I've been in and out of 40k since Rogue Trader was released. I take breaks when I lose interest, sometimes for 5 years or so. I generally return because it's ubiquitous at any gaming store and easy to find opponents. It's like Microsoft that way; sure, everyone complains about it, but it provides common ground for people just looking to communicate (or throw some dice).
But, price and Finecast are the reason they lost me most recently, and their hideous design decisions for the last couple of years. Stuff like the Taurox and new Space Wolf flying transport, where they look like they fed all the design elements into a computer and it spat out uninspired facsimiles that met the criteria, but with absolutely no soul.
So, alternatives:
Confrontation. It's been long enough that I no longer tear up over the demise of this dynamic and beautiful game, but it's still my favorite tabletop game of all time. The rules had their flaws, and the army creep could get ridiculous, but the game positively dripped with personality and creativity. Undead puppet dwarves vs. 10 ft S&M werewolves that feed on pain? Yes please! Bio-engineered meat dreadnoughts vs. spiritual Mongolian orcs? Hells yeah! Absolutely some of the best sculpts in the gaming world, period.
Infinity. Well, sorta. I've been painting them for years, but geez their rules are not fun or intuitive. I'm really excited about the starter sets, having seen the "range bands" they've introduced to standardize weapon ranges and hit modifiers. The models are exquisitely detailed and have such a clean, sharp aesthetic, I need to throw my models on the table. Please get this right Corvus Belli! People are looking for an alternative to 40k, you just need to make your game more accessible!
Malifaux. Loved the original setting, hated the mechanics. Using cards instead of dice was an intriguing concept that failed in my opinion. The advantage of using cards over dice as randomizers is that cards have a finite array; you can only get so many aces, so use them wisely. They screwed this up by allowing the decks to be reshuffled each round. Instead of equalizing good and bad luck through out the course of a game, they are reset before going through the deck and end up being just as random as dice.
The sad thing is how little urge there is to go back to GW there is, after you have left.
I expected it to be like how I hear addiction ends... instead it was, 'oh, here's a better game.'
I play Kings of War, Deadzone, and a few older, no longer supported GW Games.
Kings of War gets played about as much as the other games put together.
But I have not wanted to play, let alone buy, WH40K in several editions.
I had hopes for the most recent WHFB... and read the book.
The rules... just are not good.
Not just 'not good value for money', but 'not good rules'.
And enough people agreed with me that Kings of War is doing well around here.
Mostly with armies that were originally made for previous editions of WHFB.
People are dusting off their old armies - and some are folks that skipped two, three, or four editions of the game. (One has an army of Bretonnians that was made using several of the boxed games from... sixth, I think? (Nope, fifth... I had to Google). And has not played since sixth.
Yeah I'm in this weird limbo where I want to get back into it (I'm enjoying the fiction) but it doesn't mesh very well and I just can't bring myself to do buy back in. I'm equally reluctant to sell off my core armies as I might still play, occasionally, but my gaming has largely been taken over by other better games.
I don't really like to moan about GW and find myself sticking up for them quite often (I love playing Devils Advocate)
BUT:
When I got back into the hobby about 3 years ago I bought the WHFBBRB and Lizardmen army book. A year later I bought the new 6th ed BRB, Codex Space Marines and Codex Space Wolves.
That has all been superseded now, apart from the WHFB book.
Yes I know, incredibly bad timing/army selection from me but that's over a hundred pounds worth of obsolete hardware!
I still buy army books that appeal to me. I have the new Eldar, Vampire Counts, Lizardmen and WoC books, but will I be buying the new Space Wolves or Marine codex? Probably not - because I need to buy the new rulebook so theres another ~£70.
So I'm off to Infinity, with visits to Deadzone and Dreadball.
***edit*** OK I don't need the rules, and I buy the books for the background... but the new fluff is a bit tosh. The previous Lizardmen book was brilliant, and I still read the SW codex for fun so actually yeah I probably will pick that one up. But not the rules!
TheAuldGrump wrote: The sad thing is how little urge there is to go back to GW there is, after you have left.
I can agree with this. I like to keep up with GW releases, but the actual urge to play and work on an army isn't there at all. But I'm constantly planning and working on new projects for my hobby time - too many damned systems taking the time up
TheAuldGrump wrote: The sad thing is how little urge there is to go back to GW there is, after you have left.
I can agree with this. I like to keep up with GW releases, but the actual urge to play and work on an army isn't there at all. But I'm constantly planning and working on new projects for my hobby time - too many damned systems taking the time up
My desire to go back has only gone down with the SW codex. The fluff is just getting silly and the more I play other games the less I want to play 40k. And with how "quick" other games are I can actually get in a game or two instead of taking up all evening so I actually end up playing more often.
TheAuldGrump wrote: The sad thing is how little urge there is to go back to GW there is, after you have left.
I can agree with this. I like to keep up with GW releases, but the actual urge to play and work on an army isn't there at all. But I'm constantly planning and working on new projects for my hobby time - too many damned systems taking the time up
My desire to go back has only gone down with the SW codex. The fluff is just getting silly and the more I play other games the less I want to play 40k. And with how "quick" other games are I can actually get in a game or two instead of taking up all evening so I actually end up playing more often.
The only reason I'd might get back into GW products in full is if they release any of the specialist games, and only if it is fully supported and has a relatively good ruleset. Knowing GW as of late, I can gander a guess that they have nowhere near the creative potential with their current writing staff to pull it off in my opinion. Also, I agree with you on getting in other games, since I am busy as of late so it is hard to get in a lot of games how it is now.
After seeing some other games that are about, even the specialist games begin to look lacklustre. The only one I think stands up is Blood Bowl (which I actually still play).
TheAuldGrump wrote: The sad thing is how little urge there is to go back to GW there is, after you have left.
I can agree with this. I like to keep up with GW releases, but the actual urge to play and work on an army isn't there at all. But I'm constantly planning and working on new projects for my hobby time - too many damned systems taking the time up
My desire to go back has only gone down with the SW codex. The fluff is just getting silly and the more I play other games the less I want to play 40k. And with how "quick" other games are I can actually get in a game or two instead of taking up all evening so I actually end up playing more often.
SW were my first, and for around 15 years, my only army. This is the first time I really have no interest in purchasing the updated army list. Changes to the character of the army have something to do with that.
I've not precisely left GW yet- I want to, and yet the information that's dropped over the last few months has kept still watching them, with a strange feeling of dread and glee.
I only just got into the miniatures hobby in general recently in an attempt to broaden my horizon after residing in Video games and Tabletop RPGS (read, 3.5 and pathfinder) the rest of my life. I never worked with miniatures before and mostly play discounted games at that, so you can imagine one of the first things I walked into was GW stuff, due to it's community presence. and then my response to that.
it still kept my interest as my entire friend circle online who did miniatures recruited and went to Warmachine, but since they were far away, it was just me, and in my town GW games were still the mainstay (the Warmachine community in town is hard to pin down), so I tried that.
First came the Sticker Shock of just getting a base army together for either game, but the WHFB community was thriving at a new store I went to and I tried to get into it. Bought up some dwarfs and some rules (second hand) and tried to play after I decided (to late, bought Necrons and still have them in box) that 40k didn't appeal enough to my tastes (namely not enough model variety for my interest).
It was around a few months ago that the Fantasy community (smaller as it was) went on hiatus for the local 40k league and all my plausible opponents vanished, barring a high elf player who I always wound up playing anyway (and I haven't played him in a month+). After not really enjoying my time playing Dwarfs, the cost to get into another army on the ground floor, combined with a sorely limited budget, all broiled up and sent me searing.
Im sitting on a fair amount of remorse. namely because I don't agree with nearly anything GW does to retailers, consumers, and even themselves, and the fact they claim to not do market research clinched it. I use to look forward to potential army updates, like for Brettonians and Skaven, but after what I'm seeing with 7th ed 40k, I'm worried what GW will do to Fantasy if and when they get back to it. its become more about what these armies will lose, than what they will gain (if they gain anything), and the fact that GW hasn't released a Fantasy book FAQ in some time now, and there's been rules contentions on more than a few things due to a lack of clarification.
TLDR- costs to much to enter, which means to much to try new things. worried about the state of each army not now, but when GW feels the need to mess with them, and a lack of competent updates for clarifications just makes it all the confusing and concerning.
As for where im going? well... one of the 40k players tossed me a M1E lucius crew for Malifaux, and gave me a demo game (with more to come, hopefully) to see if i prefer it. while I don't have the cards i need for my crew yet, the game I played as Lilith showed me the rules seem good and easy to grasp, and that Wyrd actually keeps a forum and seems to just TALK to their customers vastly improved them in my eyes. the fact i don't feel like I'm being ripped off helps, and the Sculpts have their own charm. there's less players of Malifaux around here, but it's got a much better chance to grow than Fantasy around here...
It shouldn't have to be an uphill climb to get into something new you have interest in. I still have interest in fantasy, Skaven lorewise, but its just been withering with my limited budget and nobody to play. OR for less money (slightly less to a LOT less, even second handing when it comes to Skaven) I could get several crews in malifaux with cleaner rules, better models, taking up less space, and from a company who cares about their consumers more.
I can't explain why i haven't fully jumped ship yet. maybe its the twin hooks of the Warhammer communities presence about the net, and the bits of lore im still into. Maybe it's my love of unique modeling and scratch builds you don't see in the other newer games...
but it sure ain't from GW. and I believe if they want to not lose further ground, they need to get vigilant, and do something, anything, to attract the new people, and while ill admit i don't spend easily, im not the first, nor the last to see the price as a major problem. being blind does them no favors when the pirahna's are in the water, and the best resource they have- the fandom, is getting more and more against them by their own hands. we have an X-wing league starting at the FLGS, and that just shows the difference.
Someone expresses interest in 40k or fantasy. someone shows them the boxes. eyes bulge, probably never come back VS-- Someone expresses interest in X-wing. they could be playing in an hour or less. every other major miniatures game at least has more starter kits at steal prices.
Daba wrote: After seeing some other games that are about, even the specialist games begin to look lacklustre. The only one I think stands up is Blood Bowl (which I actually still play).
I play Blood Bowl on PC but Dreadball on tabletop. Have you tried that? Much faster rules, worth a shot if you haven't.
I dunno, if you're into WHFB lore you can still stick with the lore playing the rules of other games. I'm sure that the lore could translate well playing KoW with some slight tweaking.
The problem there is you're just looking for a game that replaces the game you're currently playing. I think that sort of misses the opportunity going on right now in the wargames industry. There's so many unique gaming experiences out there, a lot that are quite cheap to enter with their own fantastic miniature range to enjoy.
I think this thread title is a bit off putting. Enjoying the background for a game, or even the game itself, doesn't have to prevent you finding these unique experiences, as you don't have to leave it behind. If you really still enjoy Warhamer Fantasy, then keep playing it. If you still enjoy playing 40k, then keep playing it.
But also denying yourself some of these other games where you can buy a complete, playable force and the rules for less than a big GW kit really doesn't make sense to me. Instead of that 6th Trygon or Storm Raven that probably won't hit the table outside of large Apocalypse games, do yourself and your friends a favour by buying a pair of starter boxes and a rulebook for another game, or their 2 player starter if they have it. Dropzone Commander 2 player starter, Malifaux mini rulebook and a pair of starters, Operation Icestorm when it hits the shelves, Flames of War Open Fire, Firestorm Armada Battle for Valhalla, X-Wing, etc. The choice is really quite impressive.
The worst that can happen is you don't enjoy it and you resell it, and you buy that 6th Trygon or Storm Raven the next week. Otherwise, you just found another fun game to play, and you actually don't have to buy more unless you want to.
There have always been people who exclusively play one game or genre, such as Napoleonics. The difference these days is that GW has become soooo expensive to start or even to continue, given the cost of the latest rulebooks, that a different game can be picked for the price of a couple of GW boxes.
Daba wrote: After seeing some other games that are about, even the specialist games begin to look lacklustre. The only one I think stands up is Blood Bowl (which I actually still play).
What they could do is take the core concept of a specialist game and give it a complete update in the rules and models. They have shown no sign yet of doing this but in theory the capability is there. They have a huge design studio that in recent years has been employed mostly making minor variations on decades old themes.
Maybe the failure of Dread Fleet scared them too much.
Kilkrazy wrote: What they could do is take the core concept of a specialist game and give it a complete update in the rules and models. They have shown no sign yet of doing this but in theory the capability is there. They have a huge design studio that in recent years has been employed mostly making minor variations on decades old themes.
Maybe the failure of Dread Fleet scared them too much.
I'd love to see them grab Mordheim or Necromunda and give them a gameplay workover, playing with things like alternate activations instead of IGOUGO, different die types, etc. The only reason I even looked around for other games is they weren't catering to the gameplay style I was looking for at all (skirmish). But you're right, Dreadfleets failure seems to have made them gunshy.
Kilkrazy wrote: There have always been people who exclusively play one game or genre, such as Napoleonics. The difference these days is that GW has become soooo expensive to start or even to continue, given the cost of the latest rulebooks, that a different game can be picked for the price of a couple of GW boxes..
This. thisthisthis. It's so much harder to demo or get into GW games now with no lead in or anything else. even with all the discounts i managed, my WHFB stuff cost me a good $200+ which ill admit isn't a lot for some, but when most people are used to buying 60 dollar video games or something akin to it, its so much easier to spread one of the many games with a $50 dollar kit (WM/H, Malifaux, Xwing..). yes GW does make a 2 player kit, but with so many armies available if one of those two is not your aesthetic being represented your out in the cold, and they get nothing from people wanting to avoid buying their models new, and some are now outright willing to stick it to GW because of their prices.
Getting in the bottom floor for a more reasonable price requires patrolling, second handing, alternate models, scrapbuilding- out of neccessity to save. by comparison these other games just ask less effort, and cause less rule problems. maybe its just me, but GW loses on every turn, minus the currently greater install base and available story. Id love to buy at my FLGS as well, but I can't justify it with most GW stuff- i just need so much of it if i were to.
One thing I've noticed is that gw only players struggle to realise that other games are cheaper, because they are so used to gw prices. This makes the. Reluctant to start another game for fear of it costing a fortune. It's what's stopped my gaming buddy taking up bolt action or empire of the dead.
Daba wrote: After seeing some other games that are about, even the specialist games begin to look lacklustre. The only one I think stands up is Blood Bowl (which I actually still play).
I play Blood Bowl on PC but Dreadball on tabletop. Have you tried that? Much faster rules, worth a shot if you haven't.
I've played Dreadball, and while I like it, it's a different sport (importantly it feels like a different sport) so it's a bit like switching from football to hockey.
Mastiff wrote: like the Taurox and new Space Wolf flying transport, where they look like they fed all the design elements into a computer and it spat out uninspired facsimiles that met the criteria, but with absolutely no soul.
The funny thing is that's exactly how an STC works lol.
There were problems with Mordheim and Necromunda in that making it 'campaign' based seriously limits it, and makes early gangs samey as they are limited in what you can start with and what skills you have. It was difficult to make a one-off game with them, so having to have multiple players commit to a term of playing the game would cause problems and mean they aren't played when you could arrange or do a pickup with another game.
That's one strength of modern skirmish games over those ones.
Herzlos wrote: One thing I've noticed is that gw only players struggle to realise that other games are cheaper, because they are so used to gw prices. This makes the. Reluctant to start another game for fear of it costing a fortune. It's what's stopped my gaming buddy taking up bolt action or empire of the dead.
The other issue can be that GW games are so expensive that it doesn't allow any funds to go into other games.
If you're buying a new codex or army book every few months (a new rules edition every few years!), quite a lot for new kits etc, that could absorb all hobby funds. I wonder if that's why you tend to get wargamers who only play GW, but if someone plays another game then the chances are that they probably play 2 or 3 perhaps.
A third issue is the sunk costs fallacy - 'I have spent a THOUSAND DOLLARS on my Warhammer army! I can't afford to change games! I have too much invested in this one! Ooh! New edition....'
TheAuldGrump wrote: A third issue is the sunk costs fallacy - 'I have spent a THOUSAND DOLLARS on my Warhammer army! I can't afford to change games! I have too much invested in this one! Ooh! New edition....'
The Auld Grump
I agree here, though I must ask, why do you end all your posts with your username?
Leverage those thousands and turn them into new, shiny miniatures from the people who still want 40k. I spent all yesterday building Infinity and I'm still not done... got my TAG and a traktor mul left.
-Loki- wrote: The problem there is you're just looking for a game that replaces the game you're currently playing. I think that sort of misses the opportunity going on right now in the wargames industry. There's so many unique gaming experiences out there, a lot that are quite cheap to enter with their own fantastic miniature range to enjoy.
I think this thread title is a bit off putting. Enjoying the background for a game, or even the game itself, doesn't have to prevent you finding these unique experiences, as you don't have to leave it behind. If you really still enjoy Warhamer Fantasy, then keep playing it. If you still enjoy playing 40k, then keep playing it.
But also denying yourself some of these other games where you can buy a complete, playable force and the rules for less than a big GW kit really doesn't make sense to me. Instead of that 6th Trygon or Storm Raven that probably won't hit the table outside of large Apocalypse games, do yourself and your friends a favour by buying a pair of starter boxes and a rulebook for another game, or their 2 player starter if they have it. Dropzone Commander 2 player starter, Malifaux mini rulebook and a pair of starters, Operation Icestorm when it hits the shelves, Flames of War Open Fire, Firestorm Armada Battle for Valhalla, X-Wing, etc. The choice is really quite impressive.
The worst that can happen is you don't enjoy it and you resell it, and you buy that 6th Trygon or Storm Raven the next week. Otherwise, you just found another fun game to play, and you actually don't have to buy more unless you want to.
Me, I'm with Heartserenade, and I've said it before: I can't see the wisdom of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Treating 40K/WHFB like an indivisible, sealed environment rather than a collection of 'modular parts'; utterly abandoning fluff you like and your expensive collection because you don't like the rules or the price of further minis that you don't have to buy; and chucking money at another indivisible, sealed environment experience.*
Besides, if you like big-army fantasy battles or platoon-sized space fantasy, and GW's rules and prices start to put you off, switching to a handful of steampunk robots or posers might not cut it. Solution: drop out of GW's Red Queen buy-to-win culture, and get a game that replaces the game you're currently playing. It's okay. Don't worry. GW doesn't own fantasy battle games. You're not still in their pocket if you play another one...
Although I do take your point about giving other types of game a try: I don't advocate limiting yourself in that regard. I've enjoyed skirmishes, big battles, fleet/aircraft and board games. But then I'd pick up on the points of Pacific and TheAuldGrump: lowering (or stopping) the GW spend and playing a much more streamlined mass battle game will leave more funds and time for the others.
*I'd like to see if anyone thinks of moonlighting their Malifaux minis for In Her Majesty's Name or G.A.S.L.I.G.H.T., for instance.
-Loki- wrote: The problem there is you're just looking for a game that replaces the game you're currently playing. I think that sort of misses the opportunity going on right now in the wargames industry. There's so many unique gaming experiences out there, a lot that are quite cheap to enter with their own fantastic miniature range to enjoy.
I think this thread title is a bit off putting. Enjoying the background for a game, or even the game itself, doesn't have to prevent you finding these unique experiences, as you don't have to leave it behind. If you really still enjoy Warhamer Fantasy, then keep playing it. If you still enjoy playing 40k, then keep playing it.
But also denying yourself some of these other games where you can buy a complete, playable force and the rules for less than a big GW kit really doesn't make sense to me. Instead of that 6th Trygon or Storm Raven that probably won't hit the table outside of large Apocalypse games, do yourself and your friends a favour by buying a pair of starter boxes and a rulebook for another game, or their 2 player starter if they have it. Dropzone Commander 2 player starter, Malifaux mini rulebook and a pair of starters, Operation Icestorm when it hits the shelves, Flames of War Open Fire, Firestorm Armada Battle for Valhalla, X-Wing, etc. The choice is really quite impressive.
The worst that can happen is you don't enjoy it and you resell it, and you buy that 6th Trygon or Storm Raven the next week. Otherwise, you just found another fun game to play, and you actually don't have to buy more unless you want to.
Me, I'm with Heartserenade, and I've said it before: I can't see the wisdom of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Treating 40K/WHFB like an indivisible, sealed environment rather than a collection of 'modular parts'; utterly abandoning fluff you like and your expensive collection because you don't like the rules or the price of further minis that you don't have to buy; and chucking money at another indivisible, sealed environment experience.*
Besides, if you like big-army fantasy battles or platoon-sized space fantasy, and GW's rules and prices start to put you off, switching to a handful of steampunk robots or posers might not cut it. Solution: drop out of GW's Red Queen buy-to-win culture, and get a game that replaces the game you're currently playing. It's okay. Don't worry. GW doesn't own fantasy battle games. You're not still in their pocket if you play another one...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, because I never said to chuck out 40k or Warhammer or start ripping them apart to enjoy them. I was merely arguging that the 'one game to rule them all' mentality is doing yourself a disservice in the current wargames environment. That goes for only playing 40k, only playing Infinity, only playing Flames of War, etc.
TheAuldGrump wrote: A third issue is the sunk costs fallacy - 'I have spent a THOUSAND DOLLARS on my Warhammer army! I can't afford to change games! I have too much invested in this one! Ooh! New edition....'
The Auld Grump
I agree here, though I must ask, why do you end all your posts with your username?
The very first forum (well, bulletin board, really) that I posted on was on FIDO - and posts had no native indicator of the poster, so folks put their names at the bottom.
Well, to get right into it, I started 40K back in High school with some buddies, but I actually got my first GW minis a couple of years before - LOTR, because a friend had some too. Never played with those, but I've built my 40K up consistently since I started, up until last year.
During the five years I was gaming in High School, I mostly played 40K. However, I dabbled in Fantasy and Dystopian Wars. I dropped Fantasy because, well, it just didn't jive with me. As for Dystopian Wars, turns out I'm not really a fan of naval combat. I ended up selling both. However, a few months after I dropped Dystopian Wars, a couple of friends picked up Warmahordes. I bought in, and actually it wasn't so bad; after Dystopian Wars, I was hesitant to get into a non-GW game. Warmahordes, though I only played a couple of games, had both beautiful models and was actually enjoyable once you chewed through the rules.
Then I went to Uni. I played a fair bit of 40K, and still have a lot of it. however, the last army I brought was Tau at christmas (and a little before then). I wasn't a fan of 6th after having started with 5th. Seeing the problems with Eldar and other Tau armies, as well as continually rising prices, started me questioning GW. The AM release was, IMO, abysmal, before 7th dropped so early. Daemon factory was, for me, the last straw. I refused to buy into 7th, and started formulating plans with the local wargaming club about playing 5th, 6th, or even 3rd as a club standard. The few things I still wanted from GW (Sternguard and Vanguard, mainly) I turned to Ebay for. If anyone cares, I got the old metal models - result.
It was at this point that a couple of friends of mine pointed me to Infinity. I saw the Aleph models and knew I had to have them. I'm currently preparing to get into infinity in a big way (rather than just talking about it), proxying Guard for a while until I can actually buy some proper models - hey, I'm only a student. Food first, right?
Sure, I still play 40K. I play 5th/6th. I'll hold onto my Guard and Tau - one does not simply sell an armoured company - but my Chaos, GKs, Orks, SM and Dark Eldar, will be hitting Ebay soon enough. My Necrons went to a friend a long time ago. If I ever decide I want GW models, they'll be second hand. I both cannot afford and do not want to support GW's practices.
TheKbob wrote: Leverage those thousands and turn them into new, shiny miniatures from the people who still want 40k. I spent all yesterday building Infinity and I'm still not done... got my TAG and a traktor mul left.
And then there's the entire Circle Army...
Precisely what I did.
I got well and thoroughly out of GW games just a month or two ago. I first got into the hobby by stumbling into an FLGS and being entranced by everything inside. Being fairly young, I viewed them from the context of video games: it's physically playing a turn-based strategy game, with the degree of customization I've always wanted! I invested into GW, of course, and also played a fair bit of historicals through a faculty-led club at my high school. My involvement has waxed and waned over the past few years, but it's always been an interest.
Fast-forward to the present, and I was looking to get back into playing in a big way, now that I'm out of college. However, the GW "community," if you can call it that, really put me off. Awful behavior from management, declining game quality, and ever-increasing prices killed any interest that I might have had in jumping back into WHFB or 40K. There were two moments, however, that really decided things for me: the rebranding of the Imperial Guard, which clearly illustrated that GW is willing to tear up their own IP for any perceived gain, and the moment that I realized that finishing any of the partial armies in my collection would be prohibitively expensive, no matter what methods I used to find discounts. (To be fair, I did choose skaven, but still.)
Instead, I sold off most of my collection and reinvested in other games. I now have a foothold in both Malifaux and Infinity, and looking at recent GW releases, I don't regret getting out at all.
TheKbob wrote: Leverage those thousands and turn them into new, shiny miniatures from the people who still want 40k. I spent all yesterday building Infinity and I'm still not done... got my TAG and a traktor mul left.
And then there's the entire Circle Army...
Precisely what I did.
I got well and thoroughly out of GW games just a month or two ago. I first got into the hobby by stumbling into an FLGS and being entranced by everything inside. Being fairly young, I viewed them from the context of video games: it's physically playing a turn-based strategy game, with the degree of customization I've always wanted! I invested into GW, of course, and also played a fair bit of historicals through a faculty-led club at my high school. My involvement has waxed and waned over the past few years, but it's always been an interest.
Fast-forward to the present, and I was looking to get back into playing in a big way, now that I'm out of college. However, the GW "community," if you can call it that, really put me off. Awful behavior from management, declining game quality, and ever-increasing prices killed any interest that I might have had in jumping back into WHFB or 40K. There were two moments, however, that really decided things for me: the rebranding of the Imperial Guard, which clearly illustrated that GW is willing to tear up their own IP for any perceived gain, and the moment that I realized that finishing any of the partial armies in my collection would be prohibitively expensive, no matter what methods I used to find discounts. (To be fair, I did choose skaven, but still.)
Instead, I sold off most of my collection and reinvested in other games. I now have a foothold in both Malifaux and Infinity, and looking at recent GW releases, I don't regret getting out at all.
I also sold off my two armies. First I sold off my fairly recent Imperial Fist army, then my SOB army that I've been collecting since 2nd edition. Got a ton of Warmachine and Infinity stuff, including pre-ordering operation Ice Storm.
Guildsman wrote: the moment that I realized that finishing any of the partial armies in my collection would be prohibitively expensive, no matter what methods I used to find discounts. (To be fair, I did choose skaven, but still.)
Instead, I sold off most of my collection and reinvested in other games. I now have a foothold in both Malifaux and Infinity, and looking at recent GW releases, I don't regret getting out at all.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. My own armies lay around for a while after I abandoned GW, but alternate battle rules got me buying again, particularly for skaven. (Although Seb Perbett's sculpting also had something to do with it, and discounts, particularly IoB resellers on ebay, helped too.)
I honestly think that the number of minis required by other mass battle rules makes a small but significant difference too, particularly with unit/element basing. E.g. Kings of War kicked off my rebuying, and I've seen some players embrace the fixed unit footprint beyond cramming a bunch of 20mm bases into it; arranging their GW minis into little dioramas rather than simply shoulder to shoulder. Or look at Impetus on the historical side: 120x80mm bases, IIRC, but the best examples I've seen have a handful of minis in that area, rather than twenty-four all painstakingly ranked up. (And we all know how well GW minis rank up, amirite?) It's the unit filler principle applied to the whole unit. Like I say, it's debateable just how much you can save by spreading your minis thin before it looks like you're extracting the urine, but still...
Then there's Mayhem, which I moved to. The suggested standard element base for 28mm is 60x60mm. Maybe a bit too abstracted in figure scale for some, but it means an element is 9 human-sized minis, give or take. The suggested army size for beginners is 7-9 elements. About 63-81 minis, assuming no larger infantry, cavalry, monsters etc. How many Warhammer players could easily achieve that with only their unfinished WH collections?
If I got back into fantasy, I'd do diorama bases with a counter on the back for "wounds". Then have a little slot on the back for lengthening it for bigger units.
Guildsman wrote: the moment that I realized that finishing any of the partial armies in my collection would be prohibitively expensive, no matter what methods I used to find discounts. (To be fair, I did choose skaven, but still.)
Instead, I sold off most of my collection and reinvested in other games. I now have a foothold in both Malifaux and Infinity, and looking at recent GW releases, I don't regret getting out at all.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. My own armies lay around for a while after I abandoned GW, but alternate battle rules got me buying again, particularly for skaven. (Although Seb Perbett's sculpting also had something to do with it, and discounts, particularly IoB resellers on ebay, helped too.)
I honestly think that the number of minis required by other mass battle rules makes a small but significant difference too, particularly with unit/element basing. E.g. Kings of War kicked off my rebuying, and I've seen some players embrace the fixed unit footprint beyond cramming a bunch of 20mm bases into it; arranging their GW minis into little dioramas rather than simply shoulder to shoulder. Or look at Impetus on the historical side: 120x80mm bases, IIRC, but the best examples I've seen have a handful of minis in that area, rather than twenty-four all painstakingly ranked up. (And we all know how well GW minis rank up, amirite?) It's the unit filler principle applied to the whole unit. Like I say, it's debateable just how much you can save by spreading your minis thin before it looks like you're extracting the urine, but still...
Then there's Mayhem, which I moved to. The suggested standard element base for 28mm is 60x60mm. Maybe a bit too abstracted in figure scale for some, but it means an element is 9 human-sized minis, give or take. The suggested army size for beginners is 7-9 elements. About 63-81 minis, assuming no larger infantry, cavalry, monsters etc. How many Warhammer players could easily achieve that with only their unfinished WH collections?
A great point. If I do decide to get into fantasy mass battle, it'll be through KoW. Mayhem would be interesting, too. WHFB is just unfeasible these days.
