instead of the enforcers:



BTW, I do want to commend you on your painting. Great work


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes. Because my way (having a live and let live attitude) is clearly the better way.

You are (assuming you're still in the UK) literally continent away from me. Why should I have to bow to your rules? That's what my forefathers fought for.

Posting constant pictures of minis with cool paint jobs isn't really helping your argument.

 Vermis wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Nice try. That's as much Rambo and Predator as it is Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and just basic Vietnam War inspiration.

A Vietnam where everyone's Sly, or Arnie, or (to the credit of GW and the cover artist [one of the Kopinskis?]) Carl Weathers.

Why doesn't the basic Vietnam reference bother you, by the way? Why doesn't the transposition of an old real-world event and location into a far-future setting with giant supersoldiers, savage aliens, psychic demons and world-breaking catastrophes break your immersion?

Because, again, it's subtle. It's not Catachans fighting against the Vietnamese, it's Guardsmen fighting in a jungle environment, using Vietnamse-esque tactics. Yeah, the Sly reference is funny, but the basic inspiration for Catachans is used in a fun, subtle way, rather than an obvious in your face reference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Posting constant pictures of minis with cool paint jobs isn't really helping your argument.

I was responding to time, trying to have an actual discussion with him.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes. Because my way (having a live and let live attitude) is clearly the better way.

You are (assuming you're still in the UK) literally continent away from me. Why should I have to bow to your rules? That's what my forefathers fought for.

Now you're not even being coherent. This is a digital discussion, our locations are irrelevant? Neither am I trying to force you to do anything (and Dakka discussions aren't legally binding btw) I'm disagreeing with you, if I was trying to force you into anything then that would make me a hypocrite, but I'm well within my rights to think your attitude towards the matter at hand is wrong and well within my rights to say so.

I'll be honest...I'm not a fan. I really do think it takes away from the game too much. At this point, I'd say go full force and just plop these down instead of the enforcers:

At some point it starts to look like you're trying to forbid not just Iron Man references, but an incidental combination of red and gold paint on any armoured or robotic minis, in case you make an accidental inference.

I'll be MIA for a bit though; driving. I'll be back when I can.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes. Because my way (having a live and let live attitude) is clearly the better way.

You are (assuming you're still in the UK) literally continent away from me. Why should I have to bow to your rules? That's what my forefathers fought for.

Now you're not even being coherent. This is a digital discussion, our locations are irrelevant? Neither am I trying to force you to do anything (and Dakka discussions aren't legally binding btw) I'm disagreeing with you, if I was trying to force you into anything then that would make me a hypocrite, but I'm well within my rights to think your attitude towards the matter at hand is wrong and well within my rights to say so.

This is how you responded.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

So, in summary, I have to play the game the way you want me to?

Yes. Because my way (having a live and let live attitude) is clearly the better way.

You're well within your rights to disagree with me, but saying I have to play the game the way you want me to is a pretty jerk move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:

I'll be honest...I'm not a fan. I really do think it takes away from the game too much. At this point, I'd say go full force and just plop these down instead of the enforcers:

At some point it starts to look like you're trying to forbid not just Iron Man references, but an incidental combination of red and gold paint on any armoured or robotic minis, in case you make an accidental inference.

By saying I don't like the look of it?

Your sarcasm detector needs new batteries.

 jreilly89 wrote:

What I'm trying to get it as I spend a large amount of money and time on hand painted models, so I should be able to enjoy the hobby the way I want to.

And nobody else can enjoy the hobby the way they want, by painting minis red and gold? They have to spend their money and time the way you want, in the unfortunate scenario that they want a game against you or your friends?

That, or just accept people don't want to play the game the way you do.

There's irony. In this context people can play the game how they like, as far as I'm concerned. I'll play against your painstakingly painted minis, or spruecrons, or grey armies. But those last two options are still on a different level to the simple choice of paint colour.

