I want to try out new games so i will ask people is they want to try out a new system like Firestorm Armada. This is an example of the discussion that follows at my local game shop when i try to introduce them to a new game.
Me "feel like trying out this new game."
"no... i like BFG".
Me "Well, BFG is is not really being supported right now, where as Firestorm armada is, and its way cheaper and supposed to be more fun to play."
" Naw, i dont really want to play anything else..." goes back to playing magic the gathering IN A GAMING STORE. Not that magic isnt a game that should be supported, but thats all everyone there seems to do now, since they are tired of playing 40k and fantasy.

This apathetic attitude extends to all things that are not GW and typical reasons why the players dont want to try a new game usually involve the money is gonna cost, learning new rules, but mostly it seems like they lack motivation or are just addicted to GW tit. it even extends to some games that GW does produce. I sold all of my LotR stuff because no one here would try the game, even though i had about 7 armeis painted and ready to go. Anyone have a similar experience.

I simply cannot get my friends into Warmachine.

Some are basically apathetic to anything not GW, and one just hates the models.

The thing is, a lot of people really just aren't interested in playing every game that's released. Or, in a lot of cases, in playing anything other than whichever game they've decided to follow.

That's nothing to do with GW or not. For some, these games are just something to do to while away a few hours... but to others, each new game is a substantial investment in time (to learn the rules and assemble whatever is required to play) and money.

And some are simply happy with what they're playing. Supported or not, if you have a game that you enjoy, there's no particular impetus to go out and try a similar game made by someone else.

Its such a frustrating attitude. I just wish that there was something that i could do to break through to them that GW is NOT the only good game designer out there. If they supported a different game because it was fun, its not gonna kill GW. IT MIGHT even make them drop their prices to more reasonable levels to encourage a return to their product.

Try talking Warmachine players into playing 40k. If somebody has a lot of money invested into one system, they are likely not going to switch systems. I don't think it has anything to do with GW, but more to do with somebody not wanting to invest in multiple systems.

The good thing is that if you choose to play a different system that already has a following, it won't matter if you can convince your friends into playing or not, because there are already other players out there. So if you want to try a different system and can't convince your regular group to try it, try getting into something that already has a following in your area.

I'm barely keeping my 40k hobby alive between work and school and the family.

Another game is out of the question.

I'd love to be able to get into some of the other games out there. Unfortunately, $50+ is a significant amount of money for me right now. So all I can do is continue to use what I have, and maybe save up the money over a few months... assuming the car doesn't eat all my money again.

For some of us, it's a matter of can't rather than won't.

@ Monster rain. I hear you. I have school and 5000$ medical bills for bone grafts i had to have. On the other hand, a Complete set of rules for Firestorm armada, the optional card set, and a fleet costs about 80$. Spartan games is an awsome company too from what i can see here and elsewhere on the web.

I just sold two armies for 40k and about 7 for LotR so i can afford to spend $80 on something new. Have an army sitting around Vulkan.

sennacherib wrote:@ Monster rain. I hear you. I have school and 5000$ medical bills for bone grafts i had to have. On the other hand, a Complete set of rules for Firestorm armada, the optional card set, and a fleet costs about 80$. Spartan games is an awsome company too from what i can see here and elsewhere on the web.

I just sold two armies for 40k and about 7 for LotR so i can afford to spend $80 on something new. Have an army sitting around Vulkan.

you have insurance right?

To be fair, I, too, think it's not just GW gamers.

For example, back in the earlier days of Warmachine, before Hordes existed, and while Confrontation was rather new and popular, I was at the store to demo each of them. I asked the WM player what he thought about Confrontation, and he said "I've never played it. I've already got a great skirmish game".

So it's not GW specifically, it's just a lot of people get really invested into one game and don't really want to try another.

Occasionaly I play black powder with our shop owner. Mind you I don't have to invest into it, I do however spend 100-200$ every two weeks in minis/board games from him so ...

RatBot wrote:I asked the WM player what he thought about Confrontation, and he said "I've never played it. I've already got a great skirmish game".

That's it exactly. If you already have a game that you enjoy, what reason is there to look around, unless you're specifically interested in trying different games?

sennacherib wrote:Anyone have a similar experience.

Yeah, way back in the mists of time when people would argue about which video game console other people should get. People want what they want, and if they're not interested in switching to something else there's not much you can do about it, and especially if they feel like they're being pressured, they'll dig their heels in.

I paint for other game systems, it's just a question of having
the time to have a proper experience playing them.

(By "other game systems" I mean "Not Warmachine" hehe.)

For example, I am painting five Grey Knight Terminators, but
that doesn't mean I'm going to go and play 40k anytime soon.

Bookwrack wrote:if they feel like they're being pressured, they'll dig their heels in.

This especially. My experience is usually to find at least one player other player, and then each invest in the system in question. New players are more often drawn to a game in progress than anything else. The curiosity factor and the "I want to have me a go at that" factor seem to have more pull than just telling someone why they should try a new system. Too often that comes across as "Well, the GW system sucks, you should play my game it's WAY better!" and people resent that.

The other factor is fan attachment. I don't care HOW cheap or good the rules for Firestorm Armada are, I want to play BFG because it lets me ram things with my orks, and perform the odd exterminatus with my Grey Knights battle-barge. I don't enjoy playing it just for its own sake, but also because of the history attached to each faction.

I hear you, dude. I am a long-time CCG player, and it is next impossible to get gamers to put down their Plainswalkers long enough to let me teach them Legend of the Five Rings!

It's a lot easier to get people interested in playing a game if they don't have to buy or paint any more figures or do anything other than just play it.

I've found it quite easy to get people playing Kings of War, simply because you can use warhammer models for it without any problems.

Are there any "BFG to Firestorm" conversion lists out there, or is it easy to use BFG models as a substitute for one of the factions?

That is the approach you should be taking, not "fancy paying $80 then spending a weekend building and painting the models so we can have a game?"

Personally, I am not a fan of the design of the firestorm armada models, they all look like floating boxes or cylinders, completely uninspired.

I prefer both BFG and Full Thrust spaceships.