TheKbob wrote: If I got back into fantasy, I'd do diorama bases with a counter on the back for "wounds". Then have a little slot on the back for lengthening it for bigger units.
All those extra models are just filler.
*Blink, blink*
You know... there might be a market for a unit base with a built in wounds/nerve counter on the back....
TheKbob wrote: If I got back into fantasy, I'd do diorama bases with a counter on the back for "wounds". Then have a little slot on the back for lengthening it for bigger units.
All those extra models are just filler.
*Blink, blink*
You know... there might be a market for a unit base with a built in wounds/nerve counter on the back....
Just sayin'....
The Auld Grump
I'd say that some of the very well to do laser cut MDF folks could whip something up in MDF or acrylic to serve this purpose well. That's all those models are... ablative wounds, so who cares?
TheKbob wrote: If I got back into fantasy, I'd do diorama bases with a counter on the back for "wounds". Then have a little slot on the back for lengthening it for bigger units.
All those extra models are just filler.
*Blink, blink*
You know... there might be a market for a unit base with a built in wounds/nerve counter on the back....
Just sayin'....
The Auld Grump
I'd say that some of the very well to do laser cut MDF folks could whip something up in MDF or acrylic to serve this purpose well. That's all those models are... ablative wounds, so who cares?
At least Kings of War is honest and open about that.
That seems to be the big, slow, change going on with my group - people are ssslllooowwwlllyyy switching from standard Warhammer unit basing to small dioramas.
I was the first in my group to start doing it - but I began doing it because of some models on Beats of War - the Violet Death undead army.
I think that there was an audible *CLICK!* when I looked at the units.... they are fantastic. A favorite is the animated Mortis Engine - powered by a music box, complete with music. I don't even like the Mortis Engine... but doing it up as a merry-go-round? Priceless... and suddenly I wanted one.
I will admit.. my undead army isn't quite as original as having a six year old vampire that is looking for friends, but it makes me happy. Zombies and ghouls swarming, clambering, and leaping out of a graveyard. (So, no scary-go-round for me. )
My girlfriend is doing her dwarfs in an... interesting fashion - the units are posing, and the 'general' is painting the portrait. (She is taking classes at art school... and thought that it would be funny.)
I really like the idea of having a counter integral to the base.
Have multiple warhammer armies, including two pretty much full ones in boxes and more unpainted goblins than I care to have nightmares about. The game for its flaws is fun, with the right people.
40k.. have 5th edition rules for various reasons never got 6th, was keen on 7th but the rate books are being put out at I can't justify keeping up so my IG have dust on and the new ork army for 7th was stillborn with a few units only. A half built knight is staring at me, it will be finished, one day.
Have a huge collection of flames of war and would be happy with lots more, the thing that holds me back is lack of time, the models are not to GW quality, but are smaller so matters less, but the game is a lot better.
Starting WW2 navy games with micronaughts.
Bolt Action looked good, but has too much "40k" in it for me (no split fire, skirmish game with units, game being pushed ever larger and creaking)
Black Power plus Pike & Shotte are good and love the beautiful models (and the prices, 60 models for 20 squid?)
Realised a lont time ago I spend far more time modelling than playing, wish I had more time to play.
Too many games, not enough time.
Still enjoy GW games, and the two games of all time that I have enjoyed the most? Space Marine (Epic V1) and Star Fleet Battles, enough detail in both to be interesting and not just generic counters, but both actually playable as games.
What did it for me was 7th edition and the new ork codex. When I realized that I would need 5 big mek gun at $46. Then the naught walker for $105 and the vast number of trucks for $37.25 I would also need. Plus tank busters ect ect.... The price is way to much for some plastic junk.
My buddies of our gaming group have started playing warmachine and for haft the price I got a 35 pt army. We have all quit GW about 15 of us and have not looked back.
I can't actually say I've left yet, but I intend to.
Why? A combination of the prices, business practices/choices and the constant and needless bad changes to already badly designed rules. Also design wise, the newer kits continue to get worse, I still laugh at Logan's Sleigh.
My problem is supplementing the game, I've currently not played since the very beginning of 7th, but my local group is still 100% commited to the game, the only game they play outside of this is Dropzone Commander, which looks fun but is not my style of game.
I've been delving more into RPG groups and dungeon crawlers lately, mostly D&D, but some 40k/Fantasy ones (E.g. Deathwatch, Dark Heresy.) as I still love the lore and setting, and I'm still a loyal black library fan.
As for miniature based games, I'm attempting to find some people interested in Warmahordes and Infinity as these seem more reasonable price wise and much better in terms of aesthetic design and rules design.
Very much the rules, most of them know very little about the background.
I'm a bit of a black sheep these days as I had the gall to be upset about 7th edition, I explained the changes I liked/disliked, but because I disliked some changes I am apparently satan reborn.
Rysaer wrote: Very much the rules, most of them know very little about the background.
I'm a bit of a black sheep these days as I had the gall to be upset about 7th edition, I explained the changes I liked/disliked, but because I disliked some changes I am apparently satan reborn.
GWombies. I've seen that mentality elsewhere. Only know GW stuff, don't want to hear anything other than praise, anyone who dislikes it is brainwashed by those evil internet forums or is a Privateer Press fanboy.
Rysaer wrote: Very much the rules, most of them know very little about the background.
I'm a bit of a black sheep these days as I had the gall to be upset about 7th edition, I explained the changes I liked/disliked, but because I disliked some changes I am apparently satan reborn.
GWombies. I've seen that mentality elsewhere. Only know GW stuff, don't want to hear anything other than praise, anyone who dislikes it is brainwashed by those evil internet forums or is a Privateer Press fanboy.
Rysaer: Pity. It might've been easier to point out alternate rules if space marines did it for them; but people older than mid-teens who love 40Krules exclusively both frighten and confuse me. DZC is a glint of hope, although you don't like it yourself. Does that mean they'd be willing to at least try some other rules, a couple of times?
Failing that, are there any other gaming groups or clubs nearby...?
I admit the rules can be shaky at times but I don't think they're as bad as people on the net make them out to be. I just can't get into the aesthetics/fluff of any of the other games. The recent SW releases other than Logan's sled and murderfang's face are actually pretty cool. I thought the flyer was ugly but it's killy so I bought one and now that I've built it, I kind of dig the flying box with a giant cannon. I wouldn't mind trying other games if I saw one that really grabbed me but no matter how much I look at models from other systems, they just don't do it for me.
Mastiff wrote: like the Taurox and new Space Wolf flying transport, where they look like they fed all the design elements into a computer and it spat out uninspired facsimiles that met the criteria, but with absolutely no soul.
The funny thing is that's exactly how an STC works lol.
Touché
At least when they had Jes Goodwin's ghost in their STC machine they were functional and snazzy-looking.
A great point. If I do decide to get into fantasy mass battle, it'll be through KoW. Mayhem would be interesting, too. WHFB is just unfeasible these days.
KoW is a great system. Very flexible, very cheap and easy to learn. As others have said, it's essentially an element based system, so the number of guys on the base is irrelevant as long as the base or movement trays are the right size. This has allowed our club to field all kinds of great models and models on alternate basings that wouldn't otherwise have been seen as often on the battlefields.
A couple examples from our last game.
-4 Tharks (6 armed giants from Burroughs Barsoomian Mars books) standing in for 6 Ogres
-3 Thark great beasts standing in for 6 Ogre chariots
-25mm based Japanese from Clan War for Kingdoms of Man army
To be honest I'm not sure that KoW would hold my interest as well if it were my only game. I like it more than GW rules, but it doesn't have the crunch and background of GW games. However the low cost of rules and my sourcing of cheap models means that it doesn't have to be. At present, it's one of at least 3 minaitures games that I play fairly regularly and a half dozen or so that I play over the course of the year. Jumping off the GW train means that I now have enough gaming dollars to ride many different games.
lliu wrote: Yeah, GW is using a lot of dirty strategies, but warhammer forty k is what my passion is, so I stick with it.
The problem is who they are directing their dirty strategies at. Mostly they're aiming them at us, the consumer with pricing, or people not actually doing anything wrong with legal battles.
If they were 'fighting dirty' against their competitors in the retail space to gain more of a following, I'd understand this stance. But saying 'Games Wokshop is intent on giving me as little value as they possibly can for the huge sums of money they charge me, but I'm okay with it because I like the background' makes zero sense to me. They're actively giving you as little as they possibly can while charging you obscene sums of money for the privelege.
lliu wrote: Yeah, GW is using a lot of dirty strategies, but warhammer forty k is what my passion is, so I stick with it.
The problem is who they are directing their dirty strategies at. Mostly they're aiming them at us, the consumer with pricing, or people not actually doing anything wrong with legal battles.
If they were 'fighting dirty' against their competitors in the retail space to gain more of a following, I'd understand this stance. But saying 'Games Wokshop is intent on giving me as little value as they possibly can for the huge sums of money they charge me, but I'm okay with it because I like the background' makes zero sense to me. They're actively giving you as little as they possibly can while charging you obscene sums of money for the privelege.
I'm reminded of a scene from Human Traffic. "If you wanna work in this firm then wake up and get real!" except the boss is GW and the staffer is the playerbase. "If you wanna play in this setting then mortgage your house and pay us!"
Some of you forget that value is a relative term, not an absolute one. Each person has their own idea of value. For the amount of time I spend playing and painting my models, along with the cost of my other hobbies, 40k is still a good value to me. I could go out and spend $300 at the club on a table and a bottle of patron for one night of fun. I could go to the shooting range and spend $100 on ammo and range time for 1-2 hours of fun. I could take my S2000 to the track and spend $1,500 on tires, brakes and track time for 1-2 afternoons of fun. Or I could spend $500 - 1k on an army and rule books that will give me hours of enjoyment modeling and painting and years of enjoyment playing the game.
Yes, value is subjective, but there are some things that aren't.
Halving the contents of a box and not lowering the price, or releasing a codex that is lacking a significant number of options the last one had and those options then being offered as additional extras you now have to pay for, are both objectively lowering the value of something.
Toofast wrote: Some of you forget that value is a relative term, not an absolute one. Each person has their own idea of value. For the amount of time I spend playing and painting my models, along with the cost of my other hobbies, 40k is still a good value to me. I could go out and spend $300 at the club on a table and a bottle of patron for one night of fun. I could go to the shooting range and spend $100 on ammo and range time for 1-2 hours of fun. I could take my S2000 to the track and spend $1,500 on tires, brakes and track time for 1-2 afternoons of fun. Or I could spend $500 - 1k on an army and rule books that will give me hours of enjoyment modeling and painting and years of enjoyment playing the game.
Yes, for you, but for a lot of people the discrepancy has become too large, that is why a lot people switch to other game systems with a lower entry point. Or stop completely and rather spend that money on the range, fishing gear, car, bar or those bars in America with the ladies strangling a pole
Toofast wrote: Some of you forget that value is a relative term, not an absolute one. Each person has their own idea of value. For the amount of time I spend playing and painting my models, along with the cost of my other hobbies, 40k is still a good value to me. I could go out and spend $300 at the club on a table and a bottle of patron for one night of fun. I could go to the shooting range and spend $100 on ammo and range time for 1-2 hours of fun. I could take my S2000 to the track and spend $1,500 on tires, brakes and track time for 1-2 afternoons of fun. Or I could spend $500 - 1k on an army and rule books that will give me hours of enjoyment modeling and painting and years of enjoyment playing the game.
Yup it is relative, but it's not as if there's no comparible competition for GW.
If you compare GW's toy soldiers to track days, it looks very cheap, but if you compare GW's toy soldiers to the toy soldiers produced by any other company, often with the same sculptors and materials (HIPS/Metal - not Finecast), then GW almost always looks very expensive.
I Spend more or travel or cars than I do on wargaming, but I've seen that in the wargaming space GW is by far the most expensive across the board. I've used the price of GW tanks to start new games (This starter set is less than a Leman Russ - It's hardly a big gamble).
Toofast wrote: Some of you forget that value is a relative term, not an absolute one. Each person has their own idea of value. For the amount of time I spend playing and painting my models, along with the cost of my other hobbies, 40k is still a good value to me. I could go out and spend $300 at the club on a table and a bottle of patron for one night of fun. I could go to the shooting range and spend $100 on ammo and range time for 1-2 hours of fun. I could take my S2000 to the track and spend $1,500 on tires, brakes and track time for 1-2 afternoons of fun. Or I could spend $500 - 1k on an army and rule books that will give me hours of enjoyment modeling and painting and years of enjoyment playing the game.
It's absolutely a relative term. But I look at it like this.
When I got into Infinity, it cost me $80au for a 300pt list. Competitively playable and, given their track record of balance, unlikely to ever be unplayable.
When I got into Malifaux, it cost me $75au for a 40ss list. While the 'standard' is 50, one more single purchase will get me there.
When Tyranids got their 6th edition update, I balked at the cost. $100au for an Exocrine that would make up 1/15th of an army? $115 for a Harpy which would take up less?
Now, I have bought a lot more for Infinity, and have a Gencon order on the way for Malifaux. These companies are giving me significantly better value, in my opinion. For less than I was going to pay for a new big Tyranid, I got a whole list for each game. For the cost of the Harpy, I could even throw in the Malifaux rulebook. Infinitys rules are completely free, but I bought them in support of a company that's actually paying attention to its fanbase.
3 years ago my Tyranid army that I have now cost me roughly $1000au. From research into other games, I could have comfortably bought what I did to start both Malifaux and Infinity, and comfortably bought average sized armies for another 3-4 games.
I can't see what metric of 'value' you can look at GW's products with these days (when actually comparing it to other wargames - apples to apples and all that) and think 'yep, that's the best bang for my buck'. Especially if it's someone newly coming into the hobby.
Value has an aesthetic personal i.e. subjective dimension and an objective dimension.
To some degree a toy solder figure is just a toy soldier figure. A game itself won't play any better by using a figure from company X instead of an alternative from company Y.
GW figures are objectively more expensive than most other equivalents, so your choice to buy the GW version is based on personal preference.
I've played 40k since 3rd edition, having a break in between 4th and 6th. During that time the prices of some kits have more than doubled - but the miniatures remain the same, and the quality of the books has decreased. (Compare a 3rd edition codex, which cost £12, to a 7th SW book, which costs £30, and both the monetary cost and the quality differences will strike you.
I still play warhammer 40k, as I know the rules, like the fluff and already have the models. I however no longer buy legitimate GW products, and refuse to purchase the overpriced and poorly written codices.
If I pay £30+ for a book, then I shouldn't have to check to see if there is a day 1 errata to correct it.
Big Blind Bill wrote: I've played 40k since 3rd edition, having a break in between 4th and 6th. During that time the prices of some kits have more than doubled - but the miniatures remain the same, and the quality of the books has decreased. (Compare a 3rd edition codex, which cost £12, to a 7th SW book, which costs £30, and both the monetary cost and the quality differences will strike you.
I still play warhammer 40k, as I know the rules, like the fluff and already have the models. I however no longer buy legitimate GW products, and refuse to purchase the overpriced and poorly written codices.
If I pay £30+ for a book, then I shouldn't have to check to see if there is a day 1 errata to correct it.
Or, worse, day 1 dataslates you need to buy to bring back an option you used to have which was removed...
When you start comparing other hobbies to 40k , I could go to walmart pick up a $20 fishing pole and a dozen worms. Don't need a Gloomis GLX (($400) fishing rod to go fishing.
Chute82 wrote: When you start comparing other hobbies to 40k , I could go to walmart pick up a $20 fishing pole and a dozen worms. Don't need a Gloomis GLX (($400) fishing rod to go fishing.
But in that scenario would the Gloomis GLX be significantly better than the Walmart one?
GW doesn't have that. The vast majority of their range is laughable when compared to models of equal price from other companies.
At the moment I am looking at both of these (spoilered for sice):
Spoiler:
I can't find a terribly good pic for a size comparison but I found this:
Spoiler:
The first is the same price as this:
Spoiler:
And the second this:
Spoiler:
They are bigger, a good quality resin, and much more detailed. I just don't see any way GW can compete there. They are popular because they are popular, that's it. Once they fall below that critical mass, which seems to have happened here in Oz already, they will simply crumble.
There is just no reason for me to go back to them in any meaningful way while I am throwing more and more money at other companies.
Toofast wrote: Some of you forget that value is a relative term, not an absolute one. Each person has their own idea of value. For the amount of time I spend playing and painting my models, along with the cost of my other hobbies, 40k is still a good value to me. I could go out and spend $300 at the club on a table and a bottle of patron for one night of fun. I could go to the shooting range and spend $100 on ammo and range time for 1-2 hours of fun. I could take my S2000 to the track and spend $1,500 on tires, brakes and track time for 1-2 afternoons of fun. Or I could spend $500 - 1k on an army and rule books that will give me hours of enjoyment modeling and painting and years of enjoyment playing the game.
This argument comes up a lot, but it is entirely false. The ability to sit down and be creative for hours, or have fun with your friends, is something that belongs to you already. It is not sold at GW. Give me a pen and paper (often can be found for free), and I can also spend hours being creative, drawing, making paper planes, or playing anything from tic-tac-toe to some fantastic homebrew RPG with my friends. The possibilities are endless, indeed priceless, but that belongs to me, not GW.
The other issue is that some activities are inherently expensive. Take for example: space exploration. Space exploration is inherently expensive. The fuel is expensive, the equipment is expensive, the people and expertise required to support a space flight are expensive. Even though contracts are fulfilled by the lowest bidder, and they cut costs whenever they can to get the best value possible, it is still just an inherently expensive activity.
War gaming is not inherently expensive. Miniatures cost pennies to produce, dice are cheap etc... Take a look at historical wargaming companies like Victrix to see how cheap good quality 28mm miniatures can be (and these aren't even the cheapest). The reason 40k is expensive is because GW make it expensive. It is not inherently expensive, and historical war gamers get just as much enjoyment and hours out of their hobby as you do. Claiming you are are still getting 'good value' because it is cheaper than a weekend at the track (or space exploration) is just deluding yourself.
Chute82 wrote: When you start comparing other hobbies to 40k , I could go to walmart pick up a $20 fishing pole and a dozen worms. Don't need a Gloomis GLX (($400) fishing rod to go fishing.
The problem is this is not a good comparison. Where you compared a cheap rod to an expensive rod? Good comparison, apples to apples. Wargaming to a fishing rod/car/day at the track/time with a lady of the night/etc? Bad comparison. Comparing the value of Games Workshop games to other wargames? Good comparison.
Chute82 wrote: When you start comparing other hobbies to 40k , I could go to walmart pick up a $20 fishing pole and a dozen worms. Don't need a Gloomis GLX (($400) fishing rod to go fishing.
The problem is this is not a good comparison. Where you compared a cheap rod to an expensive rod? Good comparison, apples to apples. Wargaming to a fishing rod/car/day at the track/time with a lady of the night/etc? Bad comparison. Comparing the value of Games Workshop games to other wargames? Good comparison.
Yes but that would make GW look bad, which is why that comparison is rarely used
Sure, value is relative. GW is expensive and a poor value relative to other miniatures games such as Malifaux, Warmachine and Infinity.
You may enjoy it and that's fine. But that's also not the point. 40k is just one game out of many and its by far the most expensive and yet the most convoluted with day one DLC's, a company that can't be bothered to make FAQ's in a timely way or even acknowledge that there are problems to be fixed.
You might like 40k, but you can't honestly say its a good value in comparison to the other games out there.
To some extent GW games vs other games in not a great comparison though. I certainly won't argue that GW games cost more to play they do. But that is a scale of game issue more than a cost of product issue.
People are using Malifaux as a comparison. Sure the game is way cheaper to play, but on a per model basis it is every bit as expensive.
The larger GW issue is that of cost of their rules, cost of updating your army etc. Now its value vs that of other games is relative to how much you enjoy each game. Right now 40k is a bad value for me because I am enjoying playing Malifaux more at the moment. So why spend more on something I'm not enjoying, but if I wanted to play an army scale game and didn't like the smaller scale 40k becomes a better value.
My larger issue is that I cannot honestly intro people to 40k anymore because the buy in from scratch is absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I still play 40k, but it is becoming more of a secondary game for me after years of it being my primary hobby.
-Loki- wrote: The problem there is you're just looking for a game that replaces the game you're currently playing. I think that sort of misses the opportunity going on right now in the wargames industry. There's so many unique gaming experiences out there, a lot that are quite cheap to enter with their own fantastic miniature range to enjoy.
I think this thread title is a bit off putting. Enjoying the background for a game, or even the game itself, doesn't have to prevent you finding these unique experiences, as you don't have to leave it behind. If you really still enjoy Warhamer Fantasy, then keep playing it. If you still enjoy playing 40k, then keep playing it.
But also denying yourself some of these other games where you can buy a complete, playable force and the rules for less than a big GW kit really doesn't make sense to me. Instead of that 6th Trygon or Storm Raven that probably won't hit the table outside of large Apocalypse games, do yourself and your friends a favour by buying a pair of starter boxes and a rulebook for another game, or their 2 player starter if they have it. Dropzone Commander 2 player starter, Malifaux mini rulebook and a pair of starters, Operation Icestorm when it hits the shelves, Flames of War Open Fire, Firestorm Armada Battle for Valhalla, X-Wing, etc. The choice is really quite impressive.
The worst that can happen is you don't enjoy it and you resell it, and you buy that 6th Trygon or Storm Raven the next week. Otherwise, you just found another fun game to play, and you actually don't have to buy more unless you want to.
I think this is one of the better things I've read in this thread. I sill love 40k. I still play 40k. The value of 40k even for the cost still vastly outweighs any other game for me. It's still my main game. However I've got both X-wing Factions more than playable. I'll be grabbing Armada when it comes out. I went in heavy on the soon to be released Wrath of Kings. Now that plastic starters are coming out for DZC I'll be grabbing one of those. The only difference in my 40k spending is that I've consolidated into a single "Faction" (Dark Mechanicus/Iron Warriors) that I can convert up to play any army with lots of cross use. And I don't build for games larger than 2k anymore. Between those two it's freed up the funds for expanding my hobby into other games.
The thing is that I can normally grab enough stuff for around $100 for me and a friend to play. That's a fine purchase for every other month or so for a different game. And if I fall in love or a group of local guys does then I get to play. Otherwise I spend a little time building/painting and, if it really doesn't take off, selling something different
Breng77 wrote: To some extent GW games vs other games in not a great comparison though. I certainly won't argue that GW games cost more to play they do. But that is a scale of game issue more than a cost of product issue.
People are using Malifaux as a comparison. Sure the game is way cheaper to play, but on a per model basis it is every bit as expensive.
The larger GW issue is that of cost of their rules, cost of updating your army etc. Now its value vs that of other games is relative to how much you enjoy each game. Right now 40k is a bad value for me because I am enjoying playing Malifaux more at the moment. So why spend more on something I'm not enjoying, but if I wanted to play an army scale game and didn't like the smaller scale 40k becomes a better value.
My larger issue is that I cannot honestly intro people to 40k anymore because the buy in from scratch is absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I still play 40k, but it is becoming more of a secondary game for me after years of it being my primary hobby.
That buy in from scratch is what's going to shape the next generation of gammers. My nephew was looking into getting a space marine army and I directed him to Warmachine on the cost alone. "You can start playing with a $50 purchase!" Sounds a lot better than "$50 won't even get you the rulebook!"
The biggest issue is that you get more value overall from other games, in part because units make up a larger part of your force.
I just spent $150 on some additions to my Warmachine army:
* Vlad (Warcaster)
* Spriggan kit (Warjack)
* Iron Fang Pikemen (unit of 10)
* Iron Fang Pikemen Officer & Standard (2 guys)
* Greylord Outriders (box of 6 cavalry)
Now granted the Pikemen are very expensive at $85 for the box of 10, so with the attachment it's about $100. The difference is that unit is 10 points, so in a typical 50 point list it's 1/5 of my entire army.
GW feels more expensive even if it really isn't just because you need multiples of virtually everything to get to a normal playable level. So I'd rather spend $50 or more on a Warmachine unit that is a third of my force, than $50 on a single squad for 40k when I need half a dozen more things.
Breng77 wrote: To some extent GW games vs other games in not a great comparison though. I certainly won't argue that GW games cost more to play they do. But that is a scale of game issue more than a cost of product issue.
People are using Malifaux as a comparison. Sure the game is way cheaper to play, but on a per model basis it is every bit as expensive.
The larger GW issue is that of cost of their rules, cost of updating your army etc. Now its value vs that of other games is relative to how much you enjoy each game. Right now 40k is a bad value for me because I am enjoying playing Malifaux more at the moment. So why spend more on something I'm not enjoying, but if I wanted to play an army scale game and didn't like the smaller scale 40k becomes a better value.
My larger issue is that I cannot honestly intro people to 40k anymore because the buy in from scratch is absurd.
There is certainly a point made here.
Nothing is quite like 40k. If I want to model things for the 40k universe, it's not like there is an alternative line with gothic aesthetics that also fits in 28mm/30mm heroic.
If I want to play a battle on the scale of 40k, the only alternatives are fan-made, and I can't convince any other players to agree to use non-GW rules, as I get accused of trying to powergame, or something else a TFG would do.
If you're in for the 40k style, GW is the only thing currently that works.
WayneTheGame wrote: The biggest issue is that you get more value overall from other games, in part because units make up a larger part of your force.
I just spent $150 on some additions to my Warmachine army:
* Vlad (Warcaster)
* Spriggan kit (Warjack)
* Iron Fang Pikemen (unit of 10)
* Iron Fang Pikemen Officer & Standard (2 guys)
* Greylord Outriders (box of 6 cavalry)
Now granted the Pikemen are very expensive at $85 for the box of 10, so with the attachment it's about $100. The difference is that unit is 10 points, so in a typical 50 point list it's 1/5 of my entire army.
GW feels more expensive even if it really isn't just because you need multiples of virtually everything to get to a normal playable level. So I'd rather spend $50 or more on a Warmachine unit that is a third of my force, than $50 on a single squad for 40k when I need half a dozen more things.
Which was kind of my whole point, per model things are not really more expensive (10 models for $85 is more than any GW infantry box right now, they split those into 5 model boxes). The problem is short of buying 10 Terminators (~$100, 2 kits, so similar in price, would be close to 1/4th of your force), most kits of 10 models run you 100-200 points on the table. So somewhere between 1/20th and 1/7th of a typical force. Most popular games you are spending about $5ish a model, but if you only need 20 or fewer models it is way cheaper.
Lets look at say a Paladin army. Draigo + 20 Paladins gets you a playable army, for ~$250. The problem is those builds are few and far between. Orks which need way more models are still fairly pricey for 10 models.
Yeah, model wise GW actually are still cheaper than most of their competitors on a model for model basis. It's the games themselves where the prices differ. One example:
Kromlech Orc is around $6 each (maybe more)
GW Ork is $3 each
Or look at individual model/unit costs from Puppet Wars. Cost is generallly comparable, sometimes slight lower, but quality and options are far lower.
And let's not even get started on vehicles. GW has the plastic vehicle market locked right now. They just aren't out there.
Dreamforge is the only real example of equal quality being produced at equal or lower prices.
Purely my opinion and I'm not saying GW isn't expensive. It's the most expensive game out there based on overall cost. Just not individual model cost. Where it gets ridiculous is as previously mentioned, Rules. Which is silly. I know the rule prices alone have driven people who used to buy a copy and download another copy have shifted strictly to downloading them.
Selym wrote: If you're in for the 40k style, GW is the only thing currently that works.
I think most people here enjoy the style and background of 40k and find it unique. But the problem is GW. It's like being in an abusive relationship. They don't want to listen, they don't return our calls, and they just seem to want to take our money and give back as little as possible. Really, what's the point? Even if you can tolerate the prices now, what about next year when they raise prices again? Or bring out another new edition so they can re-sell C:SM again for the Nth time? The pattern is just going to keep repeating, and putting up with it just re-enforces the bad behaviour.
Even if you are a die hard fan, who would never abandon your one true love... You would still benefit from them being a better company, releasing better rules, and treating their customers with more respect. In fact you would probably benefit the most from that, so why put up with less?
Historicals are vastly cheaper per figure than GW.
Typical price for 28mm infantry is £1 to £1.50 for metal. Plastic figures, still a relatively limited range but growing surprisingly quickly, are 30p to 50p per infantry figure.
SF and Fantasy producers are able to price higher because GW creates a high comparison point.
Kilkrazy wrote: Historicals are vastly cheaper per figure than GW.
Typical price for 28mm infantry is £1 to £1.50 for metal. Plastic figures, still a relatively limited range but growing surprisingly quickly, are 30p to 50p per infantry figure.
SF and Fantasy producers are able to price higher because GW creates a high comparison point.
Which doesn't alter the point that for the same type of games out there (i.e. Fantasy & Sci-Fi) you're still looking at costs higher than GW on most similar products on a model for model basis. Historicals to me are meh. I have zero interest. I don't care what they charge for their product. But I do care what Infinity charges per model or what Warmachine/Hordes charges per model. Since they are from the same genre.
Note I'm referring to more rank and file GW models. Once you branch into their characters it gets silly. Though similarly silly in some cases to Warmahordes it's still ridiculous what they charge for individual character models.
Selym wrote: If you're in for the 40k style, GW is the only thing currently that works.
I think most people here enjoy the style and background of 40k and find it unique. But the problem is GW. It's like being in an abusive relationship. They don't want to listen, they don't return our calls, and they just seem to want to take our money and give back as little as possible. Really, what's the point? Even if you can tolerate the prices now, what about next year when they raise prices again? Or bring out another new edition so they can re-sell C:SM again for the Nth time? The pattern is just going to keep repeating, and putting up with it just re-enforces the bad behaviour.
Even if you are a die hard fan, who would never abandon your one true love... You would still benefit from them being a better company, releasing better rules, and treating their customers with more respect. In fact you would probably benefit the most from that, so why put up with less?
Great analogy. It really feels like an abusive relationship. "They will change" "they can`t rise prices even more" "next edition will be better". And like an abusive relationship, it is so easy to see from the outside that it is just so wrong.