I'm the same in one way: my minis have to be carefully modelled and painted, but that's my minis. My time and money to spend on miniatures, not someone else's time, money and minis; and it's time and money that's somewhat removed from actually playing the game, too.
All the same, I can't deny that I'd encourage or nag for the use of 'proper' miniatures (though don't underestimate the time and investment put into sprue composition And I'd probably even help put fins and panels on the paper cup) but again, that's something different to casting gamers out and turning your back until they spend the kind of money you do.

Is that it, though? When you bring up 'budget' wargaming, does that mean it's about the old 'I spent too much money on GW minis and the hhhobby so other people should too', with an addendum of '... and it has to be absolutely perfect', rather than immersion?

 Vermis wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

What I'm trying to get it as I spend a large amount of money and time on hand painted models, so I should be able to enjoy the hobby the way I want to.

And nobody else can enjoy the hobby the way they want, by painting minis red and gold? They have to spend their money and time the way you want, in the unfortunate scenario that they want a game against you or your friends?

That, or just accept people don't want to play the game the way you do.

There's irony. In this context people can play the game how they like, as far as I'm concerned. I'll play against your painstakingly painted minis, or spruecrons, or grey armies. But those last two options are still on a different level to the simple choice of paint colour.

I'm the same in one way: my minis have to be carefully modelled and painted, but that's my minis. My time and money to spend on miniatures, not someone else's time, money and minis; and it's time and money that's somewhat removed from actually playing the game, too.
All the same, I can't deny that I'd encourage or nag for the use of 'proper' miniatures (though don't underestimate the time and investment put into sprue composition And I'd probably even help put fins and panels on the paper cup) but again, that's something different to casting gamers out and turning your back until they spend the kind of money you do.

Is that it, though? When you bring up 'budget' wargaming, does that mean it's about the old 'I spent too much money on GW minis and the hhhobby so other people should too', with an addendum of '... and it has to be absolutely perfect', rather than immersion?

It's not about the "you need to spend the same level I do", it's "I get one game a month, two if I'm lucky, and after all the money and time I've put into this hobby I should be allowed to play it how I want to". I mean no ill-will towards people who want to play that way, but I shouldn't be forced or expected to play with them.

For instance, I played a 2v2 about a month and a half ago against a guy who had all unpainted minis, and who ran Orks and these Wargames minis as his conscripts:



It was a fun game and he was a nice enough guy, but I'll be honest that I didn't enjoy it as much because I felt it detracted from the experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Your sarcasm detector needs new batteries.

You know Azreal, I will concede that I didn't notice the sarcasm and so I apologize, but man, you always have such a condescending attitude. I'm glad we don't ever have to play 40k together.

jreilly89 wrote:
Because, again, it's subtle. It's not Catachans fighting against the Vietnamese, it's Guardsmen fighting in a jungle environment, using Vietnamse-esque tactics. Yeah, the Sly reference is funny, but the basic inspiration for Catachans is used in a fun, subtle way, rather than an obvious in your face reference.

It's an army of musclebound guys in (or out of) vests, with red headbands. It ain't that subtle. Doesn't remind me of Full Metal Jacket, anyway.

By saying I don't like the look of it?

By saying 'I'm never going to play against that'. You can dislike the look of something, but play against it anyway. You say your regular group all feel the same way you do, but how much does that mutual agreement stifle any whims in the future? What happens if someone has to move away, or the group breaks up? With your attitude to what other gamers do, it could somehow turn so that you're not the one doing the excluding.

Hope none of them collect Ultramarines. Give one a red cloak and you're down one more opponent.

This one time I was playing this guy, the mission scenario was has GW gotten better in the last year, and his army was totally full of stand in arguments about minis ruining his experience, which totally ruined my experience!

All this Iron Man scheme hate. Look at these abominations unto the hobby! /s

 Vermis wrote:

jreilly89 wrote:
Because, again, it's subtle. It's not Catachans fighting against the Vietnamese, it's Guardsmen fighting in a jungle environment, using Vietnamse-esque tactics. Yeah, the Sly reference is funny, but the basic inspiration for Catachans is used in a fun, subtle way, rather than an obvious in your face reference.