I'd be happy to play dystopian wars though, the models and background look cool and are appealing to be... 18th century Prussians with Tesla Coil weaponry fighting an Antarctic cult using Alien tech? Hell yes!

insaniak wrote:

RatBot wrote:I asked the WM player what he thought about Confrontation, and he said "I've never played it. I've already got a great skirmish game".

That's it exactly. If you already have a game that you enjoy, what reason is there to look around, unless you're specifically interested in trying different games?

What I would do is try to get your 'friends or gaming group' who are already at there wits end with GW and don't want to give it all up because thats all anyone around there plays. Those are the people you want to get onside with you. Trust me in a FLGS, if there is a group of people laughting and haviing a good time while playing a game, it will sell its self.

I would suggest having two starter armies fully painted and looking nice with bases and all that other jazz, let the person's imagination take hold. Letting the person form a opinion on something while not pushing it on them is a awsome way to get people into new stuff. If you just scream at the top of your lungs about how great something is, and all they are a grey plastic blobs or if you are too enthusiastic that will drive people away.

I am trying to get a friend into Force on Force (modern wargaming rules) right now. I have a 20mm elhiem usmc force and a iraqi fedyadeen army. He doesn't want to invest the money in a army so he is going to use green plastic army men to see if he likes the game before he 'buys into it'.

I believe the problem with most GW gamers is that they have invested such a large amount of money into there armies over the years that they are reluctent to 'give up that investment'. When you try to tell people that 'it's not that expensive' they just laugh at you.
I just bought two armies from Elhiem minatures and two armies costed me £105 pounds, with shipping from the UK to Canada. The marine army is 3 times the size of the iraqi's because that is the army I am collecting. If I just wanted to small playable forces, it wouldn't of cost me more then £40-50. Metal figgies for a £ a piece, sigh me up. =o]

Good luck with whatever you do and I hope you can convince them that 'GW's Hobby' isn't the only Wargamming hobby in town.

I think an earlier comment is correct. Its not that people don't want to leave GW. Its that they do not want to change and invest in ANOTHER game. No matter how cheap some of the formats are, we all know that we are going to spend far more money than is probably sensible on it. We only think of people not leaving GW as its the one that most people will play because they are the biggest supplier out there.

I am constantly trying to get people to try out new games, although our gaming group is quite small now 2/3 are always really eager but there is one guy who is really closed to the idea unless he introduces it. It throughs a huge spanner in the works straight away and then nothing happens because of it.

I think there are lots of reasons. Once invested people don't want to change or they like their current game and don't want to play multiple games. They also worry about the longevity of the game, many non-GW games have not lasted more than a decade, although people arguing this should not be blinkered to the fact GW overhaul their games every couple of years anyway. There's also the designer-clothes aspect, some people just think GW is the coolest kid on the block and don't want to try any products from anyone else. This is true of younger player who are GW purists, because other than having some imagined kudos for being a purist, it's largely pointless.

I'm new to Wargaming so I want to stick with one company even though I don't like them.

sennacherib wrote:I want to try out new games so i will ask people is they want to try out a new system like Firestorm Armada. This is an example of the discussion that follows at my local game shop when i try to introduce them to a new game.
Me "feel like trying out this new game."
"no... i like BFG".
Me "Well, BFG is is not really being supported right now, where as Firestorm armada is, and its way cheaper and supposed to be more fun to play."
" Naw, i dont really want to play anything else..." goes back to playing magic the gathering IN A GAMING STORE. Not that magic isnt a game that should be supported, but thats all everyone there seems to do now, since they are tired of playing 40k and fantasy.

This apathetic attitude extends to all things that are not GW and typical reasons why the players dont want to try a new game usually involve the money is gonna cost, learning new rules, but mostly it seems like they lack motivation or are just addicted to GW tit. it even extends to some games that GW does produce. I sold all of my LotR stuff because no one here would try the game, even though i had about 7 armeis painted and ready to go. Anyone have a similar experience.

wait. So the gist of this is that you're annoyed at the fact that your freind would rather stick with something he knows, saving time and money, rather than only doing what you ask him?

It seems kind of unfair for you to criticise him for not being "open" to new gaming systems, when he's perfectly happy with BFG.

I think it's just "little kid syndrome." Where people don't want to try new things and like to stick with what they are comfortable with. It's like a little kid who thinks McDonalds is the best place to eat...ever. But if they tried something else, they might like it more.

Trying out new things with proxies is very easy and I've done it a few times. I've got a sweet Tyranid BFG fleet made from bits and you know what? I found out I seriously dislike the game, but it didn't cost me anything to try it and I had fun building the ships. Maybe one day they'll be adapted to Firestorm. Same thing with BloodBowl, made a sweet team, hate that game.

I can see someone not wanting to invest money and time in a new game just to try it out, but if you've got the rules and you and your buddy can work out some proxies, but he still doesn't even want to try it....I don't know what to say. Is he just so set in his ways that he won't even try it?

Bat Manuel wrote:I think it's just "little kid syndrome." Where people don't want to try new things and like to stick with what they are comfortable with. It's like a little kid who thinks McDonalds is the best place to eat...ever. But if they tried something else, they might like it more.

Trying out new things with proxies is very easy and I've done it a few times. I've got a sweet Tyranid BFG fleet made from bits and you know what? I found out I seriously dislike the game, but it didn't cost me anything to try it and I had fun building the ships. Maybe one day they'll be adapted to Firestorm. Same thing with BloodBowl, made a sweet team, hate that game.

I can see someone not wanting to invest money and time in a new game just to try it out, but if you've got the rules and you and your buddy can work out some proxies, but he still doesn't even want to try it....I don't know what to say. Is he just so set in his ways that he won't even try it?

While you may have some valid points there, I don't think that you're being entirely fair.

Some people just don't have the time or cash to invest in a new game. You have a scratch BFG fleet, how long did it take you to make and paint? Well that may be time. or even the spare parts, that someone else doesn't have.

Proxies don't always work, I will always try out a new system, but I would ask that the proposer provide the figures, is that fair? No it isn't, but real life eats considerably into my finances and time, so I have to cherry pick what I want to, can do. Then if I do play the game, and like it, there is the implied obligation that I purchase the relevant rules/figures to continue to play.