Leave, dont let Tom Kirby abuse you anymore, it wont get any better.
Selym wrote: If you're in for the 40k style, GW is the only thing currently that works.
I think most people here enjoy the style and background of 40k and find it unique. But the problem is GW. It's like being in an abusive relationship. They don't want to listen, they don't return our calls, and they just seem to want to take our money and give back as little as possible. Really, what's the point? Even if you can tolerate the prices now, what about next year when they raise prices again? Or bring out another new edition so they can re-sell C:SM again for the Nth time? The pattern is just going to keep repeating, and putting up with it just re-enforces the bad behaviour.
Even if you are a die hard fan, who would never abandon your one true love... You would still benefit from them being a better company, releasing better rules, and treating their customers with more respect. In fact you would probably benefit the most from that, so why put up with less?
Great analogy. It really feels like an abusive relationship. "They will change" "they can`t rise prices even more" "next edition will be better". And like an abusive relationship, it is so easy to see from the outside that it is just so wrong.
Leave, dont let Tom Kirby abuse you anymore, it wont get any better.
Actually they have changed, I never minded the prices back when I felt the rules were "decent" (not pushing the play with all your toys all the time), put out at a reasonable pace (prior to all the DLC), and more people around me played (at some point with GW you are paying for the community in addition to the game.). As those things have changed the game has become less enjoyable (cannot often find games, don't enjoy them as much when I do, feel that if I want to compete I am on an endless spending cycle). I still like the game well enough to not sell all my stuff, and will still play but other things now are more likely to gain traction with me than they would have before, I've been more willing to spend on other games (because communities are growing), and split my hobby time etc.
I've had alot of positive experiences with low-cost and free rulesets. Almost all the games our club plays are of this type.
Song of Blades and Heroes: $8 PDF with $8 expansions
Kings of War: Free or $35 for a hardcover full-color rulebook that comes with 8 complete army lists!
Wastelands: Free and periodically updated(every few years) post-apoc rules
Nuclear Rennaissance: Free PDF or for sale hardcopy. Expansion is a hardcopy or $9 PDF.
There are some great free rulesets that were formerly commercial rulesets, but now are free.
Warengine (formerly shockforce): Sci-Fantasy platoon combat
Full Thrust: Free and still great starship combat.
I understand GW's value is bad compared to most other war games. I didn't make that comparison because I'm not interested in other war games. If the models and background don't catch my eye, I'm not going to put the time in to model, paint and learn the rules. Some people may be able to have as much fun with pen and paper. I am not one of those people. I compare value to what's actually relevant to me. What else would I be spending my money on to have fun during that time? It wouldn't be another war game. It would be the things I mentioned in my previous post. GW is not a good value if you can have just as much fun playing other games. It is a good value if you could only get the same amount of enjoyment from other things that are far more expensive.
That is all well and good - but I will point out that this is a thread about people that have left GW and are playing other things.
Expecting to get much sympathy when you are saying that you are fine with GW's overpriced miniatures and their overpriced and shoddy rules... is setting yourself up for disappointment.
Because a majority of people that would post in such a thread do find fault with both GW's prices and their rules.
*EDIT* For the people posting in this thread GW does not provide value for money, so why try to defend GW? It fails to convince the readers, and tends to paint you in a... less than favorable light.
Breng77 wrote: To some extent GW games vs other games in not a great comparison though. I certainly won't argue that GW games cost more to play they do. But that is a scale of game issue more than a cost of product issue.
People are using Malifaux as a comparison. Sure the game is way cheaper to play, but on a per model basis it is every bit as expensive.
The larger GW issue is that of cost of their rules, cost of updating your army etc. Now its value vs that of other games is relative to how much you enjoy each game. Right now 40k is a bad value for me because I am enjoying playing Malifaux more at the moment. So why spend more on something I'm not enjoying, but if I wanted to play an army scale game and didn't like the smaller scale 40k becomes a better value.
My larger issue is that I cannot honestly intro people to 40k anymore because the buy in from scratch is absurd.
There is certainly a point made here.
Nothing is quite like 40k. If I want to model things for the 40k universe, it's not like there is an alternative line with gothic aesthetics that also fits in 28mm/30mm heroic.
If I want to play a battle on the scale of 40k, the only alternatives are fan-made, and I can't convince any other players to agree to use non-GW rules, as I get accused of trying to powergame, or something else a TFG would do.
If you're in for the 40k style, GW is the only thing currently that works.
But you can always get stuff from Ebay.
Well their is a really good argument to why no one else does 28mm scale gaming on the scale of GW rules, to be honest the game scale just doesn't work, the game scale is out of whack, theirs no mobility or any form of tactics involved once you get too that point your just playing Gun powder aged games. Line up your troops and shoot at each other pretty much sums up what i have seen of that game and is defiantly something i am not interested in. Bring it down to smaller scale multi based units and something work out , like shall we say what Epic 40k was like .
Skirmish Scale Wargames are really the right scale for 28mm miniatures, you don't have to play on a massive 6 x 4 table , you can really focus on painting just a hand full or two of miniatures. You have mobility , usually tactical depth. This also allows gaming companies too expand and supply a line for these types of games much more realistically as very few companies ever go into plastics ( i cannot even begin to tell you the cost of molds, the material is cheap but to invest in the molds is almost unreasonable , unless you know your product is really going to sell or that you have the money too invest in such things). Miniatures a cheap to produce once you have them but sculpting is defiantly not cheap to get a good sculpt and this also must be taken into consideration.
I have seen far too many third party producers producing " Gothic like miniatures" and i think we can honestly say we want something different ( that is not covered in skulls ) and away from that setting. So yes if your into 40k than GW are the only producers of 40k ( well along with Forge world), but in the end, the market is moving towards diversity and this is nothing but good for wargaming as a whole as the more diversity the more healthy wargaming will be .
Ive not been back into 40k all that long although I've spent enough on it recently. But the thing i strive for more and more with every addition to my army....Is a really small skirmish scale game where my guys gain experience and the like. Now dont get me wrong, I love 40k even with its many faults (pricing is not something that has bothered me thus far I must just be a rich bastard)
But in my search for more strategic warfare (especially with the loss of mordeihm and necromunda) I stumbled across infinity...Ive only played with a friends models so far but omg Im so hooked. I cant wait for my operation ice storm to arrive. Its leaps and bounds ahead of 40k but i think the poster above hit the nail on the head. At the scale alot of 40k battles take place...the rules can only go so far. Even if GW made an effort it can only ever really boil down to "point and shoot" especially in comparison to infinity. I do love alot of gw models (i also hate a lot of them) but infinity is an excellent and extremely low cost option for some really good wargaming.
Emperor knows I will never be able to leave the 40k universe (the game i could take it or leave it. My group has enough old models and patched together rules to play) but infinity is a damn fine substitute if you cant afford £250 for 1000 points of army. Infitiny is less than half that! Plus in 40k we try to play fluffy and not let anyone get to op which is alot of work but its doable. Infinity is great out of the box no fettling of rules, no mutual banning of units just out of the box fun. I can see myself spending less and less on 40k models but I will always be a sucker for the fluff.
TheAuldGrump wrote: That is all well and good - but I will point out that this is a thread about people that have left GW and are playing other things.
Expecting to get much sympathy when you are saying that you are fine with GW's overpriced miniatures and their overpriced and shoddy rules... is setting yourself up for disappointment.
Because a majority of people that would post in such a thread do find fault with both GW's prices and their rules.
This is a good point too.
There's plenty of threads for you to happily talk about GW products. This forum is pretty GW centric. But this thread in particular is about people talking about why they left GW's games. Trying to debate the choices people made isn't going to gain any traction. These people are done with GW, and have moved on to other games that are making them happy to play.
You're also not going to find much support in your views of why GW is still a good company - people in this thread left for various reasons that, to them, convinced them they weren't worth their continued support.
Musashi363 wrote: For people thinking that GW doesn't make the most expensive stuff on a model to model basis...I'll leave this right here
Spoiler:
I took the bait and looked it up. $100 for 5!
As high as it is, actually $20 per model isn't close to the most expensive I've seen, for mounted figures. However it does come close, and it may be the most expensive I've seen for a figure from a "mounted unit" as opposed to a single mounted special character.
Pretty shocking high price however you figure it. $100 is more than the price of a rulebook and all the figures necessary to play many of the games that I do.
And on the same token I can put up a picture of a kit where they have a lower price than most hings or kits from other companies where similar sized models cost more than $20 so your point is?
The larger issue still is that I need $500 of additional stuff to play the game vs that $100 for 5 models being enough to actually play the game.
As always the issue is what else you need and how much the unit is in your force. It's $100 for five cavalry when you probably need at least a unit of 10 to use them effectively, right? So right away you need to pay double to really use it. On top of the rest of your army.
Compare PPs Khador Iron Fang Uhlans which are $60 for three and have extras for $20 right now, with a max unit being five so same price. However as before that $100 goes a longer way in a force than $100 on the vampire cavalry does because it represents more of your army so it looks/feels like you are spending less and/or getting more value for your $100. I would be fine paying $100 for that in my khador army because with a bit more I have a playable force. Not so much if I played vamps because there's a lot more I still need to make it viable.
The part I always find interesting in these discussions on the model to model price comparison is this:
The majority of other manufacturers are making their minis out of white metal or high-quality resin. GW makes the majority of their models out of PLASTIC!!!!
When GW first introduced plastics in core troop regiments, it was meant to cut the price (and cost) down of assembling large blocks of infantry.
Fast forward to today, and somehow, the madness of justifying paying so much for a material much cheaper than other manufacturers use is mind-boggling.
There is a reason why historical manufacturers are charging $0.75-$1.25 average per foot figure and $2.75 to $3.50 for mounted for plastics whereas GW is charging an average $4-$8 for foot and $4.50-$20 for cavalry despite having the manufacturing advantage over the historical ones. I am sorry, but GW "quality" is not four to eight time better than most of the plastic historicals on the market.
Just look at the new Nagash model. $105 for TWO sprues. Regardless of the size of the model, it is still only two sprues. The same amount of plastic that is in an Empire Free Company or typical 40k building set in the $33-$35 range. You are paying 350% more for WHAT exactly? If this doesn't plainly tell people they are being blatantly ripped off, I don't know what will. Everytime I see a new GW release now, with the prices constantly escalating upward, for some reason the quote, "A fool and his money are soon parted," always comes to mind.
While we're on the subject, anyone mind if I fish for some 40k alternative models, for use in the game?
As in, suitable replacements for IG vehicles and infantry.
I'm genuinely interested.
I don't disagree that GW is a money-sucking vampire who cared more for a 1p coin than a human's life, so don't take the request as an argument in favour of them.
Well I suppose the prices are that high because people will pay it.
That being said, I think that each person has their limit, and this is compounded by GW no longer being the only (easily available) player in town. As that prices slide up, more and more purchasers are priced out, and that is probably what is at least in part responsible for their current drop in profits.
I do think the current start-up prices are nuts. If I was a kid coming into wargaming these days there is no way in hell I could afford to get into the game and play as GW intend me to. These days I couldn't really afford the expenditure either for that matter! It's certainly lucky that there are other options out there, and ultimately the market will decide! (I think, actually, that it's lucky for the industry that there are other competitors because I think GW's current behaviour could be driving the whole thing into the ground)
I know the rallying cry is 'buy from ebay!' but getting the minis through the post in a tesco bag, and then having to wear rubber gloves and try and scrub off 4 layers of paint in nitromors, does reduce some of the magic somewhat.
Pacific wrote: Well I suppose the prices are that high because people will pay it.
That being said, I think that each person has their limit, and this is compounded by GW no longer being the only (easily available) player in town. As that prices slide up, more and more purchasers are priced out, and that is probably what is at least in part responsible for their current drop in profits.
I do think the current start-up prices are nuts. If I was a kid coming into wargaming these days there is no way in hell I could afford to get into the game and play as GW intend me to. These days I couldn't really afford the expenditure either for that matter! It's certainly lucky that there are other options out there, and ultimately the market will decide! (I think, actually, that it's lucky for the industry that there are other competitors because I think GW's current behaviour could be driving the whole thing into the ground)
I know the rallying cry is 'buy from ebay!' but getting the minis through the post in a tesco bag, and then having to wear rubber gloves and try and scrub off 4 layers of paint in nitromors, does reduce some of the magic somewhat.
I don't know about others, but whenever I've purchased from Ebay, I've gotten either unbuilt or unpainted (and couple of painted things that were easy to clean), and were well packaged and quickly delivered. Probably because I keep buying from the 100% positive guys.
The only problems I've had was that long pointy things tend to break off in the post, and need re-gluing.
Wayshuba wrote: The part I always find interesting in these discussions on the model to model price comparison is this:
The majority of other manufacturers are making their minis out of white metal or high-quality resin. GW makes the majority of their models out of PLASTIC!!!!
When GW first introduced plastics in core troop regiments, it was meant to cut the price (and cost) down of assembling large blocks of infantry.
Fast forward to today, and somehow, the madness of justifying paying so much for a material much cheaper than other manufacturers use is mind-boggling.
There is a reason why historical manufacturers are charging $0.75-$1.25 average per foot figure and $2.75 to $3.50 for mounted for plastics whereas GW is charging an average $4-$8 for foot and $4.50-$20 for cavalry despite having the manufacturing advantage over the historical ones. I am sorry, but GW "quality" is not four to eight time better than most of the plastic historicals on the market.
Just look at the new Nagash model. $105 for TWO sprues. Regardless of the size of the model, it is still only two sprues. The same amount of plastic that is in an Empire Free Company or typical 40k building set in the $33-$35 range. You are paying 350% more for WHAT exactly? If this doesn't plainly tell people they are being blatantly ripped off, I don't know what will. Everytime I see a new GW release now, with the prices constantly escalating upward, for some reason the quote, "A fool and his money are soon parted," always comes to mind.
Simple: You're paying 350% more for A) A special character, and B) Something that anyone who buys the figure (already limited basically to people who play VCs and/or TKs, discounting people who might buy him for nostalgia) will only buy one of. So the GW mentality is that you have to charge a lot more because you'll sell less. Unfortunately they don't really translate this over in the opposite direction with regular rank-and-file troops that you need to buy a lot of.
It wouldn't even be that bad if they did price regular troops cheaply enough to buy a lot of without breaking the bank and then charged a lot for characters that you only buy one of.
Wayshuba wrote: The part I always find interesting in these discussions on the model to model price comparison is this:
The majority of other manufacturers are making their minis out of white metal or high-quality resin. GW makes the majority of their models out of PLASTIC!!!!
When GW first introduced plastics in core troop regiments, it was meant to cut the price (and cost) down of assembling large blocks of infantry.
Fast forward to today, and somehow, the madness of justifying paying so much for a material much cheaper than other manufacturers use is mind-boggling.
There is a reason why historical manufacturers are charging $0.75-$1.25 average per foot figure and $2.75 to $3.50 for mounted for plastics whereas GW is charging an average $4-$8 for foot and $4.50-$20 for cavalry despite having the manufacturing advantage over the historical ones. I am sorry, but GW "quality" is not four to eight time better than most of the plastic historicals on the market.
Just look at the new Nagash model. $105 for TWO sprues. Regardless of the size of the model, it is still only two sprues. The same amount of plastic that is in an Empire Free Company or typical 40k building set in the $33-$35 range. You are paying 350% more for WHAT exactly? If this doesn't plainly tell people they are being blatantly ripped off, I don't know what will. Everytime I see a new GW release now, with the prices constantly escalating upward, for some reason the quote, "A fool and his money are soon parted," always comes to mind.
Simple: You're paying 350% more for A) A special character, and B) Something that anyone who buys the figure (already limited basically to people who play VCs and/or TKs, discounting people who might buy him for nostalgia) will only buy one of. So the GW mentality is that you have to charge a lot more because you'll sell less. Unfortunately they don't really translate this over in the opposite direction with regular rank-and-file troops that you need to buy a lot of.
It wouldn't even be that bad if they did price regular troops cheaply enough to buy a lot of without breaking the bank and then charged a lot for characters that you only buy one of.
I'd only be happy with that if they reworked the SC's to be *very* high quality. I'm talking, bringing Abby up to full size, decorative cloaks, pre-decorated bases, *proper* resin, none of that failcrap.
I'd be okay with the rank 'n' file losing some dead weight in plastic, such as grenades, holstered sidearms, extra sights and bayonets etc. They could compensate for that by making those into upgrade packs.
They could do that, make a box of 10 IG £10, the upgrade pack about £3, and the SC's could double.
Pacific wrote: Well I suppose the prices are that high because people will pay it.
That being said, I think that each person has their limit, and this is compounded by GW no longer being the only (easily available) player in town. As that prices slide up, more and more purchasers are priced out, and that is probably what is at least in part responsible for their current drop in profits.
I do think the current start-up prices are nuts. If I was a kid coming into wargaming these days there is no way in hell I could afford to get into the game and play as GW intend me to. These days I couldn't really afford the expenditure either for that matter! It's certainly lucky that there are other options out there, and ultimately the market will decide! (I think, actually, that it's lucky for the industry that there are other competitors because I think GW's current behaviour could be driving the whole thing into the ground)
I know the rallying cry is 'buy from ebay!' but getting the minis through the post in a tesco bag, and then having to wear rubber gloves and try and scrub off 4 layers of paint in nitromors, does reduce some of the magic somewhat.
I don't know about others, but whenever I've purchased from Ebay, I've gotten either unbuilt or unpainted (and couple of painted things that were easy to clean), and were well packaged and quickly delivered. Probably because I keep buying from the 100% positive guys.
The only problems I've had was that long pointy things tend to break off in the post, and need re-gluing.
Yes I was being a bit disingenuous there. A lot of the stuff I've bought off ebay has been the same standard as I would have done someone else - i.e. well packaged and protected, and I've landed myself a bargain.
But I have also got some horrendous stuff, which would have been have been quite amusing if not for the money spent - literally just a cardboard box with jumbles of miniatures inside (guessing an 'ebay dump' of some kids stuff by his parents), aforementioned wrapping in a tesco bag (which was all sticky inside - lovely!) and on one occasion miniatures which I believe were covered in something like woad...
Point being, the old adage 'you don't get new for second hand', and going rates from ebay shouldn't be used as a price guide for how much it costs for getting into a game. I know that's not what you are saying Selym but it's a statement often heard. It's fine for the veteran who can pick out some plasma guns in that pile'o'bits with the mobile phone pic blown up and sharpened on photoshop, but a lot of the time its no good if you're not exactly sure what you need to buy (for a child's parents or for gifts etc.) - in these cases, RRP is more appropriate.
Wayshuba wrote: The part I always find interesting in these discussions on the model to model price comparison is this:
The majority of other manufacturers are making their minis out of white metal or high-quality resin. GW makes the majority of their models out of PLASTIC!!!!
When GW first introduced plastics in core troop regiments, it was meant to cut the price (and cost) down of assembling large blocks of infantry.
Fast forward to today, and somehow, the madness of justifying paying so much for a material much cheaper than other manufacturers use is mind-boggling.
There is a reason why historical manufacturers are charging $0.75-$1.25 average per foot figure and $2.75 to $3.50 for mounted for plastics whereas GW is charging an average $4-$8 for foot and $4.50-$20 for cavalry despite having the manufacturing advantage over the historical ones. I am sorry, but GW "quality" is not four to eight time better than most of the plastic historicals on the market.
Just look at the new Nagash model. $105 for TWO sprues. Regardless of the size of the model, it is still only two sprues. The same amount of plastic that is in an Empire Free Company or typical 40k building set in the $33-$35 range. You are paying 350% more for WHAT exactly? If this doesn't plainly tell people they are being blatantly ripped off, I don't know what will. Everytime I see a new GW release now, with the prices constantly escalating upward, for some reason the quote, "A fool and his money are soon parted," always comes to mind.
Simple: You're paying 350% more for A) A special character, and B) Something that anyone who buys the figure (already limited basically to people who play VCs and/or TKs, discounting people who might buy him for nostalgia) will only buy one of. So the GW mentality is that you have to charge a lot more because you'll sell less. Unfortunately they don't really translate this over in the opposite direction with regular rank-and-file troops that you need to buy a lot of.
It wouldn't even be that bad if they did price regular troops cheaply enough to buy a lot of without breaking the bank and then charged a lot for characters that you only buy one of.
Isn't it weird how you rationalize GW prices by looking at it from their perspective? Think about that.
I'm having a hard time coming up with another scenario where I would think, "well, I'll pay more for this because the price makes sense from the company's perspective." The only scenario where I come close to that is if I'm shopping at a local business and I want to support them, and even then, my logic is more "well this is as low as they can go in price because they're the little guys."
It's two plastic sprues. For $105.
I'm with Wayshuba on this. A fool and his money. In fact, most of the people in this thread are, and more and more people in wargaming are as well, which is why this thread exists and GW sales are dropping like a rock.
I suppose I have partially left GW. I started with 40k back in the mid nineties after brother introduced me to Necromunda (which is still my all-time favorite GW game). I fell in love with the guard and began collecting Mordians, Tallarns, Valhallans, Cadians, et al. This was 3rd edition! A few years ago I finally got around to creating a fantasy army and I wound up creating many fantasy armies! First, Bretonnians; next, Empire; then Undead; and Orcs!
While I don't play much of any game, I still love collecting and painting GW miniatures. I love the odd, heroic scale. What I don't do is buy new GW miniatures.
The start was a few years ago after a massive, across-the-board 20% price increase. I grumbled and scaled back my purchases. Then, White Dwarf and the website began to undergo changes. I had ended my purchases of new GW minis and was content with exclusively used or old product lines. Finally, when the White Dwarf was reborn about 6 months back I stopped buying anything and everything GW. I felt (and still feel) betrayed by GW management.
Now, as I mentioned, I still love to paint and collect older models. I even like older GW books and game systems; I just don't buy new any longer.
P.S. the saddest story is the tale of abandonment viz a viz the specialist games range (Necromunda, Mordheim, Epic 40k, BFG, Bloodbowl, et al). GW's line of small-scale/skirmish games were always my favorite game systems and it is unfortunate that GW seems uninterested in having much to do with these titles short maintaining licensing rights.
Since there are a bunch of people here who are familiar with 40K I might as well post this here. It's also relevant because it's kinda where I went when I found myself wanting to play with my GW stuff (and friends who refuse to move to Warmachine).
Kojiro wrote: Since there are a bunch of people here who are familiar with 40K I might as well post this here. It's also relevant because it's kinda where I went when I found myself wanting to play with my GW stuff (and friends who refuse to move to Warmachine).
Click for hi-res.
Spoiler:
For me, it's not just the rules or horrible business practices.
For me, 40k has been ruined by the horrible fluff. It's almost become a parody of itself. Before I left, I was considering starting a Space Wolf army, but now I see Murder McMurderson with his Murderclaws on planet McMurder and I just can't take it seriously anymore. There's always a certain (a lot) suspension of disbelief, but when it gets to the point of just being obviously silly, it ruins it for me. The flying bathtub is just so flat-out stupid that I can't ignore it and has now soured me to the SW. I could never play them even if I did go back to 40k. Now in the game you have loyalist Librarians summoning deamons, shooty ork armies, Khorne armies that are laughed at, tyrannids that are hardly a threat and elite super space marines that are practically useless on the field. The game no longer fits the fluff that I once loved and for me, it was about the fluff.
For me, it's not just the rules or horrible business practices.
For me, 40k has been ruined by the horrible fluff. It's almost become a parody of itself.
I totally get that. All the conversion work I did is stuck in the 2nd/3rd ed period for just that reason. I've recreated 40kas I like and remember it. I'm going to enjoy my 40K no matter what GW tries to do.
Selym wrote: While we're on the subject, anyone mind if I fish for some 40k alternative models, for use in the game?
As in, suitable replacements for IG vehicles and infantry.
I'm genuinely interested.
I don't disagree that GW is a money-sucking vampire who cared more for a 1p coin than a human's life, so don't take the request as an argument in favour of them.
In general, replacements that actually look like IG vehicles are going to be pricey - smaller production runs than GW, and often in resin - though the prices of the GW models are still sometimes more.
It is also worth looking at some of the old Tamiya science fiction and military models - way back in the Rogue Trader days they were even being used (after heavy modification) by the folks at GW.... (As were things like plasticard and deodorant containers.... )
For me, it's not just the rules or horrible business practices.
For me, 40k has been ruined by the horrible fluff. It's almost become a parody of itself.
I totally get that. All the conversion work I did is stuck in the 2nd/3rd ed period for just that reason. I've recreated 40kas I like and remember it. I'm going to enjoy my 40K no matter what GW tries to do.
edit- fixed quote box
edit 2- or so I thought...
There is a reason that I still play 3rd edition....
Do you remember all the fanzines that used to be around for 40K? I miss those days.... They contained more material than White Dwarf does these days.... (Not that it is hard to contain more than the current WD....)
I took the bait and looked it up. $100 for 5!
As high as it is, actually $20 per model isn't close to the most expensive I've seen, for mounted figures. However it does come close, and it may be the most expensive I've seen for a figure from a "mounted unit" as opposed to a single mounted special character.
I think it's also important to keep in mind unit size?? Now, I have no idea how many of those knights can be in a unit, but what's the minimum?? are you looking at "needing" two or three boxes of those just to have an effective unit?
Selym wrote: While we're on the subject, anyone mind if I fish for some 40k alternative models, for use in the game?
As in, suitable replacements for IG vehicles and infantry.
I'm genuinely interested.
I don't disagree that GW is a money-sucking vampire who cared more for a 1p coin than a human's life, so don't take the request as an argument in favour of them.
In general, replacements that actually look like IG vehicles are going to be pricey - smaller production runs than GW, and often in resin - though the prices of the GW models are still sometimes more.
It is also worth looking at some of the old Tamiya science fiction and military models - way back in the Rogue Trader days they were even being used (after heavy modification) by the folks at GW.... (As were things like plasticard and deodorant containers.... )
The Auld Grump
As well as the Auld Grump's examples there, there are also some more options:
I left GW for the poor rules and poor support. The mistreatment of customers and competition was icing.
Reaper minis has gone on to say "I don't sell you minis that you'll paint, just minis that you'll think you'll paint!" (in a cheeky fashion). But that's the truth, you sell them on the thought and not the actual. The problem with GW is that the actual cost far out-strides the thought. I'd probably throw $50 at the Nagash model at the thought of slapping it together someday or making a cool diorama. But at $105? I could get two master-grade level Andrea miniatures shipped to me on my couch at that price. Or I could get me MOAR BANEZ. If you make great models AND price them correctly, people outside of said armies will want to buy it.
Wayshuba wrote:Just look at the new Nagash model. $105 for TWO sprues. Regardless of the size of the model, it is still only two sprues. The same amount of plastic that is in an Empire Free Company or typical 40k building set in the $33-$35 range. You are paying 350% more for WHAT exactly? If this doesn't plainly tell people they are being blatantly ripped off, I don't know what will. Everytime I see a new GW release now, with the prices constantly escalating upward, for some reason the quote, "A fool and his money are soon parted," always comes to mind.
I think it also might be the first in a series of such kits. By designing the plastic pieces to allow a mostly hollow kit of energy supports and spindly limbs, they were able to make a kit as tall as Nagash with as few sprues as possible. Much like they did for that daemon looking treeman thing for the wood elves release. The Treeman/Durthu though is 40% less for the same two sprues.
I think with this "end times" campaign, we'll see a low sprue spindly big kit for a high price and a double book campaign pack for a variety of armies in series. This will allow GW one last cash grab from their WFB die hards before the game either magically comes back in popularity (unlikely given these campaign books don't seem to be changing anything about the core product) or fades away.
As for myself, I'm still plugging away on my historical projects and playing some WM/H every month or so, with a frenzy of practice games a few times a year as large tournaments approach.
Wayshuba wrote:Just look at the new Nagash model. $105 for TWO sprues. Regardless of the size of the model, it is still only two sprues. The same amount of plastic that is in an Empire Free Company or typical 40k building set in the $33-$35 range. You are paying 350% more for WHAT exactly? If this doesn't plainly tell people they are being blatantly ripped off, I don't know what will. Everytime I see a new GW release now, with the prices constantly escalating upward, for some reason the quote, "A fool and his money are soon parted," always comes to mind.
I think it also might be the first in a series of such kits. By designing the plastic pieces to allow a mostly hollow kit of energy supports and spindly limbs, they were able to make a kit as tall as Nagash with as few sprues as possible. Much like they did for that daemon looking treeman thing for the wood elves release. The Treeman/Durthu though is 40% less for the same two sprues.
I think with this "end times" campaign, we'll see a low sprue spindly big kit for a high price and a double book campaign pack for a variety of armies in series. This will allow GW one last cash grab from their WFB die hards before the game either magically comes back in popularity (unlikely given these campaign books don't seem to be changing anything about the core product) or fades away.
As for myself, I'm still plugging away on my historical projects and playing some WM/H every month or so, with a frenzy of practice games a few times a year as large tournaments approach.
While I think you are correct, I will probably be waiting for it to come down in price, as I actually like the model, but would be using it in DnD games, as opposed to any sort of WHFB or 40k games.
I think the model has potential. I really like the energy waves that support the actual model, but don't like the over the top "he thinks he's the Pope of skeleton-town" look of everything else.
He's much better being used for RPG or other game purposes than having to supplement him with tons of other miniatures (plus the undead he creates during the game). WFBs model count is just so bloated.
frozenwastes wrote: I think the model has potential. I really like the energy waves that support the actual model, but don't like the over the top "he thinks he's the Pope of skeleton-town" look of everything else.
He's much better being used for RPG or other game purposes than having to supplement him with tons of other miniatures (plus the undead he creates during the game). WFBs model count is just so bloated.