It's an army of musclebound guys in (or out of) vests, with red headbands. It ain't that subtle. Doesn't remind me of Full Metal Jacket, anyway.

By saying I don't like the look of it?

By saying 'I'm never going to play against that'. You can dislike the look of something, but play against it anyway. You say your regular group all feel the same way you do, but how much does that mutual agreement stifle any whims in the future? What happens if someone has to move away, or the group breaks up? With your attitude to what other gamers do, it could somehow turn so that you're not the one doing the excluding.

Hope none of them collect Ultramarines. Give one a red cloak and you're down one more opponent.

Then you should have no problem playing against this! I mean, it's all the same.

Ah, reducto ad absurdum. The last bastion of someone losing an argument...

It's not even that absurd. It's clearly a Ghost Ark and Catacomb Barge in the first pic (alongside some two handed melee orientated infantry whose unit name escapes me) and a couple of Tomb Spiders, Warriors and Scarabs in the second.

I bet once there was a coat of paint on those there'd be nearly zero difference, at tabletop level, of the overall Necronyness of the army.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Then you should have no problem playing against this!

In all seriousness, no.

I won't pretend it's sophisticated or anything other than rough; but it's got a Minecraftish charm, and I can see the work that went into selecting, cutting and shaping certain sprue parts to represent certain features and poses. I dare say it might represent more thought, effort and creativity than clipping ready-made parts off the same sprue. I'm especially impressed by the way sprue pieces are composed to represent scarabs scuttling and floating over eachother, as opposed to a simple heap of bits or five or six pieces lying flat on the base. Biggest criticism off the top of my head is that I think the shapes of the vehicles could be cut a little more cleanly. Did they use foamcore or plain EPS?

And it's fun.

I might stop short of saying it'd be a privilege to play against it, but I can respect and appreciate it for those reasons.

I mean, it's all the same.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Then you should have no problem playing against this! I mean, it's all the same.

What is wrong with that? That is actual art. Someone had to actually cut the sprues to a certain length and glue them into a certain position to make them look like how they do. So they basically sculpted their own minis. They actually created something instead of what you and I and most likely every other person who doesn't use green stuff and just glue by numbers and create no art.

I can see the passion and the creativity the person did to make this. To make something out of sprues but when we see it and it is WYSIWYG that does take some tallent.

Herzlos wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Because it's pretty clearly trying to bring an outside universe into 40k? Same reason I posted above why I wouldn't play against a guy's Iron Man army, even though it's company sponsored: smashing two unintended universes together and ruining my immersion.

Do you feel the same about official GW figures that are a direct rip-off of some other IP setting? Like Sly Marbo? Tau? Stormcast?

Given that GW used to encourage custom Space Marine Chapters, how close is too close in terms of inspiration from other worlds? What if the creator didn't realise the link?

I still remember some old tournament army that was a mix of, I think, Space Marines, IG (heads and some bits), and some historical military stuff (for tank greeble and bits, and decals). It was inspired by the US army if I remember correctly ( and had a dread named Ryan). I think it was called White Stars (chapter) or something like that, and the combination of these three influences was complete not GW canon but also one of the most fun armies to see and to explore its theme and internal coherence (sadly only online).

Vermis wrote:

And nobody else can enjoy the hobby the way they want, by painting minis red and gold? They have to spend their money and time the way you want, in the unfortunate scenario that they want a game against you or your friends?

Somebody should probably mention that red and gold or red and white are very popular colour schemes because of the contrast they provide and that was the reason Iron Man has these colours and any nano-tech voodoo in-universe explanations are made up after the fact. The same goes for red/green/white or red/blue/white (so many national flags use these two), and red/white/black is so often used for propaganda purposes because it exudes authority. The Nazis didn't choose it for the fun of it (and the same goes for this scheme's association with the Inquisition).

Disliking a random colour scheme just because you saw it somewhere else first is kinda arbitrary.

Well, we're soundly off-topic and 55 pages in. If you want t continue this discussion, please start a new thread.

Thanks!