Bad situation, as the saying goes; You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Cheers

Andrew

Bat Manuel wrote:I think it's just "little kid syndrome." Where people don't want to try new things and like to stick with what they are comfortable with. It's like a little kid who thinks McDonalds is the best place to eat...ever. But if they tried something else, they might like it more.

Thats a bit unfair.

If someone is comfortable with one system and doesnt want to change then why force them. Their happiness at sticking with the one thing is probably the same as I get when I look around for something different.

Each to their own.

I love 40k. I fought tooth and nail to get some of my buddies to switch over from Magic to 40k, and I know they (and frankly I) don't have the scratch to start over with a new game system. They have a hard enough time following the rules as is. A lot of the other games out right now don't interest me, but I'd like to play Flames of War or DUST - the problem is, I'd need to buy an army, buy new terrain, get new templates, and all the other stuff you need to get into a game.

In addition, most other games don't really have plastic multipart models. Converting and modeling are some of my favorite parts of this hobby, and if I wasn't doing those things I'd feel like I was missing out.

Many of you have made great points, like encouraging him to use proxy models, etc. The only thing being that it is encouraged to use proxy models in the game, and i suggested it. There are even VDR etc. The one individual whos reaction was most puzzling since hes bored with 40k just shrugged and went back to his magic cards.

I totally agree with the comments concerning a lack of interest in a full scale change because of commitment etc. But around here where people change up their armies like water in a toilet bowl, and then complain about the direction the game is taking, it makes no sence. I bet the afformentioned person spends 50$ every month or so on magic cards, which by the rules of the game will be unusable in 2 yrs time. The same afformentioned person has in the last three years sold one chaos marine army and bought another, sold a ork army and bought another, sold a nids army and bought another, and sold an undeads army entirely and at a huge loss. When your going through cash on armies this way it makes no sence to me to be unwilling to shell out the price of one tank for alll you need for another entire system.

As i said lots of valid points have been made about GW longevity, following, resale value etc. I think what it comes down to for me is the little kid syndrome. I dont want to try something different. And thats what really bugs.

.

Don't forget that 40k/WHFB have been around a LONG time while most other games have gone belly up. This is probably another deterrant to picking up another company's system.

Adam LongWalker wrote:

sennacherib wrote:@ Monster rain. I hear you. I have school and 5000$ medical bills for bone grafts i had to have. On the other hand, a Complete set of rules for Firestorm armada, the optional card set, and a fleet costs about 80$. Spartan games is an awsome company too from what i can see here and elsewhere on the web.

I just sold two armies for 40k and about 7 for LotR so i can afford to spend $80 on something new. Have an army sitting around Vulkan.

you have insurance right?

It's o.k in Britain with the N.H.S, if I needed bone grafts I wouldn't need to drop 40K. I could have both!

Personally I have to say it comes down to time and money.

Just started a new gaming club and there are quite a few systems that people play, so I've got the motive it is literally just the opportunity (being time and money) I don't have.

I'm interested in Maulifaux, Warmachines, flames of war, secrets of third reich, blackpowder and possibly firestorm.

40k was the first game I picked up so time wise its cheapest for me (as i'm not having to try and learn something new) even if money wise its not plus with about 5000 points worth I can play a few different lists. I've had a beastman army since christmas and still haven't painted them or learn fantasy rules yet because I work full time and I'm in the process of buying a house

The most rescent game I got was Dust Tactics (awesome by the way) but I only could afford that with the money I made selling my xbox. It attracted me becasue it rule book is 24 pages long and I got two small armies for GBP 70.00. So it's pure win for me.

If your friends aren't into trying a new game try a local gaming club, you'll often find people playing games you might not even have heard of.

I tend to stick to GW games because I enjoy the background. Because of this, I'd be much more likely to start playing BFG than Firestorm Armada, even though I understand that BFG is not very well supported.

I have no burning desire to try every game out there. I'm pretty happy with the game I know.

In my experience, most games have terribly written background in comparison to GW. I appreciate that GW have had 20 years with lots of writers developing their universe and other games companies haven't, but that still doesn't mean I'll be sucked into the frankly awful background of something like Warmachine.

There are plenty of legit reasons not to try a new game, although if other players allow you to proxy using models you already own that takes a few of them away.

But ultimately I think part of it comes down to brand identity- the same thing that drives the "console wars". Adolescents get a Playstation or a Wii or whatever and then decide that their system must be the superior one, and everything about the other systems must be bad and everyone who plays games on the other system must be bad.

We see the same thing here when posters object to any criticism of certain game companies, or when posters refuse to accept that certain game companies are anything less than a fascist regime. It's a sad and silly way to invent a personal identity and a team to root for, but I suppose it's at least a step better than doing the same with your race or religion.

Of course, not everyone who objects to playing a new game are doing it out of their brand identity. But I bet the number who do is not small.

when trying to get my regular gaming partner to try a game I buy 2 starter sets. That way we have a set each to play with and pass back and forth. He does the same with his trials.

I am currently trading all my war machine stuff for GW 40k because I don't like war machine that much anymore. I'm enjoying my 40k and if that changes I'll do the same again, trade what I'm not playing with for stuff I want to play with.

Some of the best stuff Ive played has been free or very nearly free...

I strongly recommend giving things like pig tickling, battle crabs and frag a blast. A good way of getting people to broaden their horizons is to run a 30 minute session of something simple like battle crabs with all the other players in your clubs after they've finished their afternoon or evening of 40k. it's a good way of letting off steam and just having a giggle after a gruelling 40k or wfb session!

If you're going to try to get people to play a new game it's also critical that you have two equally balanced forces to show it off.

I always remember a guy who would show games off by putting his "uber cheesy" force against a basic starter force and tool them over completely. He'd then complain when nobody would buy the game or play against him. If you want people to play a game you need to show them all the cool stuff that makes it fun to play, not show them all the broken stuff that makes the most of flaws or holes in the system. I can recall similar problems with war machine in the beginning when everyone would see the khador starter set and plump for that as sorcha was so good..