Wayshuba wrote:Just look at the new Nagash model. $105 for TWO sprues. Regardless of the size of the model, it is still only two sprues. The same amount of plastic that is in an Empire Free Company or typical 40k building set in the $33-$35 range. You are paying 350% more for WHAT exactly? If this doesn't plainly tell people they are being blatantly ripped off, I don't know what will. Everytime I see a new GW release now, with the prices constantly escalating upward, for some reason the quote, "A fool and his money are soon parted," always comes to mind.
I think it also might be the first in a series of such kits. By designing the plastic pieces to allow a mostly hollow kit of energy supports and spindly limbs, they were able to make a kit as tall as Nagash with as few sprues as possible. Much like they did for that daemon looking treeman thing for the wood elves release. The Treeman/Durthu though is 40% less for the same two sprues.
I think with this "end times" campaign, we'll see a low sprue spindly big kit for a high price and a double book campaign pack for a variety of armies in series. This will allow GW one last cash grab from their WFB die hards before the game either magically comes back in popularity (unlikely given these campaign books don't seem to be changing anything about the core product) or fades away.
As for myself, I'm still plugging away on my historical projects and playing some WM/H every month or so, with a frenzy of practice games a few times a year as large tournaments approach.
There was the rumor of 9th being much smaller in scope. More akin to Warmahordes. Which is doing much better than Fantasy. The rumor did indicate that this "End times" series would be the catalyst to set up a post-apocalyptic landscape for the smaller system.
Prince August - bag o' 80 old Warzone plastics, plus the metals.
Heresy Miniatures troopers. Metal and not the cheapest (though not too bad compared to Militarum Tempestus!) but I've been buying a few to use as stormtroopers, elites, or summat, in anticipation of the plastic trooper kickstarter. Considering how well his resin monster KS is going at the mo, I have high hopes.
I took the bait and looked it up. $100 for 5!
As high as it is, actually $20 per model isn't close to the most expensive I've seen, for mounted figures. However it does come close, and it may be the most expensive I've seen for a figure from a "mounted unit" as opposed to a single mounted special character.
I think it's also important to keep in mind unit size?? Now, I have no idea how many of those knights can be in a unit, but what's the minimum?? are you looking at "needing" two or three boxes of those just to have an effective unit?
Five are typically enough, but if you know they will be charging into something particularly tough and killy, ten might be worthwhile. Blood Knights themselves are super tough and killy. So one box, maybe hunt down some extra non command models if you can.
The main problem with Blood Knights is each one is an individual character quality sculpt on an individually sculpted horse. So they were up there price wise with mounted characters when they were sold separately. In GWs infinite wisdom, they offered very little discount when they put them in a box.
I left GW for the poor rules and poor support. The mistreatment of customers and competition was icing.
Reaper minis has gone on to say "I don't sell you minis that you'll paint, just minis that you'll think you'll paint!" (in a cheeky fashion). But that's the truth, you sell them on the thought and not the actual. The problem with GW is that the actual cost far out-strides the thought. I'd probably throw $50 at the Nagash model at the thought of slapping it together someday or making a cool diorama. But at $105? I could get two master-grade level Andrea miniatures shipped to me on my couch at that price. Or I could get me MOAR BANEZ. If you make great models AND price them correctly, people outside of said armies will want to buy it.
$105?! Are they flippin' bat guano insane?
Please tell me that is in Oz dollars, or something.... *Runs off to look.*
Good gravy... they really are nuts over there, aren't they?
I left GW for the poor rules and poor support. The mistreatment of customers and competition was icing.
Reaper minis has gone on to say "I don't sell you minis that you'll paint, just minis that you'll think you'll paint!" (in a cheeky fashion). But that's the truth, you sell them on the thought and not the actual. The problem with GW is that the actual cost far out-strides the thought. I'd probably throw $50 at the Nagash model at the thought of slapping it together someday or making a cool diorama. But at $105? I could get two master-grade level Andrea miniatures shipped to me on my couch at that price. Or I could get me MOAR BANEZ. If you make great models AND price them correctly, people outside of said armies will want to buy it.
$105?! Are they flippin' bat guano insane?
Please tell me that is in Oz dollars, or something.... *Runs off to look.*
Good gravy... they really are nuts over there, aren't they?
The Auld Grump
[Tom Kirby assumes control]
Whatever, hater. You should feel privileged we even let you BUY our product! This things are national treasures for God's sake!
[Tom Kirby vacates]
Ouuuff, I see imagines of the old Nagash plastered through my brain...
That's hilarious hahaha. If I cared, I'd say "Ni hao GW" and buy it from China... but I just don't anymore. They've rapidly worked me to apathy, I didn't think it could happen that fast.
Breng77 wrote: To some extent GW games vs other games in not a great comparison though. I certainly won't argue that GW games cost more to play they do. But that is a scale of game issue more than a cost of product issue.
People are using Malifaux as a comparison. Sure the game is way cheaper to play, but on a per model basis it is every bit as expensive.
The larger GW issue is that of cost of their rules, cost of updating your army etc. Now its value vs that of other games is relative to how much you enjoy each game. Right now 40k is a bad value for me because I am enjoying playing Malifaux more at the moment. So why spend more on something I'm not enjoying, but if I wanted to play an army scale game and didn't like the smaller scale 40k becomes a better value.
My larger issue is that I cannot honestly intro people to 40k anymore because the buy in from scratch is absurd.
There is certainly a point made here.
Nothing is quite like 40k. If I want to model things for the 40k universe, it's not like there is an alternative line with gothic aesthetics that also fits in 28mm/30mm heroic.
If I want to play a battle on the scale of 40k, the only alternatives are fan-made, and I can't convince any other players to agree to use non-GW rules, as I get accused of trying to powergame, or something else a TFG would do.
If you're in for the 40k style, GW is the only thing currently that works.
But you can always get stuff from Ebay.
Well their is a really good argument to why no one else does 28mm scale gaming on the scale of GW rules, to be honest the game scale just doesn't work, the game scale is out of whack, theirs no mobility or any form of tactics involved once you get too that point your just playing Gun powder aged games. Line up your troops and shoot at each other pretty much sums up what i have seen of that game and is defiantly something i am not interested in. Bring it down to smaller scale multi based units and something work out , like shall we say what Epic 40k was like .
Skirmish Scale Wargames are really the right scale for 28mm miniatures, you don't have to play on a massive 6 x 4 table , you can really focus on painting just a hand full or two of miniatures. You have mobility , usually tactical depth. This also allows gaming companies too expand and supply a line for these types of games much more realistically as very few companies ever go into plastics ( i cannot even begin to tell you the cost of molds, the material is cheap but to invest in the molds is almost unreasonable , unless you know your product is really going to sell or that you have the money too invest in such things). Miniatures a cheap to produce once you have them but sculpting is defiantly not cheap to get a good sculpt and this also must be taken into consideration.
I have seen far too many third party producers producing " Gothic like miniatures" and i think we can honestly say we want something different ( that is not covered in skulls ) and away from that setting. So yes if your into 40k than GW are the only producers of 40k ( well along with Forge world), but in the end, the market is moving towards diversity and this is nothing but good for wargaming as a whole as the more diversity the more healthy wargaming will be .
You are also missing something which is so very elegant in its simplicity... x2.
If you want to play larger scale (28mm vs 15mm) games on a larger scale (companies vs skirmish) - take any one of the hundreds of well written 15mm rule sets and multiply the numbers by two. Now they are a 30mm game. Granted, for a proper game on that scale in that size - you do need a table that works for it...but, that is what you have to deal with if you want to use those sizes.
40K isn't really a large scale game anyway. It is a skirmish game that is bogged down with so much garbage that it barely functions. Every edition makes it worse, every new unit release breaks it further. I was up in Atlanta this past week and happened into a store where there were a couple of people playing 40K (first time I actually have seen it played in a store in over 4 years). It was rather ridiculous. From the start, there was no real maneuvering - no room to maneuver even if the rules were set up for it. It wasn't even a terribly large game as far as I could tell - but skirmish rules on a skirmish table with a hundred or so figures... I watched for about half of a turn, and became bored out of my mind after about 30 minutes of nothing really happening.
MWHistorian wrote: For me, it's not just the rules or horrible business practices.
For me, 40k has been ruined by the horrible fluff. It's almost become a parody of itself. Before I left, I was considering starting a Space Wolf army, but now I see Murder McMurderson with his Murderclaws on planet McMurder and I just can't take it seriously anymore. There's always a certain (a lot) suspension of disbelief, but when it gets to the point of just being obviously silly, it ruins it for me. The flying bathtub is just so flat-out stupid that I can't ignore it and has now soured me to the SW. I could never play them even if I did go back to 40k. Now in the game you have loyalist Librarians summoning deamons, shooty ork armies, Khorne armies that are laughed at, tyrannids that are hardly a threat and elite super space marines that are practically useless on the field. The game no longer fits the fluff that I once loved and for me, it was about the fluff.
I reached that point much earlier, with Draigo. I wrote custom fluff for my own Space Marine chapter when I was 14 (all copies have been destroyed, and it will never ever see the light of day) that was less stupid and over-the-top than something which was professionally published.
I reached that point much earlier, with Draigo. I wrote custom fluff for my own Space Marine chapter when I was 14 (all copies have been destroyed, and it will never ever see the light of day)
I stopped buying GW stuff new probably five years ago, when my son was born. I picked up a few things here or there on Ebay, but have mostly shifted my purchasing to Mantic, while looking at games like Songs of Blades and Heroes and Kings of War to use my vast collection of fantasy minis, with Deadzone or possibly 40K 3rd edition for SF.
In the last week or so, I have pretty much decided to avoid everything GW, also for my son. The background material just gets darker and uglier, with even the ostensible good guys committing genocide, and the bad guys bleeding over into torture porn. I have no desire to expose a child to any of that.
Kojiro wrote: Since there are a bunch of people here who are familiar with 40K I might as well post this here. It's also relevant because it's kinda where I went when I found myself wanting to play with my GW stuff (and friends who refuse to move to Warmachine).
Click for hi-res.
Spoiler:
I've been impressed with this project since I first saw the link in your sig.
gunslingerpro wrote: [
I've been impressed with this project since I first saw the link in your sig.
Thank you. Inspiration for it waxes and wanes but each time a few more units get done and the overall look gets a bit prettier. Most of my group started in the 2nd-3rd era when 40K was on a scale much more similar to WM/H and ironically, never played for the rules back then but find them intolerable now. Hence the upgrade. That and all the units done so far simply *feel* more like the 40K of old, at least to us.
If there's any unit/faction in particular you'd like to see, let me know and we'll make up a new version.
Selym wrote: While we're on the subject, anyone mind if I fish for some 40k alternative models, for use in the game?
As in, suitable replacements for IG vehicles and infantry.
I'm genuinely interested.
I don't disagree that GW is a money-sucking vampire who cared more for a 1p coin than a human's life, so don't take the request as an argument in favour of them.
Probably best to start a new thread for that as I imagine other would find it useful rather than it being tucked away in this thread. I am sure people would be happy to help though as some already have.
JoshInJapan wrote: I stopped buying GW stuff new probably five years ago, when my son was born. I picked up a few things here or there on Ebay, but have mostly shifted my purchasing to Mantic, while looking at games like Songs of Blades and Heroes and Kings of War to use my vast collection of fantasy minis, with Deadzone or possibly 40K 3rd edition for SF.
In the last week or so, I have pretty much decided to avoid everything GW, also for my son. The background material just gets darker and uglier, with even the ostensible good guys committing genocide, and the bad guys bleeding over into torture porn. I have no desire to expose a child to any of that.
I'm in roughly the same boat with minis, kids and games. The kids-and-40k thing is something I've been thinking on also.
40k is a nihilistic dark place and one that I'm increasingly less fond of, but I think if my son really wants to play it, I'll probably let him when he's old enough. I was powerless to resist it as a teen and it could grab him too. It would definitely take some creative financing though and probably a "paint it before I buy you another unit" philosophy. I shudder to think of how much more expensive the hobby will be in another 8 years or so. Hopefully, he'll stay in the light of indie games, but if he goes to the dark side at least I've become VERY good at seeking out wargaming bargains.
I'm in roughly the same boat with minis, kids and games. The kids-and-40k thing is something I've been thinking on also.
40k is a nihilistic dark place and one that I'm increasingly less fond of, but I think if my son really wants to play it, I'll probably let him when he's old enough. I was powerless to resist it as a teen and it could grab him too. It would definitely take some creative financing though and probably a "paint it before I buy you another unit" philosophy. I shudder to think of how much more expensive the hobby will be in another 8 years or so. Hopefully, he'll stay in the light of indie games, but if he goes to the dark side at least I've become VERY good at seeking out wargaming bargains.
I dunno Eilif... he may not want to play 40k... there aren't enough trains. If he does want to play he will be welcome to use my Tau or Dark Angels (provided you find him an updated codex).
I played 40k since the beginning of 3rd edition but quit just before 5th. I've played Necromunda, Mordheim, and even got into Fantasy at the end of 7th beginning of 8th.
I am quitting it due to a variety of reasons - price being the big one, rules being number two. The rules for 40K have been poorly worded and the FAQ's rarely do much to clarify - sometimes making things worse.
I don't like the way 7th edition is playing. Our local 40K population is pretty large but most complain about the way the rules are set up plus the almost requirement of getting your opponents permission to do something. It's difficult to just show up with an army and throw down without horsetrading going on.
Fantasy was fun but I got tired of having to paint blocks of 20 to 40 of things - and the sheer price of having to get those blocks. Plus storage of 100 to 200 models, transport - I'm done.
A friend got me hooked on Dropzone Commander and that is my new game. I'm liquidating my Gee Dub stuff to pay for it. The sad thing is with 7th edition I'm not the only one with that idea.
khealos wrote: Fantasy was fun but I got tired of having to paint blocks of 20 to 40 of things - and the sheer price of having to get those blocks. Plus storage of 100 to 200 models, transport - I'm done.
There is something to be said for that.
Kings of War alleviated it a bit by making the size of the unit base matter, rather than the number of figures on that base - so I have been making small dioramas instead of units.
Doesn't help with the storage and transport, though... in fact it makes it harder.
khealos wrote: Fantasy was fun but I got tired of having to paint blocks of 20 to 40 of things - and the sheer price of having to get those blocks. Plus storage of 100 to 200 models, transport - I'm done.
There is something to be said for that.
Kings of War alleviated it a bit by making the size of the unit base matter, rather than the number of figures on that base - so I have been making small dioramas instead of units.
Doesn't help with the storage and transport, though... in fact it makes it harder.
The Auld Grump
I "fixed" that GW problem by playing Ogre Kingdoms
khealos wrote: Fantasy was fun but I got tired of having to paint blocks of 20 to 40 of things - and the sheer price of having to get those blocks. Plus storage of 100 to 200 models, transport - I'm done.
There is something to be said for that.
Kings of War alleviated it a bit by making the size of the unit base matter, rather than the number of figures on that base - so I have been making small dioramas instead of units.
Doesn't help with the storage and transport, though... in fact it makes it harder.
The Auld Grump
I "fixed" that GW problem by playing Ogre Kingdoms
I know somebody that is playing an Ogre army in Kings of War... with no Ogres.... (He really likes the idea of the Red Goblins.)
JoshInJapan wrote: I stopped buying GW stuff new probably five years ago, when my son was born. I picked up a few things here or there on Ebay, but have mostly shifted my purchasing to Mantic, while looking at games like Songs of Blades and Heroes and Kings of War to use my vast collection of fantasy minis, with Deadzone or possibly 40K 3rd edition for SF.
In the last week or so, I have pretty much decided to avoid everything GW, also for my son. The background material just gets darker and uglier, with even the ostensible good guys committing genocide, and the bad guys bleeding over into torture porn. I have no desire to expose a child to any of that.
A bit off topic, but I think there is real value to settings and stories with actual heroes. I know the current trend in fiction is towards "realistic" characters and anti-heroes, but the pendulum has swung too far (looking at you George R. Martin). I happen to know lots of very decent people in the real world, some of whom are honest to goodness heroes. Not everybody in the world is some sort of sadist, tyrant, bigot or pervert, and I'm not really interested in stories or settings wholly populated by such people. It just isn't realistic.
On topic, I haven't played a games-workshop game since the end of sixth edition fantasy. I will still buy their models second hand on occasion, but playing games like Song of Blades and Heroes and home brew sci-fi has really made the whole hobby much more enjoyable. I love plonking down a bunch of nicely painted miniatures for a game of SOBH with friends on nice table. The visual entertainment is fantastic, and the games play fast so I can fit them into my schedule easier.
Gallahad wrote: A bit off topic, but I think there is real value to settings and stories with actual heroes. I know the current trend in fiction is towards "realistic" characters and anti-heroes, but the pendulum has swung too far (looking at you George R. Martin). I happen to know lots of very decent people in the real world, some of whom are honest to goodness heroes. Not everybody in the world is some sort of sadist, tyrant, bigot or pervert, and I'm not really interested in stories or settings wholly populated by such people. It just isn't realistic.
I don't think this is off topic at all. It's applicable to GW's product offerings. There are lots of anti-heroes and villains in 40k and WFB and not a lot of heroes. WFB is a dark fantasy setting and 40k is dark sci-fantasy. And largely heroes are only presented as being heroic in their failure. Like all the loyalist important characters in the Horus Heresy books who stand up against chaos but ultimately fail in their battle for the heart of their legions. Standing up for something but largely being crushed by an uncaring galaxy. And when they do have exceptions, they're like fan-fic caricatures.
I wanted to give up warhammer about a year ago, but a friend kept me with the game. He didn't want to give up warhammer because he lived really close to a GW store and wouldn't have to travel as far as he would to go to any of the indy shops and play another game.
"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.
Best thing that could of happened to me, because now I have a realy good reason for never going back to that store agien. I've officially quite Warhammer, I just bough a Foot Locker and finished packing all my warhammer stuff into it yesterday. I also picked up some infinity stuff, and going to be picking up Dystopian wars navel.
1st time in a long time I've been excited about wargameing agien. I just haven't had any fun with warhammer since 6th ed came out. Fantsey is cool, but to expensive to start a army.
JoshInJapan wrote: In the last week or so, I have pretty much decided to avoid everything GW, also for my son. The background material just gets darker and uglier, with even the ostensible good guys committing genocide, and the bad guys bleeding over into torture porn. I have no desire to expose a child to any of that.
A bit off topic, but I think there is real value to settings and stories with actual heroes. I know the current trend in fiction is towards "realistic" characters and anti-heroes, but the pendulum has swung too far (looking at you George R. Martin). I happen to know lots of very decent people in the real world, some of whom are honest to goodness heroes. Not everybody in the world is some sort of sadist, tyrant, bigot or pervert, and I'm not really interested in stories or settings wholly populated by such people. It just isn't realistic.
I've thought about this before, and I'm generally with you two. LotR gets a lot of stick for many things, including the unrelateable, goody-goody nature of most of it's heroes. Perhaps rightly so (though I'd suggest actually paying attention would pay dividends), but personally, I can relate to good heroes more easily than I can relate to thieves, self-serving 'reavers' and 'slayers', or master-race demon-sword junkies; as well written as those characters and stories may be. Along with ASoIaF/GoT and the Warhammer settings, it's all interesting to delve into from time to time, but gets pretty wearying when too many popular franchises insist on the darker shades of grey.
Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
JoshInJapan wrote: In the last week or so, I have pretty much decided to avoid everything GW, also for my son. The background material just gets darker and uglier, with even the ostensible good guys committing genocide, and the bad guys bleeding over into torture porn. I have no desire to expose a child to any of that.
A bit off topic, but I think there is real value to settings and stories with actual heroes. I know the current trend in fiction is towards "realistic" characters and anti-heroes, but the pendulum has swung too far (looking at you George R. Martin). I happen to know lots of very decent people in the real world, some of whom are honest to goodness heroes. Not everybody in the world is some sort of sadist, tyrant, bigot or pervert, and I'm not really interested in stories or settings wholly populated by such people. It just isn't realistic.
I've thought about this before, and I'm generally with you two. LotR gets a lot of stick for many things, including the unrelateable, goody-goody nature of most of it's heroes. Perhaps rightly so (though I'd suggest actually paying attention would pay dividends), but personally, I can relate to good heroes more easily than I can relate to thieves, self-serving 'reavers' and 'slayers', or master-race demon-sword junkies; as well written as those characters and stories may be. Along with ASoIaF/GoT and the Warhammer settings, it's all interesting to delve into from time to time, but gets pretty wearying when too many popular franchises insist on the darker shades of grey.
Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
There's a reason people like IG armies, and why they are the focus of so many stories. They feel human. Everything else feels flat.
"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.
Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.
I like the moral ambiguity that Infinity has. It doesn't have the Mary Sue White Knights but it doesn't have the mustache twirling throne of dead babies villains.
"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.
Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.
"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.
Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.
"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.
Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.
I too need to know this. For, uh, reasons...
More importantly what is a Dystopian wars navel!
If you've never played Dyst wars across several strippers stomachs you're really missing out.
"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.
Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.
I too need to know this. For, uh, reasons...
More importantly what is a Dystopian wars navel!
If you've never played Dyst wars across several strippers stomachs you're really missing out.
That's how it was meant to be played. Why do you think it's outsold 7th edition 40k?
I just have to add that for all the reasons I dislike GW, I'm still constantly tempted to play again; even though I play Warmachine right now it doesn't feel the same, and I'm not 100% sure I play it because I actually want to, or because it's a tabletop game that isn't 40k that other people play.
I don't quite know why.. must be some sort of corruption
Because of all the mess happening with modern 40K, I personally have left GW......for an older GW!
I still play games of 40K, but back in the rules of 3rd and 4th edition, where I have nearly the entire library of material to pull from, and if there's something i don;t have, I get it off of Amazon super-cheap. Do I want to play Oldcrons? Space Wolves 13th Company? Kroot Mercs? Vehicle Design Rules?
I have always considered that while 2nd Edition 40K is by far my favorite, for both playability and nostalgia combined, the days of late 3rd/early 4th edition were by far the healthiest era of 40K Games Workshop has enjoyed so far. I personally think they are simply riding the inertia of the success of those years right now.
I also find great enjoyment playing their old Specialist Games. Necromunda, Epic: Armageddon, Battlefleet Gothic, and even Gorkamorka!
WayneTheGame wrote: I just have to add that for all the reasons I dislike GW, I'm still constantly tempted to play again; even though I play Warmachine right now it doesn't feel the same, and I'm not 100% sure I play it because I actually want to, or because it's a tabletop game that isn't 40k that other people play.
I don't quite know why.. must be some sort of corruption
Might be worth trying a few other games to see how you feel about them. Any deadzone, infinity, bushido, malifaux etc gamers in your area? Doesn't sound like you are enjoying war machine much,
I have found a local club near me and I am going to try to get people to play some games a little off the beaten path, mostly because I want to play them myself. So I am going to paint up two forces for ronin and a fist full of Kung fu and see if I can persuade someone to learn it with me.
WayneTheGame wrote: I just have to add that for all the reasons I dislike GW, I'm still constantly tempted to play again; even though I play Warmachine right now it doesn't feel the same, and I'm not 100% sure I play it because I actually want to, or because it's a tabletop game that isn't 40k that other people play.
I don't quite know why.. must be some sort of corruption
Might be worth trying a few other games to see how you feel about them. Any deadzone, infinity, bushido, malifaux etc gamers in your area? Doesn't sound like you are enjoying war machine much,
I have found a local club near me and I am going to try to get people to play some games a little off the beaten path, mostly because I want to play them myself. So I am going to paint up two forces for ronin and a fist full of Kung fu and see if I can persuade someone to learn it with me.
Try getting into the fluff more. Make the battles meaningful.
WayneTheGame wrote: I just have to add that for all the reasons I dislike GW, I'm still constantly tempted to play again; even though I play Warmachine right now it doesn't feel the same, and I'm not 100% sure I play it because I actually want to, or because it's a tabletop game that isn't 40k that other people play.
I don't quite know why.. must be some sort of corruption
Warmachine won't scratch your 40K itch. This is something I really wish I had figured out before dumping a tonne of money into Warmachine, as it turns out it really wasn't for me. I singled out this post because it's exactly how I used to feel during the transition from 40K. If what you're after is a replacement to 40K, Warmachine is absolutely not the answer. Historical games ended up being what I needed, you just gotta look at what's out there and decide what suits your personal tastes.
That is actually an interesting point. What is the unique thing you get from 40K (or Fantasy) that you can't get from any alternative game. Other than it being 40K/Fantasy, of course.
WayneTheGame wrote: I just have to add that for all the reasons I dislike GW, I'm still constantly tempted to play again; even though I play Warmachine right now it doesn't feel the same, and I'm not 100% sure I play it because I actually want to, or because it's a tabletop game that isn't 40k that other people play.
I don't quite know why.. must be some sort of corruption
Warmachine won't scratch your 40K itch. This is something I really wish I had figured out before dumping a tonne of money into Warmachine, as it turns out it really wasn't for me. I singled out this post because it's exactly how I used to feel during the transition from 40K. If what you're after is a replacement to 40K, Warmachine is absolutely not the answer. Historical games ended up being what I needed, you just gotta look at what's out there and decide what suits your personal tastes.
Honestly it's kind of a weird thing. I like the idea of Warmachine: a game where almost everything is viable and tactics work, as well as one with streamlined rules. Just... when I play, it doesn't feel that way to me, it feels frustrating for some reason. I really can't explain it. It feels overly complex (not with rules bloat, but with interactions between rules. Almost every game I forget something crucial because there's just so many things to remember) and ultimately I get this weird feeling when I'm playing it. I really can't explain it more than that. I never got that kind of feeling with 40k (although granted that was 12 years ago). I imagine that must be how MtG players feel during those games, analyzing every move and thinking two steps ahead, etc. It made, and makes, me feel uncomfortable when playing.
There's also the issue of there not being much beyond Warmachine and 40k in my area. There is some Bolt Action but it happens on a day when I can't make it to the store, and while I tried a few demo games of that it didn't feel right to me either. Nobody plays historical games, or Infinity, or Deadzone or Malifaux or whatever. I really think my issue with 40k is due to GW, and nothing else. But I'm not sure.
I sold two of my three remaining Warhammer Fantasy armies just reccently and only kept my Orks and Golbins (first army 15 years ago and I just cannot get rid of them :().
I pledged 200$ in raging heroes miniatures planing to make a Space Marine army out of them.. that won't happen. The moment I recceive the minis, I'll put them out for sale.
I just can't get my head around 95% of GWs decisions... rules still suck, background and new models have become the laughing stock of the whole wargaming world...
When I had my first introduction game of Warmachine ~5 years ago, I IMMEDIATELY saw the impressive level of depth involved. My plan failed miserably, but after the game I saw excactly why. Fast forward 5 years and I'm still learning and mastering Warmachine/Hordes. I have played 50+ tournaments in my Warhammer Fantasy time and I was quite good at it. But compared to Warmachine, WHF is just a joke.
Infinity is my next game because I want more variety.
GWs games wouldn't offer me that. All they could offer is 1000$ of money better spent on something else.
WayneTheGame wrote: I just have to add that for all the reasons I dislike GW, I'm still constantly tempted to play again; even though I play Warmachine right now it doesn't feel the same, and I'm not 100% sure I play it because I actually want to, or because it's a tabletop game that isn't 40k that other people play.
I don't quite know why.. must be some sort of corruption
Warmachine won't scratch your 40K itch. This is something I really wish I had figured out before dumping a tonne of money into Warmachine, as it turns out it really wasn't for me. I singled out this post because it's exactly how I used to feel during the transition from 40K. If what you're after is a replacement to 40K, Warmachine is absolutely not the answer. Historical games ended up being what I needed, you just gotta look at what's out there and decide what suits your personal tastes.
Honestly it's kind of a weird thing. I like the idea of Warmachine: a game where almost everything is viable and tactics work, as well as one with streamlined rules. Just... when I play, it doesn't feel that way to me, it feels frustrating for some reason. I really can't explain it. It feels overly complex (not with rules bloat, but with interactions between rules. Almost every game I forget something crucial because there's just so many things to remember) and ultimately I get this weird feeling when I'm playing it. I really can't explain it more than that. I never got that kind of feeling with 40k (although granted that was 12 years ago). I imagine that must be how MtG players feel during those games, analyzing every move and thinking two steps ahead, etc. It made, and makes, me feel uncomfortable when playing.
There's also the issue of there not being much beyond Warmachine and 40k in my area. There is some Bolt Action but it happens on a day when I can't make it to the store, and while I tried a few demo games of that it didn't feel right to me either. Nobody plays historical games, or Infinity, or Deadzone or Malifaux or whatever. I really think my issue with 40k is due to GW, and nothing else. But I'm not sure.
If you feel that way about WMH, then you can forget about Infinity and Malifaux as well. All of those games are defined by the need to think ahead and have a plan if you intend to win the game.
I know this is going to sound rude, but it seems like you just wan't a game where you can just roll some dice and never give any actual thought about what is happening on the table or possibly you are using the game as just an excuse to socialize instead of actually enjoying the gaming experience?! Why do you like table top wargaming in the first place?
PhantomViper wrote: If you feel that way about WMH, then you can forget about Infinity and Malifaux as well. All of those games are defined by the need to think ahead and have a plan if you intend to win the game.
I know this is going to sound rude, but it seems like you just wan't a game where you can just roll some dice and never give any actual thought about what is happening on the table or possibly you are using the game as just an excuse to socialize instead of actually enjoying the gaming experience?! Why do you like table top wargaming in the first place?
No offense taken I've asked myself that same question recently.
I like the narrative aspect, fighting out a battle or something like that with a story behind it; I like straightforward tactics versus chess-like thinking on your feet (that's not say I don't want any tactics at all, I do). You might be right, I don't know. I didn't play any tabletop game for 12 years (the last time I played 40k) until like april or may of this year when I found Warmachine.
PhantomViper wrote: If you feel that way about WMH, then you can forget about Infinity and Malifaux as well. All of those games are defined by the need to think ahead and have a plan if you intend to win the game.
I know this is going to sound rude, but it seems like you just wan't a game where you can just roll some dice and never give any actual thought about what is happening on the table or possibly you are using the game as just an excuse to socialize instead of actually enjoying the gaming experience?! Why do you like table top wargaming in the first place?
No offense taken I've asked myself that same question recently.
I like the narrative aspect, fighting out a battle or something like that with a story behind it; I like straightforward tactics versus chess-like thinking on your feet (that's not say I don't want any tactics at all, I do). You might be right, I don't know. I didn't play any tabletop game for 12 years (the last time I played 40k) until like april or may of this year when I found Warmachine.
I would direct you to a number of narrative gaming systems, but since you can't find any group to play in your area that doesn't play just 40k or WMH, then esoteric games like FoF or Tomorrow's War would be impossible to find.
Have you considered joining an RPG group? From what you say, a RPG seems to be much more up your alley than any tabletop wargame.
If you don't like RPGs, try to find a group that plays an historical game like FoW or maybe Saga (or Bolt Action, even if you didn't like the demo, try again with a different person). Historical games have a much bigger narrative component and use more straightforward tactics than WMH, Infinity or Malifaux.
I'm the exact opposite. When I played Warmachine for the first time, I found what I had wanted. It scratched the itch I didn't know was there. After that, every time I went back to play 40k, it felt almost childish. Rules were too complex but the strategy wasn't there. I wanted a tough strategy game that rewarded thinking and not list building.
Same with Infinity. I didn't want to just toss dice and hope I win. I wanted to think.
WayneTheGame wrote: I just have to add that for all the reasons I dislike GW, I'm still constantly tempted to play again; even though I play Warmachine right now it doesn't feel the same, and I'm not 100% sure I play it because I actually want to, or because it's a tabletop game that isn't 40k that other people play.
I don't quite know why.. must be some sort of corruption
Warmachine won't scratch your 40K itch. This is something I really wish I had figured out before dumping a tonne of money into Warmachine, as it turns out it really wasn't for me. I singled out this post because it's exactly how I used to feel during the transition from 40K. If what you're after is a replacement to 40K, Warmachine is absolutely not the answer. Historical games ended up being what I needed, you just gotta look at what's out there and decide what suits your personal tastes.
The same was for me, but it was Battletech. I tried Rouge Trader but it wasn't Battletech. So couldn't really get into it. Then I quit the Hobby. Later I tried 40K still didn't get into it. This time I learnt my lesson, so didn't get rid of my 40K stuff like I did with my Battletech and all other games I had. Few years after that I finally really gotten into 40K.
What I guess I am trying to say is, in most cases, switching from system to another will not replace the empty feeling you have. It will take time. It's like having a dog or cat die. You just don't get a new dog or cat to replace the one that died because it doesn't replace who you have lost.
MWHistorian wrote: I like the moral ambiguity that Infinity has. It doesn't have the Mary Sue White Knights but it doesn't have the mustache twirling throne of dead babies villains.
I sort of agree... though the story isn't really presented as such a morally ambiguous thing. The background for each faction basically shows it's morality and it's reasons for doing things the way they do.
When I moved from 40k to warmachine I felt a ton of weight coming off my shoulders. I was not having any fun during 6th edition with my army. Knowing most of the time I did not have a chance against certain armies just bother me. I don't mind to lose, Iam pretty good at it. But losing just because one codex was written better then the other to me is just not a fair fight. Now that I play warmachine I know most of the time I lose its because I made a mistake or my opponent got lucky with a roll.
Also I hate when people say war is not fair. Of course war is not fair but I expect a game to be fair
PhantomViper wrote: If you feel that way about WMH, then you can forget about Infinity and Malifaux as well. All of those games are defined by the need to think ahead and have a plan if you intend to win the game.
I know this is going to sound rude, but it seems like you just wan't a game where you can just roll some dice and never give any actual thought about what is happening on the table or possibly you are using the game as just an excuse to socialize instead of actually enjoying the gaming experience?! Why do you like table top wargaming in the first place?
No offense taken I've asked myself that same question recently.
I like the narrative aspect, fighting out a battle or something like that with a story behind it; I like straightforward tactics versus chess-like thinking on your feet (that's not say I don't want any tactics at all, I do). You might be right, I don't know. I didn't play any tabletop game for 12 years (the last time I played 40k) until like april or may of this year when I found Warmachine.
Have you tried suggesting other games to your group/club to try out? Sometimes it only takes one or two people to start something snowballing. I know a system that's pretty damn fantastic for narrative that a friend and I are trying. We don't intend to take it to our local club because of powergamers. If you can get one or two like-minded friends interested in something, then at the very least you have a couple of other people playing.
Chute82 wrote: When I moved from 40k to warmachine I felt a ton of weight coming off my shoulders. I was not having any fun during 6th edition with my army. Knowing most of the time I did not have a chance against certain armies just bother me. I don't mind to lose, Iam pretty good at it. But losing just because one codex was written better then the other to me is just not a fair fight. Now that I play warmachine I know most of the time I lose its because I made a mistake or my opponent got lucky with a roll.
Also I hate when people say war is not fair. Of course war is not fair but I expect a game to be fair
If people say that, then a Tyranid player should play with like a million points while a Space Marine player should play with like ten thousand points. I guess then that would be a fair game.
You are right. When playing a game where everything should be equal at the beginning. Everyone is on equal footing. When starting a game, someone shouldn't be handi capped because they have no AA or has over powered rules/units while nobody takes the crappy ones. A player shouldn't be hampered with rules that have draw backs while the opponent doesn't have a drawback. One codex gets cheaper units while another codex 2 editions away still has to pay more but gets less.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is actually an interesting point. What is the unique thing you get from 40K (or Fantasy) that you can't get from any alternative game. Other than it being 40K/Fantasy, of course.
Or perhaps you don't get it any more.
I think that's a good question for everyone.
For me, it comes down to 2 little words; My Army.
Everything that I loved about Warhammer is in those 2 words. I don't want to play Iron Lich Asphy, Infinity anime character #471, or really even a character in a mythology I really like, like Seamus or Horus.
They're MY dudes. I want to look out on a sea of fierce faces and feel like I'm leading them. I want to duplicate great historic strategies and prove my tactical mastery. Every dropped option, random element, and retconned/flushed bit of fluff from GW destroys that feeling for me.
I'm liking Malifaux for the same reason I used to like 40k, possibility.
I think that's a good question for everyone.
For me, it comes down to 2 little words; My Army.
Everything that I loved about Warhammer is in those 2 words. I don't want to play Iron Lich Asphy, Infinity anime character #471, or really even a character in a mythology I really like, like Seamus or Horus.
They're MY dudes. I want to look out on a sea of fierce faces and feel like I'm leading them. I want to duplicate great historic strategies and prove my tactical mastery. Every dropped option, random element, and retconned/flushed bit of fluff from GW destroys that feeling for me.
I'm liking Malifaux for the same reason I used to like 40k, possibility.
Interesting thoughts, though I can't help but disagree.
To be fair, A generic infinity character has as much scope for being part of 'your army' as a generic space marine character. And fir most, 'their army' is led by a named character - ergo, no different from warmachine. Regarding the supposed customisation which so many like, I would point to the fact that of those thousands of possible combos, only a few ever turn up.
I'd go further. For me, it's entirely possible to make 'my army' from any game. A sea of fierce faces? Yup. Got that here. Duplicate great historic strategies? Yeah, I don't think Hannibal or Patton had dreadnoughts or astartes, to begin with, and I would argue there is only the barest glimmer of real strategy in 40k. 40k is quite limited in tactical depth, I disagree with the idea it can be used to duplicate great historic strategies.
I think what gets people is the 'illusion' of choice in 40k, and what keeps them involved is the idea of what 40k 'could be', someday. Hope. People want 40k to be this amazing game. They'll believe in this 'promised land' and that keeps them going. Some of us heathens turned from the oath though.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is actually an interesting point. What is the unique thing you get from 40K (or Fantasy) that you can't get from any alternative game. Other than it being 40K/Fantasy, of course.
Or perhaps you don't get it any more.
I think that's a good question for everyone.
For me, it comes down to 2 little words; My Army.
Everything that I loved about Warhammer is in those 2 words. I don't want to play Iron Lich Asphy, Infinity anime character #471, or really even a character in a mythology I really like, like Seamus or Horus.
They're MY dudes. I want to look out on a sea of fierce faces and feel like I'm leading them. I want to duplicate great historic strategies and prove my tactical mastery. Every dropped option, random element, and retconned/flushed bit of fluff from GW destroys that feeling for me.
I'm liking Malifaux for the same reason I used to like 40k, possibility.
Infinity is no more 'special-character-based' than 40k. You get to take a force of 'your team' and avoid named characters all together if you want.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is actually an interesting point. What is the unique thing you get from 40K (or Fantasy) that you can't get from any alternative game. Other than it being 40K/Fantasy, of course.
Or perhaps you don't get it any more.
I think that's a good question for everyone. For me, it comes down to 2 little words; My Army.
Everything that I loved about Warhammer is in those 2 words. I don't want to play Iron Lich Asphy, Infinity anime character #471, or really even a character in a mythology I really like, like Seamus or Horus.
They're MY dudes. I want to look out on a sea of fierce faces and feel like I'm leading them. I want to duplicate great historic strategies and prove my tactical mastery. Every dropped option, random element, and retconned/flushed bit of fluff from GW destroys that feeling for me.
I'm liking Malifaux for the same reason I used to like 40k, possibility.
Infinity is no more 'special-character-based' than 40k. You get to take a force of 'your team' and avoid named characters all together if you want.
Yeah, I don't get what point is trying to made with the comparison to Infinity.
WMH is certainly about named characters (since all caster are such), but then I see a considerable amount of 40k that is the exact same thing (Baron-star, Fateweaver, etc.). WH40k does offer the option to have your own unique characters as compared to WMH, and this is (to my knowledge) the same as Infinity. But I fail to see how "space marine captain #532" is any different than "infinity anime character #471". Because you came up with fluff for one? Am I missing something?
It's an interesting point that Boggy Man raises, and actually Jaq Draco Lives (showing your age there, Jaq! ) made a similar point.
If you only like the 40k background, the miniature style, the rule mechanics*, and you only wish to play that game, then of course in comparison to other forms of entertainment - and competition for your time and money - 40k can come out pretty well compared to other hobbies. If that's all I played, and I was into other more expensive hobbies (keeping at the forefront of PC gaming by buying new hardware constantly? Just thinking of a likely example), then I suppose a drop of £300-400, and then £100-200 a year on new stuff isn't too bad. A lot of us here spend at least that each pay-day, and don't collect GW stuff!
But, the issue comes when you 'break the seal' and try something other than 40k, and then start to draw comparisons of value. At least, that's how I found it. I was affected by GW's territorial block; trying to buy from a country with no GW store in it, I could no longer import from the UK. So, I looked elsewhere, and the £250 I had put aside for the (start of!) a new WFB army got spent on other games. I then found I could satisfy the same 'itch' for playing wargames, get the same cool feeling you get of thinking about tactics, list building, painting miniatures and terrain, for a fraction of the price GW were asking me to spend. I think that's the point where you are likely to start to resent the buy-in prices, and also what is commonly referred to as the 'price-gouge' - of having to buy a new codex again, DLC content, even a new rulebook between short periods of time. You look at FoW who have Easyarmy for list building (and give you a free rulebook if you bought the last one), Corvus Belli or Mantic that give free rule downloads, and you start to ask; why aren't GW doing this as well?
And that's before you've started to factor in issues of rule design and balance, of lack of development and new things.
So, I think there certainly are players who will only play a GW game (or, some other system for that matter) - they've tried many other games, and then decided that 40k or WFB is the only game for them. But, I think probably for most of those players there is a conception that they can only get that wargaming experience from GW because it is something they are familiar with, and changing to new models and rules represents something of a risk - human beings by their nature are cautious creatures for the most part. I would hazard a guess that a lot of these players would enjoy some of these other games as much, if not more, than the ones they are familiar with if they were just to give them a try. It's my experience, speaking personally about myself, but also something I have seen happen to a lot of other players coming from a GW-centric background. You can feel indignant about it at first, but ultimately you will benefit in the future if you take the stabiliser wheels off/spread your wings a bit (or whatever you want to say it!)
* I included that one, although I doubt there is anyone who plays the game just for that reason! .
"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.
Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.
I too need to know this. For, uh, reasons...
I said I would always take a charge in warhammer if it was 7" or better. I said this to my opponent. The employee who was hovering over the game me and my friend were haveing cut in and told me I was wrong. I told him the percentages. He said I was wrong and couldn't due math. I then had to stop the game and tell the employee what the chances were because he would NOT STFU well standing their hovering over my game keep telling me I'm wrong. He just kept telling me I was wrong.
Well with someone standing next to you talking in your ear it's hard to ignore them. So I kept argueing with him. Then whole time he was talking with a gak eating grin and in a condescending tone like I was a idiot. After about 10 min of this I snapped at him and ask him "do you even understand basic percentages or did you fail statistics in high school". He then started to say something and I cut him off asking him what the hell was wrong with him. Their was no need for the argument to have gone on like that.
He then told me I didn't have the right to speak to any employee in the store that way, and that I wasn't welcomed. I then told him before I leave, I wanted the purchese I made before I started playing refunded. He then started back peddling saying I wasn't banned for ever and I was welcome to come back even tomarrow. He told me I was to angry to be in the store at that moment.
I insisted on a return, and he kept trying to convince me to stop demanding to get my money refunded. I got sick of his bs and walked out.
I started playing WHFB about 99-00. A friend of mine got me interested and I picked up my own high elf force and it started there. A few years later, the same friend introduced me to 40K. I debated on buying a force, as it was different than what I was used to. Eventually, he won out and I purchased some space marines. It was fun back then, we would stay up for hours playing warhammer. We had Faygo nights where we would stay up all night painting miniatures until the sun was in the sky again.
The reason I am leaving GW is several things actually.
- Poorly written unbalanced rules
- Too expensive for what you recieve in return $41 USD for 10 orc boyz is insane!
- Poor customer satisfaction (i.e., shutting down websites, lawsuits, and the likes...)
The system that interests myself the most is warmachines/hordes. I was introduced when I went to my local gaming store and seen some individuals playing it. After they had finished their battle, I asked all about it and was amazed on how intricate the history was and how easy it was to start playing. The PDF quick rules are free downloads from their website. The prices are a little high, but the model requirement is much less than it is for any current GW game.
Boggy Man wrote: I want to duplicate great historic strategies and prove my tactical mastery.
I've never really felt 40K provides a great teal of tactical depth once the lists are made up. I believe WHF is a bit better but I haven't played that since about 3rd edition. Certainly in most of my games it's been a case of run forward hugging cover and blasting away whilst trying not to get wiped out, with it being pretty apparant early on what the outcome will be. Partially that's to do with the scale - at 28mm on a 4ft deep table all your heavy weapons have everything in range, except for meltas, so you don't need to do anything with tanks other than crawl forward blasting.
I find the tactical/strategic depth to be a lot better in Flames Of War where every game I've had has been really close up to the last turn (except the time I had an infantry force against a tank force, and I have to concede you occasionally spend most of the game dug in), or Malifaux where you're competing for points via hidden objectives, and the game can swing wildly a few times, it takes a bit of getting used to though with the idea that you might do better by not killing your opponents characters.
Yeah, I don't get what point is trying to made with the comparison to Infinity.
WMH is certainly about named characters (since all caster are such), but then I see a considerable amount of 40k that is the exact same thing (Baron-star, Fateweaver, etc.). WH40k does offer the option to have your own unique characters as compared to WMH, and this is (to my knowledge) the same as Infinity. But I fail to see how "space marine captain #532" is any different than "infinity anime character #471". Because you came up with fluff for one? Am I missing something?
Yeah, basically. Don't mind me, I'm just a cranky anime hater. I like a system where you can inject your own personality into the universe. There's really nothing about the style or story of Infinity that appeals to me I'm afraid.
Pacific wrote:...If you only like the 40k background, the miniature style, the rule mechanics*, and you only wish to play that game, then of course in comparison to other forms of entertainment - and competition for your time and money - 40k can come out pretty well compared to other hobbies...
The weird thing is, I love the original Warhammer background, where the universe was vast and you could play space dwarf bikers vs lizard mutants on a Mad-Max style hive world dominated by insane heavy metal guitar-gun cultists and none of it would feel out of place. With every edition and every codex, the 40K universe has gotten smaller and duller.
Herzlos wrote:
Boggy Man wrote: I want to duplicate great historic strategies and prove my tactical mastery.
I've never really felt 40K provides a great teal of tactical depth once the lists are made up. I believe WHF is a bit better but I haven't played that since about 3rd edition...
Yeah, that's the big illusion. You look at all those rows of troops and tanks and feel like your decisions are going to matter. Before it was meaningless as most games were decided in the list-writing stage. Now it's a combo of that and what objective cards are pulled.
"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.
Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.
I too need to know this. For, uh, reasons...
I said I would always take a charge in warhammer if it was 7" or better. I said this to my opponent. The employee who was hovering over the game me and my friend were haveing cut in and told me I was wrong. I told him the percentages. He said I was wrong and couldn't due math. I then had to stop the game and tell the employee what the chances were because he would NOT STFU well standing their hovering over my game keep telling me I'm wrong. He just kept telling me I was wrong.
Well with someone standing next to you talking in your ear it's hard to ignore them. So I kept argueing with him. Then whole time he was talking with a gak eating grin and in a condescending tone like I was a idiot. After about 10 min of this I snapped at him and ask him "do you even understand basic percentages or did you fail statistics in high school". He then started to say something and I cut him off asking him what the hell was wrong with him. Their was no need for the argument to have gone on like that.
He then told me I didn't have the right to speak to any employee in the store that way, and that I wasn't welcomed. I then told him before I leave, I wanted the purchese I made before I started playing refunded. He then started back peddling saying I wasn't banned for ever and I was welcome to come back even tomarrow. He told me I was to angry to be in the store at that moment.
I insisted on a return, and he kept trying to convince me to stop demanding to get my money refunded. I got sick of his bs and walked out.
I had something similar to that as well. Not quite like your story, but a heated argument. I said how I like to play my way, so "house rules" in my own home, and here is this red shirt with a smug smile on his face saying how wrong I am. I said I can do anything I want at my home and it doesn't effect him any way. He kept insisting on how wrong I was, and then I just exploded and said "I can do anything I want in my own home and even GW says I can" and he just stands there smiling. Yeah I looked like a fool but that is when I realized when did Nerds and Geeks act like High School Jocks and think they are better than others because they can play with plastic toy soldiers.
I walked out of the store and for years didn't come back.
Redshirts can be a funny breed- it's part of the "attitude" they are hired for, which often times ends up similar to zealotry. They act like GW's rules rest in sacred books, full of unknowables that certainly can't be explained by silly things like "statistics."
Yeah, I don't get what point is trying to made with the comparison to Infinity.
WMH is certainly about named characters (since all caster are such), but then I see a considerable amount of 40k that is the exact same thing (Baron-star, Fateweaver, etc.). WH40k does offer the option to have your own unique characters as compared to WMH, and this is (to my knowledge) the same as Infinity. But I fail to see how "space marine captain #532" is any different than "infinity anime character #471". Because you came up with fluff for one? Am I missing something?
Yeah, basically. Don't mind me, I'm just a cranky anime hater. I like a system where you can inject your own personality into the universe. There's really nothing about the style or story of Infinity that appeals to me I'm afraid.
Fair enough in regards to aesthetics, I know that was something that turned me away from Infinity originally. But I do feel that they've been getting away from the anime vibe and have moved a bit more towards a "current generic-sci fi game/move" vibe, like Halo or Guardians of the Galaxy (first two examples that popped in my head )
"Luckily" a GW employee did something REALY bone headed to me. I looked him in the eye and asked him what the hell was wroung with him. The employee panicked and kicked me out of the store for the day.
Now I am curious. What did he/she do and for them to panic to kick you out.
I too need to know this. For, uh, reasons...
I said I would always take a charge in warhammer if it was 7" or better. I said this to my opponent. The employee who was hovering over the game me and my friend were haveing cut in and told me I was wrong. I told him the percentages. He said I was wrong and couldn't due math. I then had to stop the game and tell the employee what the chances were because he would NOT STFU well standing their hovering over my game keep telling me I'm wrong. He just kept telling me I was wrong.
Well with someone standing next to you talking in your ear it's hard to ignore them. So I kept argueing with him. Then whole time he was talking with a gak eating grin and in a condescending tone like I was a idiot. After about 10 min of this I snapped at him and ask him "do you even understand basic percentages or did you fail statistics in high school". He then started to say something and I cut him off asking him what the hell was wrong with him. Their was no need for the argument to have gone on like that.
He then told me I didn't have the right to speak to any employee in the store that way, and that I wasn't welcomed. I then told him before I leave, I wanted the purchese I made before I started playing refunded. He then started back peddling saying I wasn't banned for ever and I was welcome to come back even tomarrow. He told me I was to angry to be in the store at that moment.
I insisted on a return, and he kept trying to convince me to stop demanding to get my money refunded. I got sick of his bs and walked out.
I had something similar to that as well. Not quite like your story, but a heated argument. I said how I like to play my way, so "house rules" in my own home, and here is this red shirt with a smug smile on his face saying how wrong I am. I said I can do anything I want at my home and it doesn't effect him any way. He kept insisting on how wrong I was, and then I just exploded and said "I can do anything I want in my own home and even GW says I can" and he just stands there smiling. Yeah I looked like a fool but that is when I realized when did Nerds and Geeks act like High School Jocks and think they are better than others because they can play with plastic toy soldiers.
I walked out of the store and for years didn't come back.
I almost made him cry when I snapped at him at the end actually. I take ahwile to piss off, but when I snap I can be vindictive. Something I said at the end actully legit hurt his feelings. A friend tried pressuring me to report what the guy did to me to his manager. But after making the poor sap almost moved to tears, I figured I did enough damage to his pride.
It is prety stupid what some gameing store employee's think is acceptable. A Bartender wouldn't sit their and start arguing with you that "your doing it wrong".
LOL no. Another story, same store different people, this is One man stores I guess and I got this person upset. Why?
Because he was trying to sell me White Dwarf, then maybe a yearly subscription. I said something like "Please to try and sell me that crap, it is over price toilet paper. I shouldn't have to pay for advertising." That started us to argue.
Then I said "Look, we are starting on the wrong foot, I am sorry, my name is Davor" and then we were cordial. But man some people who work at GW can't take any criticism at all.
Was I wrong for saying one of their products is over priced toilet paper? They really need some tougher skin. Did buy a few products from that store afterwards, but still so shocked as he said "people harp on his hobby he worked so hard for over his years".
You need to accept the good with the bad and be honest about it. I guess honesty hurts sometimes.
Davor wrote: LOL no. Another story, same store different people, this is One man stores I guess and I got this person upset. Why?
Because he was trying to sell me White Dwarf, then maybe a yearly subscription. I said something like "Please to try and sell me that crap, it is over price toilet paper. I shouldn't have to pay for advertising." That started us to argue.
Then I said "Look, we are starting on the wrong foot, I am sorry, my name is Davor" and then we were cordial. But man some people who work at GW can't take any criticism at all.
Was I wrong for saying one of their products is over priced toilet paper? They really need some tougher skin. Did buy a few products from that store afterwards, but still so shocked as he said "people harp on his hobby he worked so hard for over his years".
You need to accept the good with the bad and be honest about it. I guess honesty hurts sometimes.
Actually... if you are using White Dwarfs for toilet paper then you need tougher skin.... That stuff ain't soft, at all!
The Auld Grump, ah, toilet humor... finest kind....
Maybe slightly off topic but does anyone else feel like GW are starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to people willing to man one man stores?
My local is a pretty cool guy but the one before him was the 'those pictures you saw on the internet are lies' and 'GW invented the hobby and make the bestest models eva' kind of redshirt. Plus these stories and someone here mentioned a few weeks back their redshirt had only just heard about the hobby.
It seems to me they are really struggling to get people who are enthusiastic about the hobby but not 'too enthusiastic' (to word it nicely).
WayneTheGame wrote: I just have to add that for all the reasons I dislike GW, I'm still constantly tempted to play again; even though I play Warmachine right now it doesn't feel the same, and I'm not 100% sure I play it because I actually want to, or because it's a tabletop game that isn't 40k that other people play.
I don't quite know why.. must be some sort of corruption
Warmachine won't scratch your 40K itch. This is something I really wish I had figured out before dumping a tonne of money into Warmachine, as it turns out it really wasn't for me. I singled out this post because it's exactly how I used to feel during the transition from 40K. If what you're after is a replacement to 40K, Warmachine is absolutely not the answer. Historical games ended up being what I needed, you just gotta look at what's out there and decide what suits your personal tastes.
Honestly it's kind of a weird thing. I like the idea of Warmachine: a game where almost everything is viable and tactics work, as well as one with streamlined rules. Just... when I play, it doesn't feel that way to me, it feels frustrating for some reason. I really can't explain it. It feels overly complex (not with rules bloat, but with interactions between rules. Almost every game I forget something crucial because there's just so many things to remember) and ultimately I get this weird feeling when I'm playing it. I really can't explain it more than that. I never got that kind of feeling with 40k (although granted that was 12 years ago). I imagine that must be how MtG players feel during those games, analyzing every move and thinking two steps ahead, etc. It made, and makes, me feel uncomfortable when playing.
There's also the issue of there not being much beyond Warmachine and 40k in my area. There is some Bolt Action but it happens on a day when I can't make it to the store, and while I tried a few demo games of that it didn't feel right to me either. Nobody plays historical games, or Infinity, or Deadzone or Malifaux or whatever. I really think my issue with 40k is due to GW, and nothing else. But I'm not sure.
Honestly, you sound just like I did near the end of my tenure with Warmachine. Having left it behind me some months ago, I've had time to digest it and perhaps some of the reasons you aren't that into it are not all that different from my own reasons. Forgetting something crucial, as you mention, was a big part of it for me. Warmachine has a dauntingly large burden of knowledge, some people are into that and others aren't. I also didn't like that half an inch could literally mean the difference between killing the enemy caster or losing yourself the game. Again, some people are into that and others aren't.
I was also not a fan of how sparse the battlefield is in Warmachine. I can certainly appreciate that the reason for this is that terrain of all kinds come with an array of advantages and disadvantages that can seriously impact the game, but I personally like a board with a lot of terrain to bring the game to life for me. This isn't a knock on the game, it's just my personal preference. In my time playing the game, which spanned a little over a year, I grew to loathe that each and every game ended in a brawl in the middle of the table. I know there are legions of fans here who argue against this point vehemently, but I'm just relating my experience. There may be many matches that don't end in in a royal rumble in the centre, but in over a year I never played one and never witnessed one in my play group even after playing steam roller missions. More than anything, I attribute this to really killing the game for me.
If any of this sounds familiar to you Wayne, know that you aren't alone! I'm not trying to knock Warmachine, it's a very tight game and has a level of balance that 40K will likely never have. I'm just relating my experience, as it doesn't sound all that different with your own efforts to cope with the game. As in my case, it may not be for you.
jonolikespie wrote: Maybe slightly off topic but does anyone else feel like GW are starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to people willing to man one man stores?
My local is a pretty cool guy but the one before him was the 'those pictures you saw on the internet are lies' and 'GW invented the hobby and make the bestest models eva' kind of redshirt. Plus these stories and someone here mentioned a few weeks back their redshirt had only just heard about the hobby.
It seems to me they are really struggling to get people who are enthusiastic about the hobby but not 'too enthusiastic' (to word it nicely).
Absolutely, it is the one factor that Kirby mentioned in his pre-amble to explain the sales problems -- the difficulty of finding the right people to man the shops.
To be a successful solo shopman you need to endure boredom and loneliness mixed with periods of panic and frustration when three customers come in at once and two go out again while you deal the first one whilst also trying to unpack and stock a new shipment of goods.
An iron bladder is handy because you need to close the door to go for a wee, denying customers entry. There is constant pressure from HQ to sell, with no information about new releases until a few days beforehand.
You must be super-keen all the time, while toeing the company line and not having your own ideas -- known as "having the right attitude".
Your reward for all this is low wages, very little prospect of advancement since middle management has been savagely downsized, and little in the way of useful skills and experience.
It is no wonder they are having recruitment problems.
The lack of veterans and the toxicity of feedback for GW employment can't be helping either. Just with ex-gamers there are plenty of ex-staffers who on the whole don't paint a pretty picture of working there.
I can see many people who still play being put off after asking around, so it naturally follows that a lot of the new employees will probably not know anything about the company before they start.
WayneTheGame wrote: Honestly it's kind of a weird thing. I like the idea of Warmachine: a game where almost everything is viable and tactics work, as well as one with streamlined rules. Just... when I play, it doesn't feel that way to me, it feels frustrating for some reason. I really can't explain it. It feels overly complex (not with rules bloat, but with interactions between rules. Almost every game I forget something crucial because there's just so many things to remember)
I know just what you mean. I picked up the Warmachine 1st ed book and a couple of minis around the time I gave up on GW, and was never taken with it. I'd say it's (or it was) similar to GW's core two (and Malifaux, for that matter) in that what's touted as 'tactical gameplay' is actually buckets o' special rules that have to be arranged in c-c-c-combos. I.e. listbuilt.
I don't wonder that Creeping-Deth is getting his tactical buzz from historical games instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: If you feel that way about WMH, then you can forget about Infinity and Malifaux as well. All of those games are defined by the need to think ahead and have a plan if you intend to win the game.
I don't really like Malifaux, after several games. I like Infinity after one. Reason being, and this is simplified a bit, the models in the demo game had more basic stats than special rules.