Lp

ArbitorIan wrote:I tend to stick to GW games because I enjoy the background. Because of this, I'd be much more likely to start playing BFG than Firestorm Armada, even though I understand that BFG is not very well supported.

I have no burning desire to try every game out there. I'm pretty happy with the game I know.

In my experience, most games have terribly written background in comparison to GW. I appreciate that GW have had 20 years with lots of writers developing their universe and other games companies haven't, but that still doesn't mean I'll be sucked into the frankly awful background of something like Warmachine.

You don't seem to have read much Warmachine background. It's not only better written(from a technical stand point), it has a much more real feel for the setting and characters than the very impersonal GW way of presenting background. Personally, I'm kind of tired of GW's vague, folk-lorish style of writing where it's intentionally left as "is that how it really happened or is legend being presented as history?" told from a distant, administrative point of few. Plus, big points for an actual advancing storyline vs GW's 5 minutes to midnight.

I understand it's not to your taste, but it's not as "frankly awful" as you put forward.

Towards the thread, if someone doesn't want to try something new, they don't have to, their choice.

Platuan4th wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:I tend to stick to GW games because I enjoy the background. Because of this, I'd be much more likely to start playing BFG than Firestorm Armada, even though I understand that BFG is not very well supported.

I have no burning desire to try every game out there. I'm pretty happy with the game I know.

In my experience, most games have terribly written background in comparison to GW. I appreciate that GW have had 20 years with lots of writers developing their universe and other games companies haven't, but that still doesn't mean I'll be sucked into the frankly awful background of something like Warmachine.

You don't seem to have read much Warmachine background. It's not only better written(from a technical stand point), it has a much more real feel for the setting and characters than the very impersonal GW way of presenting background. Personally, I'm kind of tired of GW's vague, folk-lorish style of writing where it's intentionally left as "is that how it really happened or is legend being presented as history?" told from a distant, administrative point of few. Plus, big points for an actual advancing storyline vs GW's 5 minutes to midnight.

I understand it's not to your taste, but it's not as "frankly awful" as you put forward.

Towards the thread, if someone doesn't want to try something new, they don't have to, their choice.

Some people don't like Fantasy and some don't like Gothic sci-fi.

I enjoy both, but play one game more than the other.

malfred wrote:

Some people don't like Fantasy and some don't like Gothic sci-fi.

I enjoy both, but play one game more than the other.

Who said I don't like Gothic Sci-fi? Hell, I love 40K, I'm just tired of the way GW writes the fluff for it, and that, and GW's business practices and handling of customers, is unfortunately turning me off from playing lately. The misty, glazed version of the background in my memories is the only thing keeping me from stopping. That and my tons of armies.

I do get your point, hence my "I understand that it's not to your taste,". My irk was essentially dismissing it as bad because of that(I don't talk bad about Heroscape or Nirvana anymore because I realize my negative comments are mostly down to purely my taste).

scarletsquig wrote:It's a lot easier to get people interested in playing a game if they don't have to buy or paint any more figures or do anything other than just play it.

This sums it up for me. I am an adequate painter with perfectionist tendencies (so you know where that goes...lol) and any game that I have to assemble and paint immediately starts off with a negative. I really want to pick up Infinity, but I would have to assemble and paint more minis.

If games gave the option of a pre-painted "premium" purchase (like Dust Tactics has done), I would be much more tempted to pick up new games because I could buy, open, and play.

In my club it's all GW. It started out as only WFB like 15 years ago and 40K caught on slowly a few years later. We also do Mordheim and some BFG. After all these years they are just now starting to look into Warmachine. Some folks play other games, but unless they show up with 2 armies they're not gonna get anyone to play. We're all old guys that are too invested in GW stuff, and with the time and cost of starting a new army in a new game everyone is hesitant to do it because nothing else has really caught on.

There's so many great games out there that I wanna try, but I know I'll just be wasting my cash. I started Dust Tactics because it came with models for both armies, so I know I have all I need to play now. I highly doubt anyone else will be starting any Dust armies, so if I want to play I'll have to bring everything and pretty much teach the game to someone else every time I play.

I think just about everyone has covered how I feel fairly well, as far as the time/money argument. I want to bring up my friend though. My friend is a system hoarder. That is, he goes out, gets a system, and spends more time reading it, and then talks about how he got it and read it and how cool it looks, and then he buys another and repeats. He has 40k, Necromunda, Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, BFG, D&D 4E, 3.5E, 2E, Pathfinder, Alternity (every last book they ever made, including gamma world/dark matter), GURPS, HackMaster, and there's probably more. That's not counting the board games. One bedroom in his apartment is all gaming material, stacked around the room almost as thick as one can bear. He spends more time/money doing this than we (his other friends) have to play, because we try to live balanced, healthy lives where we don't just sit around, work or home, reading game system after game system.

He gets frustrated by the fact that we won't play more than 2 roleplaying games a week and ONLY want to play an occasional game of 40k. There's just no time for it. It's also worth mention that he's never actually INVESTED any depth into 40k. His Space Wolves are bare plastic, his Eldar are minimum 3 colors, because they were his 'tournament army', and his other armies are spraypainted. We had to bicker with him to get him to flock the Eldar (a single ballast) for Adepticon when he took them.

If I'm going to have hobbies that are time consuming/expensive, then I'm going to put my all into them, and get the most out of it. THAT'S why I roll my eyes at the "hey! let's switch to x" mentality when I see it come up. And HE'S the one who got us all into 40k to begin with.

Just gone back to the founding post of this thread.

sennacherib wrote:
This apathetic attitude extends to all things that are not GW and typical reasons why the players dont want to try a new game usually involve the money is gonna cost, learning new rules, but mostly it seems like they lack motivation or are just addicted to GW tit. it even extends to some games that GW does produce. I sold all of my LotR stuff because no one here would try the game, even though i had about 7 armeis painted and ready to go. Anyone have a similar experience.

Why is it an apathetic attitude if someone chooses not to agree with you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sennacherib wrote: I think what it comes down to for me is the little kid syndrome. I dont want to try something different. And thats what really bugs.