WayneTheGame wrote: Honestly it's kind of a weird thing. I like the idea of Warmachine: a game where almost everything is viable and tactics work, as well as one with streamlined rules. Just... when I play, it doesn't feel that way to me, it feels frustrating for some reason. I really can't explain it. It feels overly complex (not with rules bloat, but with interactions between rules. Almost every game I forget something crucial because there's just so many things to remember)
I know just what you mean. I picked up the Warmachine 1st ed book and a couple of minis around the time I gave up on GW, and was never taken with it. I'd say it's (or it was) similar to GW's core two (and Malifaux, for that matter) in that what's touted as 'tactical gameplay' is actually buckets o' special rules that have to be arranged in c-c-c-combos. I.e. listbuilt.
I don't wonder that Creeping-Deth is getting his tactical buzz from historical games instead.
Not only are you wrong, you aren't even talking about the same game as WayneTheGame. MK I WM is so different from MKII both in spirit and in actual gameplay that it can actually be considered an entirely different game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vermis wrote: I don't really like Malifaux, after several games. I like Infinity after one. Reason being, and this is simplified a bit, the models in the demo game had more basic stats than special rules.
Go play something other than a demo game of Infinity then... The models have just as many special rules as the Malifaux ones, you just played a demo = a very simplified version of the actual game!
PhantomViper wrote:I know this is going to sound rude, but it seems like you just wan't a game where you can just roll some dice and never give any actual thought about what is happening on the table or possibly you are using the game as just an excuse to socialize instead of actually enjoying the gaming experience?! Why do you like table top wargaming in the first place?
The 40K/WMH/Malifaux style of game is not the only, or even the best, representation of depth in wargaming.
WayneTheGame wrote:I like straightforward tactics versus chess-like thinking on your feet (that's not say I don't want any tactics at all, I do)
But that's what tactics are, at least in my understanding. I think you've been confused or misled by those games mentioned. The thing is, if chess was that kind of game, pawns would have at least a couple of tricks and exceptions to pull out of their sleeves before a knight could capture them, and the queen could pull off half a dozen extra rules just from being in a square adjacent to a friendly rook, or sumthin'.
Each chess piece has it's own abilities, but limited, and all relating only to movement. That's the thing: it's about manoeuvering your pieces so that each can use it's position and basic, mundane abilities to block, divert and capture your opponent's pieces. The only way a chess piece benefits from a buff or combo is when it's target 'enemy' piece is hemmed in by 'friendlies'. And that's a situation of your own making, not because a specific piece's rule card arbitrarily grants you extra bonuses.
Wargames are a bit more complicated, obviously - guns, cavalry, flank charges and all that. But then I've seen a few people sneer at the less special-rules-heavy games - particularly some historical wargames - 'cos they're all just men, with largely the same abilities, and they might as well go play chess if that was their only choice. Sometimes I would agree, to some extent, but that's the kind of challenge I like, most of the time. Your English Civil war army might have pikes, shot, cavalry and a couple of guns - just like the other side. But have you strategised, and can you tactically play well enough to outmanoeuvre your opponent's army and position your units to use their mundane abilities to best effect? Rather than memorise, rely on, and fuss over a load of extraneous extravagant exceptions and/or at just which point in the alignment of the heavens you're allowed to use them.
There are more abilities, levels and 'flavour' in ECW gaming, and other periods, and especially in sci-fi and fantasy games; but even in some sci-fi and fantasy games there's more of an emphasis on basic stats, USRs, manoeuvre and tactics, than on specific unit or model special rules. If you've given up on 40K and WHFB, and don't like WM/H or Malifaux, you're definitely not limited to mindless dice-rolling games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: Go play something other than a demo game of Infinity then... The models have just as many special rules as the Malifaux ones, you just played a demo = a very simplified version of the actual game!
I will, then. But if I'm that mistaken about Infinity, and it is so much like Malifaux, and both of those are a similar style of game to current WM, then how mistaken am I about WM?
WayneTheGame wrote:I like straightforward tactics versus chess-like thinking on your feet (that's not say I don't want any tactics at all, I do)
But that's what tactics are, at least in my understanding. I think you've been confused or misled by those games mentioned. The thing is, if chess was that kind of game, pawns would have at least a couple of tricks and exceptions to pull out of their sleeves before a knight could capture them, and the queen could pull off half a dozen extra rules just from being in a square adjacent to a friendly rook, or sumthin'.
Each chess piece has it's own abilities, but limited, and all relating only to movement. That's the thing: it's about manoeuvering your pieces so that each can use it's position and basic, mundane abilities to block, divert and capture your opponent's pieces. The only way a chess piece benefits from a buff or combo is when it's target 'enemy' piece is hemmed in by 'friendlies'. And that's a situation of your own making, not because a specific piece's rule card arbitrarily grants you extra bonuses.
Wargames are a bit more complicated, obviously - guns, cavalry, flank charges and all that. But then I've seen a few people sneer at the less special-rules-heavy games - particularly some historical wargames - 'cos they're all just men, with largely the same abilities, and they might as well go play chess if that was their only choice. Sometimes I would agree, to some extent, but that's the kind of challenge I like, most of the time. Your English Civil war army might have pikes, shot, cavalry and a couple of guns - just like the other side. But have you strategised, and can you tactically play well enough to outmanoeuvre your opponent's army and position your units to use their mundane abilities to best effect? Rather than memorise, rely on, and fuss over a load of extraneous extravagant exceptions and/or at just which point in the alignment of the heavens you're allowed to use them.
There are more abilities, levels and 'flavour' in ECW gaming, and other periods, and especially in sci-fi and fantasy games; but even in some sci-fi and fantasy games there's more of an emphasis on basic stats, USRs, manoeuvre and tactics, than on specific unit or model special rules. If you've given up on 40K and WHFB, and don't like WM/H or Malifaux, you're definitely not limited to mindless dice-rolling games.
And what makes you think that those tactics and manoeuvring also don't apply to games like WMH or Infinity? Those basic principles apply to every single GOOD miniature game out there, in fact that is the single most rewarding thing about the miniature wargaming hobby to me at least, knowing that through positioning and manoeuvring, you managed to implement your strategy and deny you opponent's and so win the game.
Game like WMH and Infinity and Malifaux, have a further layer involved in that if you wan't to take the most out of your models, then you'll have to do things in a certain order but that doesn't mean that you don't have to apply tactical principles to win the game, much to the contrary. And that is why people say that those games have a greater degree of tactical depth, because not only do you have to concern yourself with "normal" tactics and positioning, you have to implement those tactics in a certain way as well.
PhantomViper wrote: Go play something other than a demo game of Infinity then... The models have just as many special rules as the Malifaux ones, you just played a demo = a very simplified version of the actual game!
I will, then. But if I'm that mistaken about Infinity, and it is so much like Malifaux, and both of those are a similar style of game to current WM, then how mistaken am I about WM?
Very mistaken. Combos are something that all games have to a greater or lesser degree, from the recon + artillery of FoW to the smoke grenades + MSV of Infinity, etc, but that doesn't mean that the point of the game is to pull of those combos and you'll win. In all of those games you still have objectives that you have to fulfil, terrain that you have to control or some other type of mission that you have to pull of and if any of them has anything in common is that more than any combo that you might or might not pull of, positioning and movement are the most important things in all of those games.
Granted, the rules complexity that those 3 games have isn't for everyone, especially because they are all pretty unforgiving in that you can loose the game in a single turn if you mess up your positioning, but at the end of the game that is why you won, because you outmanoeuvred your opponent, not because you pulled out ubber-combo number 23!
Is a "combo" using different units with different abilities in order to achieve a synergistic effect?
For example in Napoleonics, you would try to threaten enemy infantry with cavalry, to make them form squares, you then bombard the squares with artillery and move up infantry to attack them.
Malifaux has a lot of combos and options but I've never really felt that they have a massive impact on the game, possibly because each master has a widely different style and combos. They usually result in extra movement and shooting rather than for example attaching a chaplain to assault marines for more rerolls
To be honest I'm not sure that KoW would hold my interest as well if it were my only game. I like it more than GW rules, but it doesn't have the crunch and background of GW games. However the low cost of rules and my sourcing of cheap models means that it doesn't have to be. At present, it's one of at least 3 minaitures games that I play fairly regularly and a half dozen or so that I play over the course of the year. Jumping off the GW train means that I now have enough gaming dollars to ride many different games.
It's not my only game, either - but I use the models from anywhere else as you do, and therefore I've got a GW-esque Elf army, an old-school GW-ish Ogre army (closer to the old Mercenaries in theme, but hey), a Gondor army, and an old-school Undead army with Middle-earth/Mordor overtones. My Orcs (and Goblins) and Dwarves and Chaos/Abyssal Dwarves will all be very World's Edge Mountains in their themes, and my Skaven will be full-fledged Skavenblight. An Empire army using a mix of GW and Perry. Romans from the south using Warlord and Foundry models, along with their Greek neighbours using the same.
Basically, enough GW armies using mostly or significant numbers of GW figures to keep using the GW fluff, if not the rules, mashed up with Middle-Earth, the Classical Era and the Dark Ages, along with slightly Generic Fantasy (which fits with WFB pretty well, anyway). Which is why I really enjoy KoW.
I started 40k back when I was first starting college in 2012. I really enjoyed the game then, first borrowing a friend's Imperial Guard army, building my own an jumping right into my second army at christmas with some Blood Ravens; I had followed 40k's fluff for years, played the games, read the books, and was playing the game with a few friends I hadn't really had much contact with for a few years due to work, school and the like. I only had one complaint in those days; vehicles were too durable. Nothing is was as frustrating as watching possessed rhinos just laugh off shot after shot with no effect.
That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed myself and looked forwards to each game. This was much the same for most of 6th's lifespan too; I got a Death Korps Army, Minotaurs, some Forgeworld books. Before Apocalypse got updated, we played monthly apocalypse games and our group had over 20 regular members, dwarfing every other 40k group in Canada this side of the Prairies.
I started getting more annoyed over time with the codexes and business practices; Daemons were, and still are, annoying as all hell, while Tau and Eldar were and remain so obscenely broken that even the people who owned the armies largely refuse to play them. Constant price creeps upwards, bland, boring codexes with totally out of control balance; I haven't seen a Tyranid in months, and every Guard army has Pask in a Punisher, this has all ground down mine, and others enthusiasm. 7th has been pretty comprehensively disappointing for everyone, and while the group has only grown, so too has the work involved in making an average game enjoyable. We have fun in spite of GW's best efforts, but it's always a challenge, and sales have dropped dramatically at the store; new kits just aren't moving with their huge prices, and the knowledge that not only will the business not change, but the fundamental problems with the game's mechanics will not be fixed for years, if ever, has resulted in a profound shift within the group. The massive imbalance in codexes has ruined Apocalypse for us, and your average night ends with an hour or two of people expressing their frustrations with the whole enterprise.
Once considered the vastly inferior game due to downright broken magic, Fantasy is starting to see signs of an upsurge; nothing dramatic, just a few people dusting off old collections to take a break from frustrating 40k. Half a dozen people, myself included, have Bolt Action armies; its similarity to 40k's concepts, but with all the changes we wish 40k had, makes it easy to learn and enjoy. Warmachine comes and goes; many people have armies, but few people in the group are highly competitive by nature, which Warmachine is more catered too, so it's played for a week or two then dropped again.
The big winner has been, however, the Heralds of Ruin Kill Team ruleset. Small-scale, easy to play, quick to play, and stripped of most of the incredibly frustrating elements of 40k, kill team has proven reasonably balanced, full of the customization and fun we wish 40k had bothered to develop. There's a few WAACers in a group as large as ours who haven't quite grasped why we're playing this, and try their hardest to break the system, but even the cheesiest kill team list feels so much more manageable than even a "nice" Eldar or Tau list.
Most importantly, I think, is the popularity of Kill Team has actually benefitted the store; people are buying a few things again. You get so much diversity in a Kill Team list just by buying a Cadian squad of Tactical Marine kit; the cost/reward ratio becomes so much more favourable. Combined with lots of fluffy rules and upgrades for every faction, not just Marines (It boggles the mind that they make one extremely balanced book with lots of fluff incentive through Chapter Tactics, and then ignore that idea for EVERY OTHER ARMY, insane), it's proving quite popular. Still needs some tweaks, and holy gak are Harlequins frightening, but on the whole, this is where I'm going to be getting my tabletop fix for the most part.
So, like other's, I haven't really left 40k, but I'm certainly minimizing how much 7th edition I have to put up with. There's even been a few suggestions to go play 5th edition with 4th ed codexes with hullpoints added in. I'm looking forwards to trying that out myself.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is a "combo" using different units with different abilities in order to achieve a synergistic effect?
For example in Napoleonics, you would try to threaten enemy infantry with cavalry, to make them form squares, you then bombard the squares with artillery and move up infantry to attack them.
Is that what would be called a "combo"
In the way that I define it (and hear it defined more often), yes, that is what a combo is.
Pacific wrote: Most of those players there is a conception that they can only get that wargaming experience from GW because it is something they are familiar with.
Yeah I totally agree with this. I used to feel that exact same way. I was unhappy with GW but I didn't find any of the alternatives appealing. "No one else has Space Marines, so meh" (I really did feel that way). But you have to give things a chance. It takes a while for other games to work their way into your head (kinda like a song), but then all of a sudden you can't think about anything else. Now when I look at my Space Marines I can't even remember what the big deal was? The miniatures seem blocky and toy like after a while looking at truescale figures. The fluff is just Matt Ward fanwank, I don't like the company, and the game isn't even that fun. The first step is the hardest, stepping out and trying a new system. Once you're clear you realise that there is a whole world of awesome games out there for you to explore, and cool miniatures, and they're every bit as interesting as 40k. What's more you can even go on their forums and meet the devs... and nag them about stuff
I think it's a shame if you limit yourself to just 40k, it's like never dating more than one girl, or never visiting another country, or living in another city. You can't even tell if you like it because you have no comparison, and no idea what you're missing out on. I think everyone should try new stuff.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is a "combo" using different units with different abilities in order to achieve a synergistic effect?
For example in Napoleonics, you would try to threaten enemy infantry with cavalry, to make them form squares, you then bombard the squares with artillery and move up infantry to attack them.
Is that what would be called a "combo"
In the way that I define it (and hear it defined more often), yes, that is what a combo is.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is a "combo" using different units with different abilities in order to achieve a synergistic effect?
For example in Napoleonics, you would try to threaten enemy infantry with cavalry, to make them form squares, you then bombard the squares with artillery and move up infantry to attack them.
Is that what would be called a "combo"
In the way that I define it (and hear it defined more often), yes, that is what a combo is.
To me that is "using tactics".
Pretty much.
A combo to me is using multiple things specifically designed to work together. For example, in Malifaux: You see your Teddy is just out of charge range. So you first activate Baby Kade, and use his ability 'Where's Teddy?' to teleport Kade into base to base contact with Teddy, which then pushes Teddy 6" towards the enemy. Then, if your opponent doesn't activate that model to avoid the threat in his turn, Teddy is in charge range next turn.
That's using a model that has a specific ability that works only with another model. That's a combo.
Simply doing something like forcing your opponent into a closer formation to hit them with blast weapons is, as you said, called tactics. There's no specific interation between the units that only works between those units.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is a "combo" using different units with different abilities in order to achieve a synergistic effect?
For example in Napoleonics, you would try to threaten enemy infantry with cavalry, to make them form squares, you then bombard the squares with artillery and move up infantry to attack them.
Is that what would be called a "combo"
In the way that I define it (and hear it defined more often), yes, that is what a combo is.
To me that is "using tactics".
Well, yes... Correctly using the combos available to you is part of the tactical gameplay of a game, along with other things like correct target selection and using movement and positioning. All of those things are using tactics.
A combo to me is using multiple things specifically designed to work together. For example, in Malifaux: You see your Teddy is just out of charge range. So you first activate Baby Kade, and use his ability 'Where's Teddy?' to teleport Kade into base to base contact with Teddy, which then pushes Teddy 6" towards the enemy. Then, if your opponent doesn't activate that model to avoid the threat in his turn, Teddy is in charge range next turn.
That's using a model that has a specific ability that works only with another model. That's a combo.
Simply doing something like forcing your opponent into a closer formation to hit them with blast weapons is, as you said, called tactics. There's no specific interation between the units that only works between those units.
And what is the difference from your example and Kilkrazy's?
In Kilkrazy's example the player is using the cavalry's ability to force infantry into squares as a way to maximize the impact of another one of his units (his artillery).
In your example you are using Baby Kade's ability to increase Teddy's threat range as a way to maximize his damage.
Pacific wrote: Most of those players there is a conception that they can only get that wargaming experience from GW because it is something they are familiar with.
Yeah I totally agree with this. I used to feel that exact same way. I was unhappy with GW but I didn't find any of the alternatives appealing. "No one else has Space Marines, so meh" (I really did feel that way). But you have to give things a chance. It takes a while for other games to work their way into your head (kinda like a song), but then all of a sudden you can't think about anything else. Now when I look at my Space Marines I can't even remember what the big deal was? The miniatures seem blocky and toy like after a while looking at truescale figures. The fluff is just Matt Ward fanwank, I don't like the company, and the game isn't even that fun. The first step is the hardest, stepping out and trying a new system. Once you're clear you realise that there is a whole world of awesome games out there for you to explore, and cool miniatures, and they're every bit as interesting as 40k. What's more you can even go on their forums and meet the devs... and nag them about stuff
I think it's a shame if you limit yourself to just 40k, it's like never dating more than one girl, or never visiting another country, or living in another city. You can't even tell if you like it because you have no comparison, and no idea what you're missing out on. I think everyone should try new stuff.
This is how I feel. I played 40k for 23 years and now that I left, I look at 40k and think "It's not actually very good." Some of the models are amazing and some are just awful. The rules are atrocious and often step all over the fluff which was the primary reason I played. And now even the fluff is going down hill. (Muderfang McMurderson and his Murdering Murderers.)
Living in Mexico, Iraq, Italy and Japan have given me a much broader viewpoint in looking at America and playing other games has given me a much better viewpoint on 40k. (I love America, don't love GW.)
So overall I think my issue is that I didn't play any tabletop game for 12 years, and in that time span I picked up MMOs where you really don't deviate from anything; you pick X Y and Z and use abilities A B and C, and either it works or it doesn't, it's not quite "point and click" but it's not really thinking on your feet either - you do what the top players say to do for maximum effect.
So when I came back to tabletop and wanted to see Warmachine, I ended up liking how clean the rules are but so far the vast number of combos gets frustrating for me because nearly every game I play I end up losing due to either forgetting something or because my opponent will field something that I feel I have no counter for. Of course part of it might very well be the fact that I'm still applying the way I played in 40k 12 years ago to how I play Warmachine today, with units focused on one thing and if they run into issues doing that one thing, it's pretty cut and dried that they'll be ineffective.
WayneTheGame wrote: So overall I think my issue is that I didn't play any tabletop game for 12 years, and in that time span I picked up MMOs where you really don't deviate from anything; you pick X Y and Z and use abilities A B and C, and either it works or it doesn't, it's not quite "point and click" but it's not really thinking on your feet either - you do what the top players say to do for maximum effect.
So when I came back to tabletop and wanted to see Warmachine, I ended up liking how clean the rules are but so far the vast number of combos gets frustrating for me because nearly every game I play I end up losing due to either forgetting something or because my opponent will field something that I feel I have no counter for. Of course part of it might very well be the fact that I'm still applying the way I played in 40k 12 years ago to how I play Warmachine today, with units focused on one thing and if they run into issues doing that one thing, it's pretty cut and dried that they'll be ineffective.
Unlearning what I learned in over twenty years of 40k was my biggest hurdle. But once you get into the Warmachine mindset, it becomes much easier. There's a lot of great advice on line on how to run your armies.
Herzlos wrote: Malifaux has a lot of combos and options but I've never really felt that they have a massive impact on the game, possibly because each master has a widely different style and combos. They usually result in extra movement and shooting rather than for example attaching a chaplain to assault marines for more rerolls
Depends on the Crew. I mostly run a Showgirls crew and winning/losing often times comes down to my mission (since the girls are rather terrible at combat, for the most part) and starting a "chain reaction" of special rules/abilities and getting things to work the way that I want them to
And what is the difference from your example and Kilkrazy's?
Its the exact same thing.
Although they are the same thing, The perceived difference between a combo and a tactic is this: a combo is seen as an artificial and 'gamey' strategy and so, is looked down on. A tactic is a 'valid' strategy that can be visualised and is applauded.
I've seen Folks hate on the 'gamey' and 'combo' focused nature of warmachine, and the lack of 'real' tactics and complain about 'dry' rules. Yet do any if them 'forge the narrative' (thanks gw!) and look past the mechanics to what they are actually trying to represent? If you only see them as 'rules for a game', and refuse to look further, you will never be capable of seeing them as anything more. The Butcher can be a set of rules, or a tragic berserker, seeking to drown his pain, guilt, anger and personal loss in endless battle.
And what is the difference from your example and Kilkrazy's?
Its the exact same thing.
Although they are the same thing, The perceived difference between a combo and a tactic is this: a combo is seen as an artificial and 'gamey' strategy and so, is looked down on. A tactic is a 'valid' strategy that can be visualised and is applauded.
I've seen Folks hate on the 'gamey' and 'combo' focused nature of warmachine, and the lack of 'real' tactics and complain about 'dry' rules. Yet do any if them 'forge the narrative' (thanks gw!) and look past the mechanics to what they are actually trying to represent? If you only see them as 'rules for a game', and refuse to look further, you will never be capable of seeing them as anything more. The Butcher can be a set of rules, or a tragic berserker, seeking to drown his pain, guilt, anger and personal loss in endless battle.
While that's true, I've always found there to be... "something" about Warmachine that makes it be treated as a game rather than a narrative. I haven't been able to put my finger on what, it's like the difference in a D&D game between:
"I swing my sword at the Orc. Does a 15 hit his AC? Okay, I deal 5 points of damage."
and
"With a mighty battle shout Yendar lunges forward, swinging his blade in a downward arc and slashing across the Orc's chest"
Both have the same result, but the first example is entirely "game speak", and the second is more of a story. For whatever reason, Warmachine feels more appropriate to the first part, while for all its flaws (speaking personally here ofc) 40k has lent itself to the second one, at least encapsulating the actual game.
And what is the difference from your example and Kilkrazy's?
Its the exact same thing.
Although they are the same thing, The perceived difference between a combo and a tactic is this: a combo is seen as an artificial and 'gamey' strategy and so, is looked down on. A tactic is a 'valid' strategy that can be visualised and is applauded.
I've seen Folks hate on the 'gamey' and 'combo' focused nature of warmachine, and the lack of 'real' tactics and complain about 'dry' rules. Yet do any if them 'forge the narrative' (thanks gw!) and look past the mechanics to what they are actually trying to represent? If you only see them as 'rules for a game', and refuse to look further, you will never be capable of seeing them as anything more. The Butcher can be a set of rules, or a tragic berserker, seeking to drown his pain, guilt, anger and personal loss in endless battle.
Well, another big difference between the Napoleanics and Warmachine example of Combo v. Tactics is that one actually happened in real life, while the other is completely a construct ofht egame world and hence "Gamey". Outside of the game world there is no practical application.
Things like focusing firepower and overlapping fields of fire are applicable in the real world as well as the game world. Hence, Tactics since they have been observed happening and working in the real world.
@Wayne- I understand what you mean. If I wanted a thought exercise, I would be at work.
Simply put, edition changes got me in regards to 40k.
I have been playing 40k since RT days and have like 50k points of orks. Almost every epicast/armorcast model including the great gargant.
In 2004, When the 'chapter approved trial assault rules' happened, it became hard to play games as people were testing these Chapter approved rules. 4th edition was a disaster. So I stopped playing.
I picked back up with the launch of the new Ork codex in 2007 and got back on the horse with 5th edition. I played solidly for all of 5th edition, but codex neglect slowly got me as orks were entering 6th edition with a 4th edition codex. 6th edition hit and it became hard to make the transition to a 6th edition force with no real allies and codex creep.
Now Orks have a new codex, and 7th edition is here and I simply don't feel like doing the exhausting work of figuring out 7th edition and a new Ork codex. I am sure I will eventually but right now I literally cannot play with my models without learning all new rules all new codex, inventorying what I have, potentially buying and painting a bunch of new stuff to plug needed holes all to get me to a single game.
On the flip side, I have been getting back into Boardgames and dungeon cralwers simply because they were fun to paint and GW gave me 7 years of no new models for Orks. I found new fun in painting chibi dungeon and regular dungeon monsters. The variety is fun, the people are nice and I don't have to 'fight' all the time with people viciously treating me like I am committing a war crime for not playing their chosen game system like I get from Warmahordes/40k players. My painting and gaming time is now fun and not a chore. Who knows if I will go back to 40k? Maybe? Maybe not? I may start selling off my unpainted ork stuff and shrinking my bitz box and keep my painted stuff around for future use.
The last thing I purchased from GW was a Dakkajet when it released. I have had money to piss away but they neglected my codex to the point when we did get an update, I was already forced out of the game due to two editions.
Well, another big difference between the Napoleanics and Warmachine example of Combo v. Tactics is that one actually happened in real life, while the other is completely a construct ofht egame world and hence "Gamey". Outside of the game world there is no practical application.
Things like focusing firepower and overlapping fields of fire are applicable in the real world as well as the game world. Hence, Tactics since they have been observed happening and working in the real world.
What about in-game actions in a fantasy world that reflect on real life?
Kovnik joe and the winter guard. Joe, exhorting his fellow brethren to acts of valor worthy of songs and praise. His mighty speeches inspire even the lowliest farmhand conscript to put aside his fear, and fight on against terrible monstrosities. His fear quelled, he is inspired with stories of greatness to do as they did. His aim sharpens, he will fight ever harder with the last ounce of his strength, or he will fight on, and ignore the pain of his terrible injuries.
In game mechanics: he gives tough and fearless, an accuracy bonus, or a strength bonus.
Definitely a combo.
So I suppose heroic leadership is a 'construct of the game world too',eh? People going above and beyond for their heroes? Pish, I say!
Similar things such as markhov or stannis conferring practised manoeuvres for his cavalry... Look at what stannis brings to the table to represent the combined arms approach, synergies and co-ordination between the different tactical groupings of his steelhead mercenary charter (halberdiers, cavalry, and riflemen).. Easily explained, and understood when examined. In-game they're represented by combos and game mechanics, but they just as easily reflect on the actual background in a believable manner.
For example, look at Steelhead halberdiers with set defense blunting the charge. Riflemen who have trained with the halberdiers in co-ordinated actions,and hence have the discipline to provide extremely accurate fire, despite the close proximity of their comrades. And then the cavalry - given a combat bonus when they're trained to co-ordinate their movements with their fellows to as to not stampede their own allies, and hit the flanks of any units bogged down by the halberdiers. Co-ordinated actions comprising three separate,and distinct wings of a mercenary charter. Hmm, you're right. Riflemen, halberdiers and cavalry actively working together? What tosh. Such a well oiled military machine Must be an artificial gamey combo.
-Loki- wrote:
Pretty much.
A combo to me is using multiple things specifically designed to work together. For example, in Malifaux: You see your Teddy is just out of charge range. So you first activate Baby Kade, and use his ability 'Where's Teddy?' to teleport Kade into base to base contact with Teddy, which then pushes Teddy 6" towards the enemy. Then, if your opponent doesn't activate that model to avoid the threat in his turn, Teddy is in charge range next turn.
That's using a model that has a specific ability that works only with another model. That's a combo.
Simply doing something like forcing your opponent into a closer formation to hit them with blast weapons is, as you said, called tactics. There's no specific interation between the units that only works between those units.
I think that folks that have negative associations with "combos" are reacting to more than just tactics. In napoleonics a player does have to use the various elements he has before him in a synergistic way. However, most most players are dealing with relatively similar units and relatively similar tactics, though there are of course many variations.
Games like Warmachine take away that similarity and pile on the variables and special rules in a way that goes beyond tactical choices of the sort seen in some other games. Thus there arise certain "combos" of units or abilities that are especially powerful. Understanding the interplay of all the variable elements of that game takes a base of game knowledge that is extremely broad to the point where it becomes an exercise in memorization as much as simply understanidng good tactics. This sort of stacking of combos and the supreme importance of list-building is what causes many folks to compare Warmachine and similar games to CCG's where deckbuilding and memorization of a vast amount of game knowledge are as or more important than in-game tactics.
This is not to say that one is a better way to play, but there's a huge difference between the two and they result in very different play experiences.
Azazelx wrote:
It's not my only game, either - but I use the models from anywhere else as you do, and therefore I've got a GW-esque Elf army, an old-school GW-ish Ogre army (closer to the old Mercenaries in theme, but hey), a Gondor army, and an old-school Undead army with Middle-earth/Mordor overtones. My Orcs (and Goblins) and Dwarves and Chaos/Abyssal Dwarves will all be very World's Edge Mountains in their themes, and my Skaven will be full-fledged Skavenblight. An Empire army using a mix of GW and Perry. Romans from the south using Warlord and Foundry models, along with their Greek neighbours using the same.
Basically, enough GW armies using mostly or significant numbers of GW figures to keep using the GW fluff, if not the rules, mashed up with Middle-Earth, the Classical Era and the Dark Ages, along with slightly Generic Fantasy (which fits with WFB pretty well, anyway). Which is why I really enjoy KoW.
A good approach and one that's similar to my own. I mix and match brands of figs have figs that see use across multiple games of varied scopes. For example, the same elf may see the battlefield with:
-Song of Blades for Warband Skirmish
-Of Gods and Mortals for Platoon size Skirmish
-Kings of War For Company battles and above
In Kilkrazy's example the player is using the cavalry's ability to force infantry into squares as a way to maximize the impact of another one of his units (his artillery).
In your example you are using Baby Kade's ability to increase Teddy's threat range as a way to maximize his damage.
Its the exact same thing.
My guess is that it's about the details.
Tactics: In the first example there is no rule that forces the events to happen, the opponent choses to react that way and gets trapped.
Combo: The second example is a combination of abilities that are specific to the units and the result is not something that could work with any other two units of a similar type.
I am sure I will eventually but right now I literally cannot play with my models without learning all new rules all new codex, inventorying what I have, potentially buying and painting a bunch of new stuff to plug needed holes all to get me to a single game.
If you are going to get 7th edition, you better get it now. It only has a life about 1 1/2 years now before 8th edition. Might not even make it that long. 8th might come sooner than that. Just saying, be leary when buying the rules, they will be obsolete relay soon. Hate to see anyone play close to $100 and then not be able to use what they bought. Happened to me with 6th edition. Got it when it came out, but bought the iPad version so it was easier for me getting back into. Man was not worth if to for the 6 months.
Tactics: In the first example there is no rule that forces the events to happen, the opponent choses to react that way and gets trapped.
Combo: The second example is a combination of abilities that are specific to the units and the result is not something that could work with any other two units of a similar type.
This is pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it much better with many fewer words. Tactics are broader and more widely applicable concepts. Combos are a series of rules and special rules that apply to a specific combination of units, strung together into a unique chain of events to give a desired result.
Tactics: In the first example there is no rule that forces the events to happen, the opponent choses to react that way and gets trapped. Combo: The second example is a combination of abilities that are specific to the units and the result is not something that could work with any other two units of a similar type.
This is pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it much better with many fewer words. Tactics are broader and more widely applicable concepts. Combos are a series of rules and special rules that apply to a specific combination of units, strung together into a unique chain of events to give a desired result.
Exactly.
One is general tactics. The other is a combination of interactions that only works between two specific units.
Tactics: In the first example there is no rule that forces the events to happen, the opponent choses to react that way and gets trapped.
Combo: The second example is a combination of abilities that are specific to the units and the result is not something that could work with any other two units of a similar type.
This is pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it much better with many fewer words. Tactics are broader and more widely applicable concepts. Combos are a series of rules and special rules that apply to a specific combination of units, strung together into a unique chain of events to give a desired result.
Exactly.
One is general tactics. The other is a combination of interactions that only works between two specific units.
Again, its the exact same thing: the Napoleonic example is also a combination of interactions that only works with two specific units (cavalry and artillery) and has to be performed in a specific order for it to work (cavalry threatens infantry -> infantry forms square becoming more vulnerable to artillery -> artillery blasts the gak out of the infantry). If the infantry formed into square by player choice (given that the choice is: get charged by cavalry in line and loose the whole unit or form into square and take extra casualties from artillery, meaning that there really isn't a choice), or because the cavalry in that hypothetical Napoleonic rules set has a rule that automatically forces all infantry to form into square is pretty much irrelevant.
And again, all of those "broader and more widely applicable concepts" also apply to games like Infinity, Malifaux and WMH. Outflanking a model / unit still has benefits, choosing the correct target for each unit still is extremely important, things like screening units are still used, forcing enemies to bunch up to become more vulnerable to blast weapons or to spread out to avoid that vulnerability but be unable to support each other are all just tactically viable and important aspects of each of those games as remembering if unit x, y or z has a special rule or not.
That is why those games are sometimes described as having more tactical depth, because not only do you need to concern yourself with "regular" tactics, you also need to consider a whole new set of tactical problems that aren't covered in those. Now, I don't necessarily agree with this since I think that the reason that these games have all these special rules is because they are all skirmish games, it would become pretty boring really fast if their rules would be as simple as those for a company, battalion or army style game.
As a P.S., I would like to leave here the definition of tactics as is found in the merriam-webster dictionary:
Definition of TACTICS
1
a : the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat
b : the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end
Example of a combo:
Up, Down, Up, Down, Left, Left, Left, Right == Unstoppable overhead cartwheel kick unless the opponent does a good block at the right time.
Example of tactics:
Pin the enemy with a frontal attack, and move a second unit to attack around the flank while his attention is diverted.
It is fairly obvious that the tactic is a general principle that can be applied in lots of different eras of warfare though the exact application will depend on immediate factors such as terrain, the quality of your forces and so on.
The combo is a special ability of one unit that will not work with a different unit, but once you have learned it, it works automatically.
It s largely a debate about semantics and a bit pointless to argue. If someone wants to think of it as Combos and another as Tactics, it is no skin off my back.
I know the way I prefer to think about and play my games. If someone else does it differently and has fun.... oh good for them. It doesn't bother me one bit.
Easy E wrote: It s largely a debate about semantics and a bit pointless to argue. If someone wants to think of it as Combos and another as Tactics, it is no skin off my back.
I know the way I prefer to think about and play my games. If someone else does it differently and has fun.... oh good for them. It doesn't bother me one bit.
I agree, 2nd 40K was also "combo" like, Khorne berzerkers in a Landraider move 12" deploy KB get a 2 strength hit KB had 2+ save so not a problem then than do a charge 12" attack the enemy in one turn! , 40k always had certain combinations of gear, characters, units an items that could be devastating.
It is just a matter of taste for people to go to the more synergy style games or the more classical tactical games.
In fighting games, combo specifically indicates a timed sequence of moves which produce a cohesive series of hits, each of which leaves the opponent unable or almost unable to block or otherwise avoid the following hits in the sequence
Which games follow a similar structure to this, where there can be a sequence of events that the player who is being attacked can do little or nothing to avoid the sequence of events? Note in Magic this is similar, as when their 'combo' goes off it starts a sequence of events where the deck wins with little the opponent can do, short of avoiding the situation starting in the first place or hard counters (or c-c-c-combo breakers, if you prefer).
I remember in the army when we did combos. I'd throw in the flash grenade to momentarily stun the baddies inside the room. My team would then move inside and shoot them while stunned. Combos work great!
Hmmm...that does sound an awful lot like tactics.
Oh well.
But as someone else said, this is a skirmish game and can't rely on Napoleonic tactics and prefer special abilities to add depth. Like Infinity's troops all have special abilities to make them unique.
If someone doesn't like special abilities for their troops, skirmish games might not be for them.
I think when people criticise combos they are referring to the kind of "Herohammer" character who doesn't need tactics because his rules make him so powerful that he can roll over nearly any opposition you point him at.
Tactics: In the first example there is no rule that forces the events to happen, the opponent choses to react that way and gets trapped.
Combo: The second example is a combination of abilities that are specific to the units and the result is not something that could work with any other two units of a similar type.
This is pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it much better with many fewer words. Tactics are broader and more widely applicable concepts. Combos are a series of rules and special rules that apply to a specific combination of units, strung together into a unique chain of events to give a desired result.
Exactly.
One is general tactics. The other is a combination of interactions that only works between two specific units.
Kilkrazy wrote:The way I understand it...
Example of a combo:
Up, Down, Up, Down, Left, Left, Left, Right == Unstoppable overhead cartwheel kick unless the opponent does a good block at the right time.
Example of tactics:
Pin the enemy with a frontal attack, and move a second unit to attack around the flank while his attention is diverted.
It is fairly obvious that the tactic is a general principle that can be applied in lots of different eras of warfare though the exact application will depend on immediate factors such as terrain, the quality of your forces and so on.
The combo is a special ability of one unit that will not work with a different unit, but once you have learned it, it works automatically.
All this. +1. Regarding the 'automatic' comment in particular, I'd say this is why Warmachine, Malifaux et al feel like 40K dressed up in steampunk or horror clothes, to me. It still depends too much on your 'build' - which specific models you take, to run on rails and get off a specific chain of rules.
On that note I'll add, if it hasn't been said in the last couple of pages: in general, tactics arise from mechanics; combos arise from rules. To be a wee bit more specific, it could be whittled down further to mechanics + universal rules vs. units + special rules.
MWHistorian wrote:I remember in the army when we did combos. I'd throw in the flash grenade to momentarily stun the baddies inside the room. My team would then move inside and shoot them while stunned. Combos work great!
Hmmm...that does sound an awful lot like tactics.
Oh well.
I think it's more like a combo if you have some unique grenade-throwing ability or experimental grenades (maybe that you can switch on and use only once per engagement) that momentarily boosts the firing accuracy of your specific team 20-50%, besides disorienting the baddies.
'Jab jab jab' could be a tactic. A jab is a fairly standard move, and I'd hazard most beat-em-up characters could pull off a short string of them to some extent, to act as a feint, to follow up a feint, to keep the opponent at arm's length, or just do plain ol' damage.
It's when you do something like 'jab jab jab fireball unstoppable overhead cartwheel kick shoryuken' that the perception might shift a wee bit.
If you use it like that, it is a poke (roughly speaking). If it hits, then doing the follow move makes it a hit confirm into full combo.
But there are some games that are more 'Combo games' than others, like Marvel vs Capcom series. Generally, older games like Street Fighter 2 are pretty combo light, while damage from individual attacks is higher, so there is more of an emphasis on spacing, for example, as the combo part of the game is less emphasised.
I think that can be at a glance analogous to tabletop games where games like Warmachine and Malifaux (maybe?) could be about getting into position and then executing your combo while Blood Bowl and Infinity are more like the ones where it is about spacing throughout the game with high damage individual attacks.
I think that can be at a glance analogous to tabletop games where games like Warmachine and Malifaux (maybe?) could be about getting into position and then executing your combo while Blood Bowl and Infinity are more like the ones where it is about spacing throughout the game with high damage individual attacks.
No. Neither WMH nor Malifaux have anything to do with "getting into position and then executing your combo".
All this. +1. Regarding the 'automatic' comment in particular, I'd say this is why Warmachine, Malifaux et al feel like 40K dressed up in steampunk or horror clothes, to me. It still depends too much on your 'build' - which specific models you take, to run on rails and get off a specific chain of rules.
I'm sorry if that might come of as rude to you, but you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about if you think that "which specific models you take, to run on rails and get off a specific chain of rules" applies to either of those games. A simple glance at any major tournament result for WMH will show you that lists that win those tournaments will have very little success when they are simply copied and used by other players. Both of those games are allot more about how you use your models than what models you choose to build your list from.
I think that can be at a glance analogous to tabletop games where games like Warmachine and Malifaux (maybe?) could be about getting into position and then executing your combo while Blood Bowl and Infinity are more like the ones where it is about spacing throughout the game with high damage individual attacks.
No. Neither WMH nor Malifaux have anything to do with "getting into position and then executing your combo".
All this. +1. Regarding the 'automatic' comment in particular, I'd say this is why Warmachine, Malifaux et al feel like 40K dressed up in steampunk or horror clothes, to me. It still depends too much on your 'build' - which specific models you take, to run on rails and get off a specific chain of rules.
I'm sorry if that might come of as rude to you, but you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about if you think that "which specific models you take, to run on rails and get off a specific chain of rules" applies to either of those games. A simple glance at any major tournament result for WMH will show you that lists that win those tournaments will have very little success when they are simply copied and used by other players. Both of those games are allot more about how you use your models than what models you choose to build your list from.
That is very true. Many people try to just copy the list and think that will win it for them. It doesn't work like that in WMH. It's how you use what you got. You need an army that fits your play style. I'm a blunt instrument, a hammer. I don't play Cryx. I play Khador and Convergence (A vector heavy convergence) because they fit how I think.
MWHistorian wrote: I remember in the army when we did combos. I'd throw in the flash grenade to momentarily stun the baddies inside the room. My team would then move inside and shoot them while stunned. Combos work great!
Hmmm...that does sound an awful lot like tactics.
Oh well.
Here's how I'd personally differentiate the two on a gaming table.... Say you have this exact scenario... you have enemy unit "hiding" inside a room, with a squad of infantry outside. Now, the rules for this wargame allows for the infantry squad to pop the flashbang, and shoot the enemy/clear the room while they're stunned. This would be tactics, as it's similar to our Napoleonics example (you want to do A, B, and C in that order to have the greatest effect)
A "Combo" in my mind is where that same unit pops a flashbang, but instead of it just going off/hitting/stunning you have to perform a Special Rule of some kind in order to see if it gets stunned. That works, and allows the unit to shoot the enemy with a special Assault shooting move, since that didn't wipe out the enemy, but the Assault Shooty Move didn't kill everyone, the attacking unit activates its next Special Rule, which allows it to finish off the remaining enemy in Close Combat (simulating a capture, or kill, etc)
From what I've heard of WMH, it's kind of in that second realm, where if I have a special rule go off at the right time, I can string together a whole bunch of moves that are almost impossible to break up, or prevent from happening.
From what I've heard of WMH, it's kind of in that second realm, where if I have a special rule go off at the right time, I can string together a whole bunch of moves that are almost impossible to break up, or prevent from happening.
To put it bluntly, you've heard wrong, nothing like that is even remotely possible in WMH or Malifaux or any other miniature game that I know of.
Vermis wrote: 'Jab jab jab' could be a tactic. A jab is a fairly standard move, and I'd hazard most beat-em-up characters could pull off a short string of them to some extent, to act as a feint, to follow up a feint, to keep the opponent at arm's length, or just do plain ol' damage.
My interpretation would be that "Jab, jab, jab" is a combo but this comb can be used as a tactic to influence the fight (like you wrote as a feint, follow up or otherwise) while closing in on the enemy to initiate/feint a throw would be a tactic to force the opponent to move, duck, or retaliate (instead of defending) without being a combo.
This it is probably very fighting game specific and a sequence of moves and actions in a war-game could be seen as a loose definition of a combo.
Easy E wrote: Perhaps these needs to be aken to the Warmachine vs 40K thread a few places down.
Anyone else move from GW? Why? What did you go to?
My new current and growing obsession is 54mm miniatures. I'm doing some Horse & Musket non-serious historical stuff with some very simple rules. It's also been really fun to revisit heavy black lining painting approaches that works so well on larger figures. For rules I've been using different ones as my collection grows. I started with Song of Drums & Shakos and am heading towards the rules in All The King's Men's Wargaming Handbook. I'm having to provide both sides and make all the 54mm appropriate terrain, so the project has been slow going, but fun.
Infinity keeps calling me, but all my terrain making material is more appropriate for wilderness type stuff and wood buildings. I'm not sure if I'd enjoy building the 28mm sci-fi terrain I'd want. I also don't like the look of printed terrain and 2d mats that have terrain details on them, so the current approach of the new O:IS starter doesn't quite do it for me.
Vermis wrote: 'Jab jab jab' could be a tactic. A jab is a fairly standard move, and I'd hazard most beat-em-up characters could pull off a short string of them to some extent, to act as a feint, to follow up a feint, to keep the opponent at arm's length, or just do plain ol' damage.
My interpretation would be that "Jab, jab, jab" is a combo but this comb can be used as a tactic to influence the fight (like you wrote as a feint, follow up or otherwise) while closing in on the enemy to initiate/feint a throw would be a tactic to force the opponent to move, duck, or retaliate (instead of defending) without being a combo.
This it is probably very fighting game specific and a sequence of moves and actions in a war-game could be seen as a loose definition of a combo.
The jab jab thing is an interesting one because good boxing games are simulators of real boxing and using the same moves that real boxers use should work in the same way as in real life.
Whereas beat-em-ups are about outrageous impossible but awesome looking moves that work because the game is programmed to make those moves work.
In other words I would say that the jab jab while being a combination of attacking moves, is not a combo in the computer game (and tabletop game) sense, it is a real world tactic.
Taking this to the tabletop, looking at Napoleonics and a lot of other games, if you hide your infantry or tanks behind the crest of a hill, it makes them difficult to hit with artillery. In 40K, you can stand your infantry out in the open if they have a 2+ invulnerable save and FNP. One is tactics, the other is special rules or a defensive combo if you will.
In short, tactics are things that work in game because they game simulates real warfare and they work in real warfare, so if the player cleverly uses tactics he will do better than a player who doesn't. Combos (special rules) are things that work because the game says they work, regardless of the player's cleverness in using them.
That doesn't mean to say there is not an overlap. If you want to look at it this way, a WW2 game's tank has a special rule of "Tank Hunter" that makes it better at attacking tanks than a self-propelled gun would be. Or some Infinity models have special rules about hacking enemy robots and so on. The player has to know how to use these special rules in combination in pursuit of tactical objectives.
In other words I would say that the jab jab while being a combination of attacking moves, is not a combo in the computer game (and tabletop game) sense, it is a real world tactic.
Taking this to the tabletop, looking at Napoleonics and a lot of other games, if you hide your infantry or tanks behind the crest of a hill, it makes them difficult to hit with artillery. In 40K, you can stand your infantry out in the open if they have a 2+ invulnerable save and FNP. One is tactics, the other is special rules or a defensive combo if you will.
In short, tactics are things that work in game because they game simulates real warfare and they work in real warfare, so if the player cleverly uses tactics he will do better than a player who doesn't. Combos (special rules) are things that work because the game says they work, regardless of the player's cleverness in using them.
.
Surely hiding behind a hill that provides a -1 penalty to attacking rolls is as much using special rules or a defensive combo as the other option? In any case, that save and fnp simply represent physically tough infantry, so trusting in their armour to absorb any incoming fire is as much a tactic as lighter infantry using cover for exactly the same reason.
Whether they're real or not is irrelevant. They're 'real' in the world the game is trying to portray.
I maintain what I said. It's only gamey when you refuse to look beyond the actual mechanics, and fail to see what the mechanics are representing. The former is a combo, the latter is tactics.
Easy E wrote: ...Anyone else move from GW? Why? What did you go to?
I'm down to about one person I still play 40K with now. There are a few others that want me to keep playing but the options to play other, better games is just too great. I'm into Bolt Action pretty heavy right now. I just bought Dropzone Commander and I'm looking forward to painting and playing that game for awhile. I have friends who play Deadzone and Relic Knights regularly and I'm being pulled to play in that direction too.
I still have my Tyranid army for 40K but I'm thinking I may sell it off while I still can...
This is an amazing time to look at other games. There are so many I want to try and even more coming out.
Relic Knights looks interesting. I'm waiting for the Star Wars Armada and Robotech.
My Nomad army will be complete soon. (I already have well over 300 pts, but I'm talking about wants.)
I'm almost done with my Convergence of Cyriss army.
Next up?
I have no idea, but I know it'll be exciting.
Just discovered Trafalgar. I really like it. It's a great game, just feels like the Warhammer Historical update of Man O'War.
Do Warhammer Historical count as GW?
Kilkrazy wrote: The way I understand it...
Example of a combo:
Up, Down, Up, Down, Left, Left, Left, Right == Unstoppable overhead cartwheel kick unless the opponent does a good block at the right time.
Example of tactics:
Pin the enemy with a frontal attack, and move a second unit to attack around the flank while his attention is diverted.
I'd say a combo is something that works in auto-mode. It's like a recipe, and it's (mostly) always the same. Tactics actually require some improvisation, you have to think on the field to make things work.
Doesn't mean a combo is some magic tool for brainless players. Some combos are indeed well thought and very clever, but you make all the thinking before the actual game.
In chess:
- Openings are combos. The initial positions are fixed, there are few moves available for both you and your opponent. The best moves and counters have already been thouroughly explored by countless grandmasters, there are somewhere in that huge book. You just have to learn the Karpov or Averbakh Variations to the Rubinstein Complex of the Nimzowitsch Variant of the Indian Defence...
- Endgames are combos. The material is limited, there are few checkmating possibilities left. Again, the best moves are well known.
- Middlegame is about tactics. After the opening, things get blurry, you have broad goals (controlling the center, winning time and material), and tactical tools (pinning, forks...), but there's definitely no "recipe". You have to improvise.
That's how players work, and that's also how the AIs work too.
Yeah the LoW arguments that go on every day is a headache that I don't need. GW greed to sell bigger more expensive models really turned me off from the game.
I'd agree that going hull down and getting +1 defense or whatever is something 'that works because the game says it works'. I'd even say the 2+ sv and FNP can be said to be tactical. But going back to what I said earlier, I disagree that they're special rules so much as mechanics or universal rules.
(I gather that 40K turned a few special rules into universal rules, which is a tiny step in the right direction IMO; though that doesn't prop up up the daft power some of them [or combinations of them] provide, or other general imbalances, and a 2+ invsv with FNP - real or not - is a ridiculous advantage to have. But I digress.)
In something like Malifaux, I can easily see equivalent saves causing a trigger: an ability or special rule unique to that miniature, activated because you happen to draw the right suit or combination of suits in defense. Even a 2+ equiv being a trigger for a FNP ability. Or both being activated one after the other, rather than in combination with a different special rule, cos they just obviously work better with eachother. Or both as something that can be passed on to another mini for a while.
For example, the Guild Guardian's 'tactical' action (snort guffaw) in 2nd ed. - 'protect'. You need to 'cast' it like a spell, with a chance of failure. Upon success, you can boost the defense of a friendly model up to four inches away. (possibly as part of a combo) Then, depending on what suits you pull to succeed, you can then heal some hit points on the friendly model or move the Guardian towards the friendly model.
This is what seems 'gamey' to me. You could argue that it's clever tactics to cast 'protect' and use it's triggers, and this represents 'reality' in the game world, but I'd struggle to believe you.
One one hand, it's a special rule unique to the Guardian. It's not a basic ability or quirk of position, formation, terrain etc. that can be widely used to boost the crew's chances. On the flipside, it's an inherent ability that can't be automatically used or activated. As mentioned, it has to be cast like a spell, with a roughly 50% chance of failure on a random card flip, barring fate cheats. That adds at least one extra layer of gaminess.
It's also a bit illogical, along with it's triggers, especially if you argue it as representing Malifaux's 'reality'. You could say that this action represents the Guardian throwing itself or it's shield in front of the target friendly model. But it does this from up to four inches away, without normally moving. (The Guardian's reach for attacking is 2", IIRC) So for the third time, it's cast like a spell. Is it a spell? Is it some kind of forcefield? AFAIK there's been no mention in the fluff of the Guardian's inherent magical ability or forcefield technology. It's just a big robot with a big sword and a big shield, from the looks of things. Where does this ability come from in the background, as opposed to the game rules? Why does it only work about half the time?
Then there's it's triggers. Non sequiturs. If you pull a ram card, you can heal the target. The Guardian used to be only able to heal itself, in first ed. That could've been explained as internal repair mechanisms. Now it can heal anything, not just other robots, up to four inches away, as a side effect of the mysterious protect ability, and based almost entirely on the random vagaries of fate as they relate to the ram suit. What... hat was that pulled out of?
If you pull a mask card in defense, you can basically walk up to the target friendly. How does that follow on from protection, besides being dictated in the game rules? How come you can't decide to have the model do that normally, besides being dictated in the game rules (action allotment, the specific rule, and the reliance on having a mask card) The trigger is called 'vigilance' - how are the concepts of vigilance and a sudden doubling of the Guardian's speed (the effect of the trigger essentially giving it four actions rather than the normal two, but somehow only if it uses that extra speed to walk to the target of the third action) a natural-but-random progression in the 'reality' of Malifaux, rather than being dictated in the game rules?
And that's only one rule and two triggers out of the Guardian's five rules and six triggers. And the Guardian is only one, relatively mundane entity in Malifaux's rules and background. I've described Malifaux as a card game with occasional reference to miniatures; this is why. The cards in your hand and deck, and the special rules they allow you to pull off, seem more important to the game than anything else. The minis are there to move into position to get down to the real business of positive flips, negative flips, fate cheats, soulstone burning, damage flips, triggers and so on.
To misquote the Two Fat Lardies, I think that's what they call playing the rules, rather than playing the game. And yeah, I realise the irony in tacking the term 'gaminess' onto that, but the conclusions amount to the same thing. The meta and the special rules mean more to the game than simulation, to some degree, of proven (or just logical) tactical manoeuvre, support etc. between physical forces.
I dunno if the likes of current Infinity and Warmachine reflect that Malifaux example. I'm still curious to try out the former a bit more (I guess I should download those rules) but from what I've seen in the past and from casual observation, and the inklings PhantomViper provided, I'd guess they're not entirely different. Something like that is what puts me off Saga, a historical game, too. You may get to choose what actions on the battle board to use, but they still depend on just what you roll with the (unique, proprietary) dice. You can't choose actions normally, based on your position on the board and inherent abilities of the characters/models, but on what dice results you get! Any some actions I glimpsed don't seem to bear any resemblance to what the units on the board could possibly achieve, but on arbitrary, off-table effects. Deus ex machina, almost. It seemed less a chart of possible moves and more a chart of semi-random magic spells. It all just seemed off to me.
I realise the word 'simulation' can open a whole other can of worms, too. Bear in mind that when I say that, I'm not calling for, or even advocating, every wargame to be some kind of dry Napoleonic affair with every real-life battlefield effect strictly plotted out. I'd probably leave the hobby meself, in that case. What I mean is I like a game where the rules intuitively reflect and play second fiddle to the settings and the abilities of units or characters in those settings, perhaps even to the point of sinking into the back of the mind; rather than being rules for rules' sake, and turning the game into an exercise of who has the better special rules and how many they can throw into eachother's face by gaming the system.
Even though I love playing warmachine, I have to agree that it does feels a lot more like a game than something narrative.
I think there are several factors:
- named warcasters that die pretty much every game make it hard to have a narrative going for your series of games.
- lack of terrain and the way missions/victory conditions are structured never really make you feel that you are fighting for anything real. Too much abstraction is needed.
- Lots of named character models that meet on the field all the time. Gorman meets his body double all the time (mine is the real one) etc.
- Conversion rules/lots of metal figs means that you see the same stock figs all the time.
All that said, it doesn`t really bother me. It is a great game, I have a lot of fun playing, and I havn`t had a narrative 40k game in several years anyways. Spam, stupid deathstars and more and more powermodels on the field made 40k a silly game several years ago.
Flames of war is currently the only game capable of providing me with narrative and tactical games. Even so, I am on a WM run, having tons of fun with just the tactical and good looking game.
To misquote the Two Fat Lardies, I think that's what they call playing the rules, rather than playing the game. And yeah, I realise the irony in tacking the term 'gaminess' onto that, but the conclusions amount to the same thing.
I did misquote them, and misspelled their name into the bargain. It's 'playing the period, not the rules', by the Too Fat Lardies: http://toofatlardies.co.uk/ Applied to sci-fi/fantasy, I'd say it turns into, and what I prefer is, 'playing the setting, not the rules'. (and adding 'gaminess' onto that seems a bit less daft)
I wonder how much of systems like Malifaux are crafted to inspire loyalty, to some degree, by having unique mechanics and rules? Much like 40K, where many argue it gives them what other games can't (though more in terms of background, I think), it could be difficult to port elements of the card mechanics and unique character rules to different, or more generic systems, keep what players like about those characters, and keep it all balanced. Though am I underestimating how much the background matters compared to the rules?
I understand others like this kind of game, too. I have to say I got my utter frustration with Malifaux by a couple of years of playing with a Wyrd Henchman, no less, who loves the game and persuaded plenty of other local gamers to pick it up. I'd have trouble persuading them otherwise at this point! Though getting back to setting+rules, one of our first trials of it was with my Black Scorpion cowboys, using Ortega profiles...
Anyway. Getting back to to 'what I went to', my ebay Uruk Hai are starting to arrive. Gotta get some unit bases for Mayhem.
In other words I would say that the jab jab while being a combination of attacking moves, is not a combo in the computer game (and tabletop game) sense, it is a real world tactic.
I thought it was a combo because you can't regularly defend against it if the first punch hits (except a specific combo-breaker) and tactic because it is supposed to manipulate the opponent into doing something specific.
Vermis wrote: I've described Malifaux as a card game with occasional reference to miniatures; this is why. The cards in your hand and deck, and the special rules they allow you to pull off, seem more important to the game than anything else. The minis are there to move into position to get down to the real business of positive flips, negative flips, fate cheats, soulstone burning, damage flips, triggers and so on.
You could apply that generality to dice based games. After all, models in Infinity are just there to give you reasons to roll dice against each other. All that maneuvering, weaving through terrain and use of special skills and weapon effects is merely a way to stack a dice off against your opponent in your favour. You could boil a game down to simply coming up with a series of dice offs based on certain conditions. It certainly wouldn't be a very fun game, though.
I'd love to try Lardies chain of command in 28mm. I've read many criticisms that Warlord models are just "meh" but I disagree. The whole multiparty plastic aspect is what made it so hard to leave GW in the first place. A converting is such a fun part of the hobby. Unfortunately all my ww2 terrain is in 15mm and starting a new collection in 28 seems too daunting.
Vermis wrote: I've described Malifaux as a card game with occasional reference to miniatures; this is why. The cards in your hand and deck, and the special rules they allow you to pull off, seem more important to the game than anything else. The minis are there to move into position to get down to the real business of positive flips, negative flips, fate cheats, soulstone burning, damage flips, triggers and so on.
You could apply that generality to dice based games. After all, models in Infinity are just there to give you reasons to roll dice against each other. All that maneuvering, weaving through terrain and use of special skills and weapon effects is merely a way to stack a dice off against your opponent in your favour. You could boil a game down to simply coming up with a series of dice offs based on certain conditions. It certainly wouldn't be a very fun game, though.
Infinity is a simulation of imaginary near future infantry skirmish. That is to say the basis of the game is people moving around to shoot at each other with line of sight weapons, with SF elements such as robots and hacking added on to make it different to modern infantry warfare.
Naturally Infinity uses rules and dice to resolve situations because tabletop miniatures do not move themselves around and fire real little bullets and so on. (I note with amusement in passing that in Little Wars, the shooting method actually is to shoot matchsticks out of spring-loaded cannon models...) But that is not the purpose of the game. The purpose is to try and ensure that the basic tactics you use in Infinity are things that work in the real world, such as flanking fire or suppression fire.
Other games, such as Malifaux, or Magic The Gathering, are not simulations of real conditions. M:TG is a completely artificial logical system designed to let players enjoy working out the system to use it to their advantage.
I think you might have an improper idea of what a simulation is. It's not about replicating real conditions. They are in fact, artificial logical systems meant to isolate variables. MTG is indeed a simulation of a wizard duel.
People think simulations are about covering all the variables needed to accurately represent a real situation. It's actually the opposite. They specifically zero in on variables of interest to the participants.