Isnt moaning about the other kids not wanting to play with your toys the eaxact same thing?

Are my friends who will only play 40k donkey caves and childish? No, they enjoy what they are doing.

Would I be a donkey cave if i kept bugging them to play something else and kept disparaging them for their like of a certain game system? Yes!

People will move on when they want too.

Adam LongWalker wrote:

sennacherib wrote:@ Monster rain. I hear you. I have school and 5000$ medical bills for bone grafts i had to have.

you have insurance right?

Spoken like someone with little experience with the American 'system' of health care and health insurance.

It works like this: If you can actually afford the premiums of insurance that will cover that much medical expenses, you can probably afford the medical expenses in the first place.

If you can't afford that sort of premuims... well, my work offers el cheapo insurance that covers $300 worth of doctors visits a year - and that's about it, no hospitalization coverage AT ALL - for about $2600/year ($100 per biweekly paycheck) for a couple. And I'm going to have to take it, because of the 'compromise' Obama accepted with the Republicans, and because the next step up - with hospitalization coverage of $7K a year, which won't even cover a broken ankle - costs twice as much and is well out of my price range.

Whoops, getting well off subject...

sennacherib wrote:I just sold two armies for 40k and about 7 for LotR so i can afford to spend $80 on something new. Have an army sitting around Vulkan.

Four, actually, but I still enjoy playing all of them.

Vulcan wrote:

It works like this: If you can actually afford the premiums of insurance that will cover that much medical expenses, you can probably afford the medical expenses in the first place.

That's patently untrue. We could afford the Premiums for insurance if we needed to, but wouldn't be able to afford the emergency care we would need without insurance.

That said, we don't NEED to afford premiums because my wife is military and we get Insurance free.

As well, if you actually talk with an Insurance Rep(NOT an agent), you'll find you're able to afford premiums and plans that agents don't tell you about.

Havok210 wrote:

scarletsquig wrote:It's a lot easier to get people interested in playing a game if they don't have to buy or paint any more figures or do anything other than just play it.

This sums it up for me. I am an adequate painter with perfectionist tendencies (so you know where that goes...lol) and any game that I have to assemble and paint immediately starts off with a negative. I really want to pick up Infinity, but I would have to assemble and paint more minis.

Although with Infinity, you only have to paint a handful. And you have the bonus of knowing each model you do will be a unique sculpt in the force, and therefore can have more time lavished on it.

Platuan4th wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

It works like this: If you can actually afford the premiums of insurance that will cover that much medical expenses, you can probably afford the medical expenses in the first place.

That's patently untrue. We could afford the Premiums for insurance if we needed to, but wouldn't be able to afford the emergency care we would need without insurance.

That said, we don't NEED to afford premiums because my wife is military and we get Insurance free.

As well, if you actually talk with an Insurance Rep(NOT an agent), you'll find you're able to afford premiums and plans that agents don't tell you about.

Yeah, you're probably right, for most of the middle class anyway. For those of us whose college degrees have turned out to be useless pieces of paper, we're kinda screwed between college debt wrecking our credit, and crappy jobs pushing us further in... not so much. Bankrupcy would hurt me less than trying to pay off a hospital bill, which only makes the cost of health care worse, because the hospital would have to make up its expenses somewhere else... like a paying/insured customer.

But if we're going to continue this, I'm sure there is a better thread somewhere else...

I have WHFB and 40K, I don't want to get anymore systems, because I enjoy what I have, but that's just my view.

lukewild1982 wrote:I am constantly trying to get people to try out new games, although our gaming group is quite small now 2/3 are always really eager but there is one guy who is really closed to the idea unless he introduces it. It throughs a huge spanner in the works straight away and then nothing happens because of it.

Why should that one guy stop the rest of you from having a go at it?

Bat Manuel wrote:I think it's just "little kid syndrome." Where people don't want to try new things and like to stick with what they are comfortable with. It's like a little kid who thinks McDonalds is the best place to eat...ever. But if they tried something else, they might like it more.

I can see someone not wanting to invest money and time in a new game just to try it out, but if you've got the rules and you and your buddy can work out some proxies, but he still doesn't even want to try it....I don't know what to say. Is he just so set in his ways that he won't even try it?

It's like being really into batman, and someone gives you a whole bunch of superman comics.

Sure, you might read them, and they might be great comics. But what you REALLY wanted to read was some more batman.

Like I said before, I don't care HOW good Infinity Armada is right now, or how well it's supported, or if I can play it with proxies or whatever. Doesn't matter a damn. Because I can't play it and still have Marines and Eldar and Orks in space.

sennacherib wrote:I think what it comes down to for me is the little kid syndrome. I dont want to try something different. And thats what really bugs.

No, it more likely comes down to people LIKING something else more.

Sure, the 'new' game might be great, maybe they WOULD like it mor

Monster Rain wrote:I'm barely keeping my 40k hobby alive between work and school and the family.

Another game is out of the question.

*This

I'm already invested both monetarily and in the universe itself in addition to not having enough time for completing projects/playing like i want to. I'm not feverishly opposed to non GW though, it's just that that's what i have and know.

sennacherib wrote: Anyone have a similar experience.

Im trying to get my friends into RPG with deathwatch but there not interested, I want to play as the games master as I think it would be so cool and its way cheaper than 40k but since we all have never played an RPG they don't want to play.

I think its very annoying as they want to get into warmachine or fantasy

A few possible strategies from someone whose game club is almost entirely non-GW.

1) You're going to have to buy two factions to start. Trying to get players for almost any game that's not a big-name game will require you to have the rules down, have two painted factions (appearance counts) and be willing to act as a sort of promoter. Most folks who are even a little reticent about a new game aren't interested in proxying. The guy who introduced me to my first non-GW fantasy game provided several well-painted warbands for me to choose from.


2) Start small and cheap. A person's first step out of their current game bubble often has to be a very small step. Our first step was Song of Blades and Heroes. A generic (more on this later) warband fantasy game that allows you to stat up any fantasy miniature and game, also the rules are 5 bucks. Even those without any fantasy figures may find it easy when they only have to acquire 9-14 figures and they don't have to pay GW/Privateer prices per fig.

3) Consider generics. Generic games allow you to stat up any figures you already have. This is different from proxying in that you can stat the figures the way you feel they should be rather than using them to represent something they might not be equivalent to. Generic games are also usually quite cheap.

4) Get creative. Anything you can do to lower the bar to entry is a good idea. When we wanted to get our club into Future War Commander, my friend and I bought bulk amounts of second-hand mechwarrior clix figures, bulk hex bases for rebasing and large quantities of my magic mud basing compound (paint with lots of texture additive) and made packs available to our members at cost. When you make it possible for someone to have a pre-painted (each pack had one faciton only) 30 unit army including the bases and a jar of basing material for 25 bucks, it's easy to get folks to invest in a new system.

In short, unless you find people who are already looking for something outside GW, you will have to do more than just ask.

The more folks invest in something, the less likely they are to look for something, and if there's one thing GW players have, is alot of investment ($ and time) in GW. Further GW has a long history, a huge built-in playerbase, and wide acceptance and that's alot to overcome.

Some people just dont want to waste time/money on "flash-in-the-pan" games. Very few non-GW games survive long term. You have a few like Battletech, but I have gotten burned on so many games that have come and gone that I can empathize with people's lack of desire to try non-GW games.

I think Warmahordes (Privateer Press) is without a doubt the strongest contender to potentially survive long term that has come around in the past 15 years or so, and yet i don't think that it has achieved bulletproof status yet...

A number of games that are enjoying popularity currently I think are "Dead men walking" to be honest, and evem though I can't resist the urge to get into Dust, part of me knows I am throwing money at a game that I bet will be RIP in 2-3 years if I was a betting man.

When I look at all the money I invested in SST, Warzone, Vor, Confro, etc. I feel that it would have been money better spent on another 40K army, and so I don't think simply calling people "apathetic" is all that accurate or fair given the documented history of this industry and the bones of non-GW games that had high hopes and yet now litter the side of the road...

There have been some really good comments in the thread, especially the ones about money, time and brand identity.

In my experience in life there are some people who like to live in a bubble sometimes regarding their preferences and will be unwilling to step out of that bubble to try anything new. It sounds like the people in the OP fall into this category as it looks like they’re unwilling to step outside the big brands. It strikes me odd that when they found that their wargamming hobby with GW products was getting boring, rather than try out a different company, they move onto an unrelated big brand hobby altogether. It seems that the people in the OP are the hard core big brand dedicated type if you ask me.

I actually willingly picked up Warmachine after being a 40k player. Bought up a Menoth starter box. Ended up trading it for a hive tyrant to start my tyranid army. I hate the game. Line of sight drove me insane as well as a few other details. Now, it's really hard to make me buy into a new game. A friend FINALLY convinced me to try heroclix by giving me some models. I'd gladly invest in another game that I enjoy as much as 40k, I just have yet to find anything other than 40k when it comes to miniatures... I play evey card game in existance though.

Edit: I also love Warhammer Fantasy, it's fun. WoW minis is by far my second favorite game system, but I have little luck finding other players.

I've been trying to convert my GW only friend to Warmachine. It's not going so well.

I've been trying to get my friends to try out the rules system for a skirmish game I've been developing but none of them so far has shown much interest. They can even use their pre-existing Warhammer figures but no. The closest I've come is one of my friends said he would watch me play as long as I could find someone else.

On a much sadder note play-testing your fledgling skirmish game with your 7 month old child is not as fun as it sounds.

I'd love to get into Warmachine though. I've got another opponent who is tired of losing with his Orcs and told me he wasn't going to play anymore. Maybe I can convince him to switch systems.

i gotta admit, it took some work for me to turn to warmachine. i was a staunch 40k player for yeears, but once i sat down and actually learned warmachine i found the game to be more immersive and tactical.

3 years later 40k is dead to me.

now im playing warmachine as my main, with malifaux and WHFB as secondary games.

of course this is all subjective, it will draw priase from those who like branching out and ire from those who stand by 40k.

Platuan4th wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:I tend to stick to GW games because I enjoy the background. Because of this, I'd be much more likely to start playing BFG than Firestorm Armada, even though I understand that BFG is not very well supported.

I have no burning desire to try every game out there. I'm pretty happy with the game I know.

In my experience, most games have terribly written background in comparison to GW. I appreciate that GW have had 20 years with lots of writers developing their universe and other games companies haven't, but that still doesn't mean I'll be sucked into the frankly awful background of something like Warmachine.

You don't seem to have read much Warmachine background. It's not only better written(from a technical stand point), it has a much more real feel for the setting and characters than the very impersonal GW way of presenting background. Personally, I'm kind of tired of GW's vague, folk-lorish style of writing where it's intentionally left as "is that how it really happened or is legend being presented as history?" told from a distant, administrative point of few. Plus, big points for an actual advancing storyline vs GW's 5 minutes to midnight.

I understand it's not to your taste, but it's not as "frankly awful" as you put forward.

Towards the thread, if someone doesn't want to try something new, they don't have to, their choice.

While you're correct that the Warmachine writing is superior, etc. I personally find that it doesn't captivate me as much as the 40k/Fantasy (especially Fantasy) settings. I have difficulty relating to the characters/the setting in general most times and the ongoing plotlines just haven't really drawn me in. In fact, I mostly just gloss over the fluff and go straight to the rules in the books. I think it has something to do with the lack of actual separate fiction sources available for the setting (I.E. novelizations).

Anyway, I play the following:
40k
Fantasy
Warmachine
Uncharted Seas
Battlefleet Gothic
Babylon 5 A Call to Arms
Victory at Sea

I am starting (I.E. I own stuff but haven't got around to it yet):
Malifaux
Flames of War

I intend to play:
Infinity
Firestorm Armada
Hell Dorado
Dust Tactics/Dust Warfare
Mercs
Hordes

I own rulebooks for:
Wargods of Aegyptus
Warhammer Historical: The Great War

Plan to purchase materials for:
Tomorrows War
Secrets of the Third Reich
AE-WWII


Why so many? The way I see it, it gives me options. I love gaming, why restrict myself to one? By doing so I would ruin my enjoyment of it (I think). Face it, you can only do something for so long before you're sick of it (primary reason why my armies are never painted, lol). Besides that, I'm writing some of my own rulesets, I like to analyze other peoples for ideas and style, try to figure out why they decided on certain mechanics, etc.