Games and simulations aren't opposites. They're not even on the same spectrum.
Yes, simulations cover the factors of interest. The level of simulation is based on the factors you want to include. For example professional pilot training flight simulators are made as realistic as possible without actually being in the air.
I also think you have an improper idea of what Malifaux is. The cards merely replace dice in a normal tabletop wargame. Yes, there are other mechanics like your hand and adding additional cards to an action, but that's basically like having a system in a dice based game that lets you reroll dice by having a 'cheat pool'. Even the unit cards themselves are basically just a codex/army book/other sort of army list.
-Loki- wrote:You could apply that generality to dice based games. After all, models in Infinity are just there to give you reasons to roll dice against each other. All that maneuvering, weaving through terrain and use of special skills and weapon effects is merely a way to stack a dice off against your opponent in your favour. You could boil a game down to simply coming up with a series of dice offs based on certain conditions. It certainly wouldn't be a very fun game, though.
-Loki- wrote:I also think you have an improper idea of what Malifaux is. The cards merely replace dice in a normal tabletop wargame. Yes, there are other mechanics like your hand and adding additional cards to an action, but that's basically like having a system in a dice based game that lets you reroll dice by having a 'cheat pool'. Even the unit cards themselves are basically just a codex/army book/other sort of army list.
Vermis wrote:I have to say I got my utter frustration with Malifaux by a couple of years of playing with a Wyrd Henchman, no less
I think I have a wee inkling of what it's like. I've also heard Malifaux's card system as 'better than dice' because it's 'less random'; referring to to the ability to cheat fate with the cards in your hand, so I agree with you in that particular comparison of dice and cards.
But you miss my point in that it's the amount of card-flipping in Malifaux that puts me off. Even that simple cheat fate mechanic is an extra level of gaminess in my eyes, though in the context of it being one drop in a bucket of 'em. Obviously models with higher starting stats are going to have an advantage, but that might not be much cop if both stats in a duel are starting relatively low (about 3-6, say) and you have fifteen variables to add onto them. (And I'm no eejit when it comes to maths, but I don't like being reduced to counting on my fingers, late at night, in what's supposed to be relaxation) It makes a bit of a mockery unless you have a much higher starting stat. And then your opponent cheats fate by drawing a 12, a 13, or a red joker. Or burns a soulstone and adds even more. Then you make the damage flip, which might be better served by a die. And then, like I say, you have to go through the whole thing again to resolve any triggers, some of which are automatic.
Yeah, you still have to move your minis in Malifaux. You move to get in range to shoot, including to get round any meagre cover the target has, move to get in range to charge, move to sit on an objective or move to gain or pass on some effect with a friendly model. Seems like plenty but it's no more than most if not all other wargames, and to me it's like a quick prelude to all that card flipping, ignoring the setup for what seems to me to be a good long while in favour of a line of cards on the edge of the table, trying to shoot off a load of sometimes-arbitary special rules. It nudges me out of the miniatures game and the action on the table to go... somewhere else. That's not what I like or want.
As we both say, it's not the cards that are the problem, per se. But it's the whole convolution of the card mechanics and the 40Kish piling on of special rules that demands more use of said mechanics, that gets me. In fact, like I've mentioned before, it all seems 40Kish to me - a similar kind of complication and perception of control but with dice rather than cards - roll to hit, roll to wound, chart, roll to save, chart, modify this, modify that, get a ++ save, ignore that wound, activate some-or-other special rule that your model no doubt has...
If the card flips were simpler, with fewer steps, fewer chains and fewer ded kewl roolz depending on them, I'd moan a bit less about Malifaux. If a game had duels with a simple opposed flip, or a single flip on the part of the attacker or caster, with some simple modifiers. (Believe it or not, plenty of dice wargames play like this with little ill effect.) Maybe adjusted stats so that the range of flip results don't introduce so much randomness that perhaps needs to be reigned in by a cheat fate flip. Maybe some other changes. I dunno right now.
The problem is, if applied to Malifaux, it'd take away from the veneer of uniqueness that both Wyrd and the players like so much, maybe making some ask 'well why don't they use dice?'. But that's not what I'm demanding of or even suggesting to Wyrd and it's fans. I'm just saying what I think the problems with Malifaux are, that put me off it personally, and what kind of card mechanics I might possibly like instead. In the meantime, there are plenty of other dice mechanic games that I like instead.
Frozenwastes: after typing out all this, I guess I prefer a game that focuses more on the models and terrain and general abilities rather than special little snowflakes and the whole odd song and dance they have to carry out to prove their special little snowflakeness. I've already given my explanations and caveats as to why I used the term simulation in that context, as opposed to metagaming. So there.
(I've also tried out MtG too, and I don't like that either, but it makes a bit more sense than if it were ostensibly about directing 3D representations of soldiers over a 3D representation of a battlefield)
Vermis, if I'm reading your right, your real issue with Malifaux is that you find the basis for your decision making to be unreliable and the process itself seems disconnected from the situation on the table top and instead relies more on your hand of cards or how many resource points you have left. And then the process is not short and repeated many times through the course of play. So not only do you not get to make meaningful decisions in a way you do like, you have to spend a lot of time engaging with a way you don't like.
I don't play Malifaux much because most of my local opponents don't get that it's all about weighing the odds of the cards in your hands and making decisions based on whether or not you have the resources to carry your plan for that turn through. They want it to be a typical miniature game where you make decisions on more traditional miniature wargaming factors. It's just not. And now that I think about it, I kind of wish it was different as well. I prefer games where decision making is more based on position, threat, tempo, maneuver, reinforcement, etc.,. I think it's why I play a lot of wargame rules from the 60s and rules that are their successors.
Vermis wrote: I think I have a wee inkling of what it's like. I've also heard Malifaux's card system as 'better than dice' because it's 'less random'; referring to to the ability to cheat fate with the cards in your hand, so I agree with you in that particular comparison of dice and cards.
But you miss my point in that it's the amount of card-flipping in Malifaux that puts me off.
Just to be fair, I wasn't actually responding to you. I can see the amount of card flipping pissing people off. I was responding to Kilkrazy putting it as a comparison to MtG, I'm assuming because it uses cards. The card mechanic is just like having dice in any other game and a pool of dice you can sub in as rerolls for yourself or your opponent (and forcing them to take the lower roll), then another pool of dice that are pre rolled that you can replace a roll with. The game is nothing like MtG.
I decided to not continue with 40k after the release of 7th (if you've heard this story from me before, I apologize). My two armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, were both eventually invalidated by new codices, and so in order to continue playing I'd be forking out about $200...not a position I'm really comfortable with right now (especially given the state of 40k).
I'm loathe to get rid of my 40k models, so I've been working on the idea of going back to "old-GW" and playing with the 3rd, 4th, or 5th rulesets (probably the 5th since it received a lot of accolades until the Grey Knights came onto the scene).
For some of the remaining 40k-itches I have, I've been looking to supplement them in other ways and so far it's been very positive, I'm so glad I took the plunge! My desire for a WWI-style Imperial Guard army is perfectly matched by All Quiet on the Martian Front, fielding large numbers of tanks and troops against alien menaces without breaking my bank. My wish for a new Necromunda/Inquisitor/skirmish game looks like it will be met by Infinity, whose models have been becoming continuously better IMO in terms of quality and aesthetics. And while I certainly love the look of those new Imperial Knights Forgeworld is pumping out, the idea of playing them in 28mm games and taking up significant portions of the table (as well as my income!), seems silly. I'd love to see these models in 15mm scale, but since there is essentially NO chance of that happening, AQMF and Dystopian Wars are filling that niche quite well.
I think that is another reason why people leave Accolade. I mean why does GW think they need to invalidate people's army just so they can make more money?
I guess it goes to show you that Games Workshop has no more innovation and can only rely on disrespecting their customers.
Accolade wrote: I decided to not continue with 40k after the release of 7th (if you've heard this story from me before, I apologize). My two armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, were both eventually invalidated by new codices, and so in order to continue playing I'd be forking out about $200...not a position I'm really comfortable with right now (especially given the state of 40k).
I'm loathe to get rid of my 40k models, so I've been working on the idea of going back to "old-GW" and playing with the 3rd, 4th, or 5th rulesets (probably the 5th since it received a lot of accolades until the Grey Knights came onto the scene).
For some of the remaining 40k-itches I have, I've been looking to supplement them in other ways and so far it's been very positive, I'm so glad I took the plunge! My desire for a WWI-style Imperial Guard army is perfectly matched by All Quiet on the Martian Front, fielding large numbers of tanks and troops against alien menaces without breaking my bank. My wish for a new Necromunda/Inquisitor/skirmish game looks like it will be met by Infinity, whose models have been becoming continuously better IMO in terms of quality and aesthetics. And while I certainly love the look of those new Imperial Knights Forgeworld is pumping out, the idea of playing them in 28mm games and taking up significant portions of the table (as well as my income!), seems silly. I'd love to see these models in 15mm scale, but since there is essentially NO chance of that happening, AQMF and Dystopian Wars are filling that niche quite well.
I'm definitely keeping some or most of my 40k stuff. I still like the setting - just have to headcannon our some od the more ridiculous new stuff like Mruder He-Wrote. The setting can be explored in a number of other ways than the GW tabletop game. FFGRPGs are right up there, modified 3rd party systems such as Kings of War, Warpath, or Deadzone. iirc there was a warmahordes mod under substantial longterm development (mentioned in this thread?). Plus as I originally got into the hobby mainly for modeling and painting 40k, I'm still happy to do just that. Soldier on with my Blood Ravens, Tanith First, Iron Warriors, Renegade Guard and Newcrons. All obtained as cheaply as possible ofc... $24 new tac marine squads is very reasonable!
To replace 40k, I'd really like a scalable game that can work at skirmish and large scale, for example with optional movement trays for "horde" infantry like guardsman, gaunts, boyz etc. that provide pie plate mitigation or other such things as a tradeoff and reward for speeding up play. Other more elite units such as SMs could still e treated as individually valuable - ideally at a higher cost and effectiveness than the current 14 ppmSM bodies comapred to 5 ppm guard bodies. Larger dice allowing more results with less rolling would also be ideal here, some people have an obsessive attachment to the humble d6 whereas I'd much rather a d10+ basic dice system.
In the meantime I'm really happy with smaller skirmish scale games with fast rules. Dreadball is my #1, still need to start deadzone (finally painting!) and X-Wing (and Armada + Imperial Assault) purchase is *so close* now. Plus a DZC starter. Oh and the 50% off Bolt Actiond deal that's finished has that on my radar once I can hopefully speedpaint up some troops with some quick airbrush and washing. Ex-GW indeed... though the urge to make them 40k capable is still strong, I shall try to resist.
Davor wrote: I think that is another reason why people leave Accolade. I mean why does GW think they need to invalidate people's army just so they can make more money?
I guess it goes to show you that Games Workshop has no more innovation and can only rely on disrespecting their customers.
A huge part of our problem with them lately. The setting can be expanded without invalidating the past. For example: if Chaos took the Cadian gate and screwed Cadia, the existing cadian range would still be fine to use as there are hundreds/thousands of regiments in service around the galazxy who could conceivably continue their traditions on new worlds they were given. It also allows GW the opportunity to re-release a Cadian range that *isn't* ridiculously heroic scale, perhaps with a more veteran feel. Or Gue'vesa auxillaries as humans increasingly side with the greater good as they feel the imperium is collapsing, new tech released by Ad mech... so much stuff they could add without invalidating.
Accolade wrote: I decided to not continue with 40k after the release of 7th (if you've heard this story from me before, I apologize). My two armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, were both eventually invalidated by new codices, and so in order to continue playing I'd be forking out about $200...not a position I'm really comfortable with right now (especially given the state of 40k).
I'm loathe to get rid of my 40k models, so I've been working on the idea of going back to "old-GW" and playing with the 3rd, 4th, or 5th rulesets (probably the 5th since it received a lot of accolades until the Grey Knights came onto the scene).
Same here, only I still enjoy painting the models. I won't be buying anything from GW anytime soon, I have more plastic stuff around than I could paint in the next 10 years.
Accolade wrote: I decided to not continue with 40k after the release of 7th (if you've heard this story from me before, I apologize). My two armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, were both eventually invalidated by new codices, and so in order to continue playing I'd be forking out about $200...not a position I'm really comfortable with right now (especially given the state of 40k).
I'm loathe to get rid of my 40k models, so I've been working on the idea of going back to "old-GW" and playing with the 3rd, 4th, or 5th rulesets (probably the 5th since it received a lot of accolades until the Grey Knights came onto the scene).
Same here, only I still enjoy painting the models. I won't be buying anything from GW anytime soon, I have more plastic stuff around than I could paint in the next 10 years.
Consider me on the cusp of putting my 40k stuff on the scrapheap of entropy. In fact its probably already there as i haven't played in ages and the last time i did it was a boredom fest.
I've already scrapped my Templars and i'm under no illusions about the the new Dark Eldar codex that is just around the corner. Its a crying shame, but they might have to go as i just can't see me playing them anymore, i'll keep my IG/Tau as a 'backup' policy but that's it really. All GW is good for now is the paints.
Warmahordes is my main tonic and its an utter blast, epic wins and fails all at the same time, and at no point is there any mention of accursed "narrative" or "that's OP" claptrap. Plus you can use colossal units without any bitching whatsoever (yes a Cryx Kraken with phantom hunter is a bit of a shock... when your opponent forgets his shield guard model...).
However since i can only attend one club currently, i am aware that others maybe more enthused with 40k elsewhere so i am not totally burning bridges. But 40k is just clunky and obsolete as far as i'm concerned, not to mention some members of the community are just pig ignorant of the other games out there.
The only snag is that GW models are a joy to paint, shame the game is naff
Art_of_war wrote: Consider me on the cusp of putting my 40k stuff on the scrapheap of entropy. In fact its probably already there as i haven't played in ages and the last time i did it was a boredom fest.
I've already scrapped my Templars and i'm under no illusions about the the new Dark Eldar codex that is just around the corner. Its a crying shame, but they might have to go as i just can't see me playing them anymore, i'll keep my IG/Tau as a 'backup' policy but that's it really. All GW is good for now is the paints.
Warmahordes is my main tonic and its an utter blast, epic wins and fails all at the same time, and at no point is there any mention of accursed "narrative" or "that's OP" claptrap. Plus you can use colossal units without any bitching whatsoever (yes a Cryx Kraken with phantom hunter is a bit of a shock... when your opponent forgets his shield guard model...).
However since i can only attend one club currently, i am aware that others maybe more enthused with 40k elsewhere so i am not totally burning bridges. But 40k is just clunky and obsolete as far as i'm concerned, not to mention some members of the community are just pig ignorant of the other games out there.
The only snag is that GW models are a joy to paint, shame the game is naff
Agreed. PP models aren't the same quality (though their metals can rock) But the game is far superior in terms of tactical and strategic play.
You also might want to try Infinity and Malifaux for great models to paint. I'd put their models as higher quality than GW.
The only snag is that GW models are a joy to paint, shame the game is naff
Nothing at all to stop you collecting miniatures just to paint, you don't have to spend $600 on an army and upgrade rule and army books every 2 years.
A number of people I know do this, I buy miniatures from ranges that I have like with no intention of buying the rules or an army for that system. In fact, doing the odd mini from another range is a great way of breaking up large army-paints!
I'm trying really hard to get into WMH but the awful model quality, missing parts in every kit and aesthetics I don't care for are making it difficult. Also the fact that there's still 4-5 times as many 40k players in my area so I can always get a game. With WMH I had to put my contact info up in stores and hunt down obscure FB groups to find a few people to get a game in.
Toofast wrote: I'm trying really hard to get into WMH but the awful model quality, missing parts in every kit and aesthetics I don't care for are making it difficult.
Aesthetics I can't/wont argue... but model quality I will.... I've bought quite a few kits, and all have been of decent-good quality. My only real gripe was with ONE kit, that had a mold line directly through an "eyeball" of a Convergence light 'Jack (and that eye had quite a bit of intricate detail in it) But I've honestly never had a kit with missing parts or anything like that.
Toofast wrote: I'm trying really hard to get into WMH but the awful model quality, missing parts in every kit and aesthetics I don't care for are making it difficult. Also the fact that there's still 4-5 times as many 40k players in my area so I can always get a game. With WMH I had to put my contact info up in stores and hunt down obscure FB groups to find a few people to get a game in.
That seems like it's more a problem with your area than the game itself. Honestly the plastic isn't as good as GW plastic but it's far from "awful". The most annoying part is that mold lines tend to be in the worst places (through faces, etc.) and the fact most of the weapons are bent.
Compared to GW plastic, the details are softer, mold lines are difficult to remove and in the worst places (GW intentionally molds things so the mold lines are as hidden as possible), there are injection spots that are a pain to get rid of, every single cinerators sword in my kit was bent, 2 of them so badly that they contact the shield in the other hand (and they cannot be straightened out no matter what I try), and I've seen more missing pieces in 1 WMH box than I've had in 15 years and $2,500~ worth of GW kits combined. They just feel and look like cheap toys rather than high quality models. Also the sculpts aren't nearly as detailed. I would rather work with finecast all day than PP plastics and I hate finecast.
Art_of_war wrote:The only snag is that GW models are a joy to paint, shame the game is naff
Box of Dark Eldar Wyches + 30mm bases from EM4 Miniatures = awesome cryx-appropriate Nyss Hunters.
Toofast wrote:I'm trying really hard to get into WMH but the awful model quality
I've had no problem with the medium and large based models, nor any problems with small based metal models, but I absolutely hate their small infantry in plastic. They remind me of Mantic's bad dreadball stuff.
Actually, it was the miniatures that got me interested in Warmachine in the first place. Before I bought into it, I was always eying those Khador jacks.
But then I saw this and knew I was hooked. It is my #1 favorite mini.
Sure, their plastics are frustrating some times, but some of their minis are very outstanding.
But really, the game itself is just so much better that whatever deficiency the minis have is overlooked.
i've been a fan of PP's metals from day 1, and own a ton of them, but as soon as the switch was made to restic, my purchases went to 0 for anything in that material...
having looked at the minis in hand, i walked straight away, and never looked back...
i'll still buy the metal stuff, and the proper resin Collosals are nice, but restic is horrible...
too bad the ever-rising cost of metal has made the mini industry shift to this horrendous material...
there are a lot of sculpts, from a lot of different companies, that i would love to own, but that won't happen as long as the material is rubbish...
i am interested in seeing the new Relic Knights casts, and the Kings of War casts, and see if there really is an improvement happening...
As much as I hate to say it looks like I'll be keeping my 40KGW stuff for a while. Bartertownt is glutted with people trying to offload their armies and I'm not quite ready to take that big of a bath to unload my stuff. Ebay hasn't been too friendly either, so I'll just sit on them and bide my time.
I hate to break it to you but the prices will only continue to drop unless GW has some kind of major turnaround. Every day more people leave GW than start a new army. The supply of second hand GW minis is constantly rising while the demand is dropping with no end in sight. I don't need to be an econ major to see the writing on the wall here.
Toofast wrote: I hate to break it to you but the prices will only continue to drop unless GW has some kind of major turnaround. Every day more people leave GW than start a new army. The supply of second hand GW minis is constantly rising while the demand is dropping with no end in sight. I don't need to be an econ major to see the writing on the wall here.
But wait a little longer and he will be selling OOP models, of course so will anyone selling GW models .
I doubt that. Regardless of what happens to GW, their models and rules bring in $200 mil of revenue. Somebody will pick up where GW left off and hopefully write some decent rules to go along with all the awesome models.
Someone will snatch up GeeDub before they go completely down the tube.That purchaser might wait until they GW is gasping for breath or they might move in sooner to save the brand and rebuild it.
GW might turn around (especially if they are hiring a new Chief Executive. I don't want them to go away, I like diversity in the game world. Plus their IP has some history.
I'm just done with the current model and the way they abuse their customers. If they turn around and join the 21st century and realize they are no longer the only game in town I might even come back!
khealos wrote: As much as I hate to say it looks like I'll be keeping my 40KGW stuff for a while. Bartertownt is glutted with people trying to offload their armies and I'm not quite ready to take that big of a bath to unload my stuff. Ebay hasn't been too friendly either, so I'll just sit on them and bide my time.
Take it from experience - if you like the models still, don't sell your stuff. Unless you need the money or they're taking up needed space, just let them sit there. If in 5 years GW have turned themselves around, fixed their game, and have something you want to play, it's all there to unpack. However, it's also there if you want to proxy then in a game you've bought or use them in a game that doesn't have its own model line. Want to do some humans vs high tech aliens in Tomorrows War? Buy some modern day humans to face off against some Tau you have kicking around.
I still think GW is best-in-business when it comes to multi-part plastic kits -- it is so easy to work with, you can so many diverse and easily interchangeable bits, it just begs to be converted or kitbashed. The sculpts themselves are a matter of aesthetics, what you get in an overall kit is still pretty impressive.
...I don't know that it justifies the cost, though, since they were delivering on a lot of these kits in the same way significantly cheaper like as recently as a few years ago, and every kit needs to be bought in multiple to be fielded. Paying $60 for Witch Elves/Sisters of Slaughter is kinda steep, but the killer for me is I need 3 or 4 boxes for a playable unit.
The "multi-source" nickel-and-diming is also really bothering me (how the eff does my "Warboss edition" codex not have the rules for a looted wagon, of all things?) Doesn't the mission statement say "Part of the fun of the hobby is collecting a range of citadel miniatures," not "part of the fun of the hobby is collecting our range of special edition codices, dataslates (only on iOS!), and out-of-print White Dwarfs!" Other companies have taken the attitude that the rules should be pretty accessible, or even free....and you know what? It makes me buy more stuff! ("Wow, such-and-such unit is actually pretty good, I should get it.")
khealos wrote: As much as I hate to say it looks like I'll be keeping my 40KGW stuff for a while. Bartertownt is glutted with people trying to offload their armies and I'm not quite ready to take that big of a bath to unload my stuff. Ebay hasn't been too friendly either, so I'll just sit on them and bide my time.
Take it from experience - if you like the models still, don't sell your stuff. Unless you need the money or they're taking up needed space, just let them sit there. If in 5 years GW have turned themselves around, fixed their game, and have something you want to play, it's all there to unpack. However, it's also there if you want to proxy then in a game you've bought or use them in a game that doesn't have its own model line. Want to do some humans vs high tech aliens in Tomorrows War? Buy some modern day humans to face off against some Tau you have kicking around.
The only time I recommend selling off your models is if you genuinely don't want to get back in to 40k and don't want the models hanging around to tempt you to get back in to it I've quit several times over the years and come back, I do wonder if I'd have been better off doing what my friends did and just selling everything so I had less reason to get back in to it.
But otherwise, yeah, I'd hold on to the models in case you do want to get back in to it later.
To be honest I have not touched my 40K stuff since 4th edition. I don't see myself playing 40k again and while I did enjoy painting and playing I have moved on. Good advice all around but I do need the money and have to fund Dropzone somehow
I didn't see myself playing 40k again, so I sold my two armies and bought into Infinity and Warmachine.
I kept my SOB army a bit longer, but when I looked at it I realized that I had lost all excitement and love for them. I just saw kind of crappy metal models that were taking up shelf space and could get me a new army in another game.
Toofast wrote: I'm trying really hard to get into WMH but the awful model quality.
Plastics can be temperamental, but their metals rarely have any issues. And that said, I've not had any major issues with any of the plastics I've bought, bars one minor gripe regarding my gun carriage (any khador jacks I bought were fine (5+), men o war were fine, warpwolves were fine, skinwalkers were fine etc). Metal wise, no complaints from me - they're solid as anything.
In any case, with respect, You bought/shared in one kit (iirc?) that had issues. And pp will replace those parts. I've bought over £2000 of WMH over the last few years and I've never had any missing parts in any of my kits, over two factions and a whole bunch of Mercs/minions.
Toofast wrote: and aesthetics I don't care for are making it difficult.
The aesthetics grow on you. They certainly did for me. A lot of not liking the pp look comes less from it being bad, and more for folks simply being immersed primarily in the aesthetics in 40k, and assuming them as 'the standard', and simply 'being used to' them. It comes as a bit of a shock to the system to,see other aesthetics. Taken as their own, they're fine. They're internally consistent, and have their eon influences (the jack 'look' for example is based on the hunched over American footballers lined up in a scrimmage (terminology might be off!)
Toofast wrote: Also the fact that there's still 4-5 times as many 40k players in my area so I can always get a game.
The player base Doesn't matter though when you either don't like the game itself, have issues with the people playing, or are at odds/an impasse with them in terms of 'how' you want to play it. I think you're the latter, right? You want to play competitively, and the others don't, if I remember from your other thread? If that's the case, it doesn't really matter if there's a thousand of them. It's nice to be part of a big player base, but it's not so nice when you're not enjoying it.
Toofast wrote: With WMH I had to put my contact info up in stores and hunt down obscure FB groups to find a few people to get a game in.
So?
It will always be harder to get things going when a game isn't a headliner. That's no reason to dislike the game itself though. Same with us here and dropzone commander. Love the game to pieces, but the numbers playing it are thinner on the ground than with other games. Niot an issue - just get involved with those who do play it, and have fun.
At my FLGS the warmachine players are getting together and exchanging info so we can plan more games together. There's two veterans and four newbies. (Me being one of them.)
It takes work and time, but keep at it and you'll have your own community going.
ComTrav wrote: I still think GW is best-in-business when it comes to multi-part plastic kits -- it is so easy to work with, you can so many diverse and easily interchangeable bits, it just begs to be converted or kitbashed. The sculpts themselves are a matter of aesthetics, what you get in an overall kit is still pretty impressive.
The problem with them is the poses end up looking really stiff and forced instead of dynamic, because they need to make a body that works with however many arm parts they include, a neckline that works with all available heads, arms that sit above any waistline details, etc. The only reason multi-pose plastic are useful in 40k is GW themselves created an atmosphere where they were desired - a dozen options for a squad, many on a single model (the sergeant), and many, many models for an army made people want multi-pose models simply to paint something different.
When you compare them to even GW's single pose characters, the single pose models look far more interesting and dynamic, and their poses much less forced.
So it's not really that GW are still the best at making them because they're just better at making them, it's because other companies haven't create their games or product lines which make multi-pose plastics desirable.
jah-joshua wrote:i've been a fan of PP's metals from day 1, and own a ton of them, but as soon as the switch was made to restic, my purchases went to 0 for anything in that material...
having looked at the minis in hand, i walked straight away, and never looked back...
i'll still buy the metal stuff, and the proper resin Collosals are nice, but restic is horrible...
This describes me as well. I love PP's metals and don't buy their plastics at all. And the smaller the miniature, the worse it is. There are some almost passable large and medium models in that plastic, but the small base ones are horrible with shallow detail I wouldn't want to inflict them on anyone.
jah-joshua wrote:i've been a fan of PP's metals from day 1, and own a ton of them, but as soon as the switch was made to restic, my purchases went to 0 for anything in that material...
having looked at the minis in hand, i walked straight away, and never looked back...
i'll still buy the metal stuff, and the proper resin Collosals are nice, but restic is horrible...
This describes me as well. I love PP's metals and don't buy their plastics at all. And the smaller the miniature, the worse it is. There are some almost passable large and medium models in that plastic, but the small base ones are horrible with shallow detail I wouldn't want to inflict them on anyone.
Just bought a box of the new plastic Bane Thralls and I didn't have a single cause for complain with them, same thing with a box of CoC Reductors. On the other hand, the box of Bane Riders that I bought at the same time required a considerable amount of elbow grease to get the horses to align because they were a bit bent (nothing that hot water didn't solve luckily).
Either I'm incredibly lucky or I just can't seem to associate mold lines and bent spears with horrible quality like some people do...
Also "shallow detail"? Do you paint your models with wall paint for this to even be considered a problem?!
The only snag is that GW models are a joy to paint, shame the game is naff
Nothing at all to stop you collecting miniatures just to paint, you don't have to spend $600 on an army and upgrade rule and army books every 2 years.
A number of people I know do this, I buy miniatures from ranges that I have like with no intention of buying the rules or an army for that system. In fact, doing the odd mini from another range is a great way of breaking up large army-paints!
I agree. Also, if you love the miniatures, have you considered using them with a different set of rules? We've got alot of Warhammer minis that still make it onto the table with our games of Kings of War, and I'm looking forward to putting alot of my 40k minis back on the table when the full Warpath rules are released.
I agree. Also, if you love the miniatures, have you considered using them with a different set of rules? We've got alot of Warhammer minis that still make it onto the table with our games of Kings of War, and I'm looking forward to putting alot of my 40k minis back on the table when the full Warpath rules are released.
I think a lot of the GW models are gorgeous but too pricy for my blood just to buy, paint, and never use. For me I'd rather buy models that I will use to paint
I'm re purposing some dwarf models for a Song of Blades and Heroes
Toofast wrote: and aesthetics I don't care for are making it difficult.
The aesthetics grow on you. They certainly did for me. A lot of not liking the pp look comes less from it being bad, and more for folks simply being immersed primarily in the aesthetics in 40k, and assuming them as 'the standard', and simply 'being used to' them. It comes as a bit of a shock to the system to,see other aesthetics. Taken as their own, they're fine. They're internally consistent, and have their eon influences (the jack 'look' for example is based on the hunched over American footballers lined up in a scrimmage (terminology might be off!)
To be fair, aesthetics don't always grow on you. I've tried to get into Warmachine in the past, and every faction has models I enjoy and models I just cannot stand due to the games aesthetic direction. It works sometimes and sometimes just doesn't for me. It doesn't 'grow on you' for everyone.
I sold a ltd edition SMSF Ultra captain - and bought 8 X-Wing pre-painted ships with cards and tokens for that money. I lie... I sold 2 and bought 16 ; p Then another 3 starters and some other extras to go with it. So long GW, and thanks for all the fish!
It's okay. Don't worry. 
)