40k will remain my primary game, for now, simply because it is the most dominant in my area, but interestingly enough, of the games I currently play, I find that I enjoy it the least. Whats even sadder is that a large chunk of my 40k group also plays Warmachine/Hordes/Uncharted/Firestorm/etc. but they very rarely break any of those games out.

Another influence is tastes.

I've looked over Warmachine. I've looked over the rules. I've even watched several games. It's sorta...meh to me. I can't get excited about it.

A big part of that is because I enjoy maneuvering blocks of troops around. Skirmish games have little to no attraction, because the maneuver aspect is so... trivialized. Move x inches, no need to worry about turning, facing, fire arcs, nothing. Just move.

I also find Steampunk to be either a terrible bore or terribly overdone.


If I had the money to spare, I'd start Firestorm Armada. Dystopian Wars, even though it is pretty much the exact same rules set, bores me. It may well be that again that my apathy for Steampunk makes all the difference.

Some have suggested that its childish of me to bemoan the fact that my freind wont try to play a new game with me. Im not sure thats an accurate assesment of whats going on. He isnt playing 40k right now because hes bored with it, and hes unwilling to even try a new game. THATS whats annoying to me. Unwillingness to try somthing new. I have heard plenty of bemoaning how his army sucks because chaos dosnt have a good dex etc, and imperials get all the win (partially true but he avoids the best units and self penalizes himself) but seriously when you arent gaming other than playing MTG because your board and you wont try somthin new, its just annoying.

When i was a kid i wouldnt eat mexican food for any reason unless it was a plain cheese quesadilla. When i finally grew up enough to start trying new things i tried an enchillada. I distinctly remember how upset i was that i hadnt tried it years ealier because it was so good. It is still my FAVORITE mexican food out there. In fact i found out that tacos and the rest of it were all pretty awsome. Since that day i have not bought a quesadilla . Maybe thats what my buddy is afraid of, finding out that the world is full of good stuff and that sticking to what is safe and familiar has narrowed his horizons. Other freinds of mine are always open to try something new but some people remain fixed in their ways, ignoring so much of the world out of conviction, or brand loyalty or whatever.

BTW i do have insurance and the $45oo dollars was after that, and i am selling off the majority of my GW stuff not because i am quitting gaming, but because i am bored with it, or because no body plays (LotR) that system here, or out of the desire to try something new.
i play a host of games and always have. Battlelore, Race for the Galaxy, etc.

Vulcan wrote:

A big part of that is because I enjoy maneuvering blocks of troops around. Skirmish games have little to no attraction, because the maneuver aspect is so... trivialized. Move x inches, no need to worry about turning, facing, fire arcs, nothing. Just move.

Movement, proximity and facing are vital in Warmachine and the movment phase and consideration of facing (Models have front and rear arcs which effect what they can attack, if they can charge, and can potentially give opponents bonuses to hit for rear strikes) is a very important part of the game.

In addition models can be knocked down which is an added level of consideration tied to movement and attack bonuses, etc..

On top of that the placement of models in relation to friendlies in order to benefit from spells and abilities makes movement and position pivitol to victory a lot of the time.

Your above quote suggets that you know very little about Warmachine...

Vulcan wrote:Another influence is tastes.

I've looked over Warmachine. I've looked over the rules. I've even watched several games. It's sorta...meh to me. I can't get excited about it.

A big part of that is because I enjoy maneuvering blocks of troops around. Skirmish games have little to no attraction, because the maneuver aspect is so... trivialized. Move x inches, no need to worry about turning, facing, fire arcs, nothing. Just move.

You need to pay closer attention to the game the next time you see someone play it (or possibly watch better players). Maneuver is extremely important to the game, moreso than in fantasy (there are in fact arcs of visibility that have a pretty large impact on what you can and can't do). Placement of your units relative to your caster is extremely important as well. If you send them out too far not only do you lose your ability to buff them, etc. but you allow your opponent easier access to your caster which could result in a caster kill. Likewise, if you position certain units too close to your caster, you risk having the enemy push/throw them into your caster, etc.

Edit: Ninja'd by CT Gamer

Vulcan wrote:

A big part of that is because I enjoy maneuvering blocks of troops around. Skirmish games have little to no attraction, because the maneuver aspect is so... trivialized. Move x inches, no need to worry about turning, facing, fire arcs, nothing. Just move.

Two people have already said this, but what the gak, I'll agree.

Warmachine actually depends on turning, firing arcs and facing. Certainly more-so than 40k, if not Fantasy.

Actually, skirmish games are where you're going to find such detail - larger games must have more abstraction if they wish to be playable in a decent amount of time. Having 5-10 (or more, if playing a Platoon-sized skirmish game, like Warmachine) in an army total, however, means that more emphasis can be placed on how those models act in-game.

I'd also go as far to say the Warmachine isn't actually steampunk - it's more 'fantasy with steam-and-magic-powered robots and blackpowder'.

However, I highly encourage you to pick up Firestorm Armada, especially since Spartan Games is now working on improving both the game and the fluff.

insaniak wrote:The thing is, a lot of people really just aren't interested in playing every game that's released. Or, in a lot of cases, in playing anything other than whichever game they've decided to follow.

That's nothing to do with GW or not. For some, these games are just something to do to while away a few hours... but to others, each new game is a substantial investment in time (to learn the rules and assemble whatever is required to play) and money.

And some are simply happy with what they're playing. Supported or not, if you have a game that you enjoy, there's no particular impetus to go out and try a similar game made by someone else.

Agreed, I know I'm perfectly happy not investing any more time or money into another hobby. I play 40k and my friends call me super stubborn for not even making a swing into fantasy.

CT GAMER wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

A big part of that is because I enjoy maneuvering blocks of troops around. Skirmish games have little to no attraction, because the maneuver aspect is so... trivialized. Move x inches, no need to worry about turning, facing, fire arcs, nothing. Just move.

Movement, proximity and facing are vital in Warmachine and the movment phase and consideration of facing (Models have front and rear arcs which effect what they can attack, if they can charge, and can potentially give opponents bonuses to hit for rear strikes) is a very important part of the game.

In addition models can be knocked down which is an added level of consideration tied to movement and attack bonuses, etc..

On top of that the placement of models in relation to friendlies in order to benefit from spells and abilities makes movement and position pivitol to victory a lot of the time.

Your above quote suggets that you know very little about Warmachine...

Exactly. People who know how to position models in Warmachine are going
to do much better than people who are careless about such things. I suspect
that applies to 40k in some ways due to model placement, casualty removal,
etc. etc.

I wasnt really a fan of Warmachine because of the emphasis on alpha strike and the game ends. THis i hear has been remedied in the newest version. If that is the case then i would be open to giving it another try.

My newest game will eithe be the Uncharted seas or Firestorm armada though. If its uncharted seas then i hav3e to wait till the end of next month for the new sculpts to hit the market, Ork fleet and ELves... mmmm.

I'm trying to pick up malifaux.

I only want to play GW games because they're the only thing interesting. I don't want to waste time or money on magic, since everything just cycles out. Warmachine is kinda meh, battletech is boring as feth. Yugioh is stupid as hell, since everything is being printed common. 40k and WHFB are the only interesting traditional games, outside catan and last night on earth, or any other board game, or those obscure TCGs, like .hack//enemy, or legend of the five rings.

sennacherib wrote:He isnt playing 40k right now because hes bored with it, and hes unwilling to even try a new game. THATS whats annoying to me. Unwillingness to try somthing new.

Who says thats what it is? Maybe he's just tired with tabletop games full stop, maybe he still likes 40K but is bored with his faction, maybe he's bored with the type of games you guys have been playing lately.

Maybe what he wants is a fresh outlook on 40K, not a new game altogether.

sennacherib wrote:I wasnt really a fan of Warmachine because of the emphasis on alpha strike and the game ends. THis i hear has been remedied in the newest version. If that is the case then i would be open to giving it another try.

The ability to do it with some combos/army builds has been altered, but the goal/focus is still the same: Kill the enemy caster and you win.

99.9% of games played are simple caster kill games, and even when scenarios are introduced (usually at tournaments) they more often then not are designed to get you to engage rather then present an actual scenario, and all scenarios have caster kill as a default victory condition.

So you don't like your friends because they have a narrow opinion of gaming in your view?

Simple solution:

Find new friends. You can even find new friends that enjoy the other system who maybe don't enjoy 40k.

For me GW has 2 things going for it. #1 a great background universe, #2 existing base of players. In general I dislike it when my FLGS focuses on any mini game that isn't 40k.

The reason for this is simple. The more time and money spent on playing other games = less active and more withdrawn 40k players.

For example our FLGS had on a regular 40k league night 15-20 players. As my FLGS has pushed WHFB we have lost 3 to 5 players and as they pushed Warmachine we have lost another 3-5 players. Its now rare to see over 12 people on league night. I'd rather have more players than less, and as such it is in my interest to not promote other mini games.

remilia_scarlet wrote: battletech is the most amazing game on the face of the planet.... if you have four hours to kill.

Fixed.


Just kidding. I love BattleTech but it... it's definitely not for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

sennacherib wrote:I wasnt really a fan of Warmachine because of the emphasis on alpha strike and the game ends. THis i hear has been remedied in the newest version. If that is the case then i would be open to giving it another try.

The ability to do it with some combos/army builds has been altered, but the goal/focus is still the same: Kill the enemy caster and you win.

99.9% of games played are simple caster kill games, and even when scenarios are introduced (usually at tournaments) they more often then not are designed to get you to engage rather then present an actual scenario, and all scenarios have caster kill as a default victory condition.

This is true, but it's not so simple as "walk across board, smack enemy caster in the face, win" as, in direct contrast with what Vulcan said, moving, positioning, blocking, vision arcs, etc., are 100% crucial to the game. And in a scenario, while you're trying to assassinate your opponent's caster, he might just complete the objective right under your nose and win. If anything, I find Warmachine more tactical than WHFB's "Whoever gets off their big-nasty spell first and kills their opponent's Death Star wins". Every single game of 8th edition I've ever played has been won or lost with magic. Magic the Deathstar to death=win. Lose your magic=lose. Maybe that's just the local meta around here. Fantasy used to be a very tactical game, but 8th, while fun, is pretty watered down.

RatBot wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote: battletech is the most amazing game on the face of the planet.... if you have four hours to kill.

Fixed.


Just kidding. I love BattleTech but it... it's definitely not for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

sennacherib wrote:I wasnt really a fan of Warmachine because of the emphasis on alpha strike and the game ends. THis i hear has been remedied in the newest version. If that is the case then i would be open to giving it another try.

The ability to do it with some combos/army builds has been altered, but the goal/focus is still the same: Kill the enemy caster and you win.

99.9% of games played are simple caster kill games, and even when scenarios are introduced (usually at tournaments) they more often then not are designed to get you to engage rather then present an actual scenario, and all scenarios have caster kill as a default victory condition.

This is true, but it's not so simple as "walk across board, smack enemy caster in the face, win" as, in direct contrast with what Vulcan said, moving, positioning, blocking, vision arcs, etc., are 100% crucial to the game. And in a scenario, while you're trying to assassinate your opponent's caster, he might just complete the objective right under your nose and win. If anything, I find Warmachine more tactical than WHFB's "Whoever gets off their big-nasty spell first and kills their opponent's Death Star wins". Every single game of 8th edition I've ever played has been won or lost with magic. Magic the Deathstar to death=win. Lose your magic=lose. Maybe that's just the local meta around here. Fantasy used to be a very tactical game, but 8th, while fun, is pretty watered down.

Warmachine is one of the most tactical miniatures wargames in existence, as I have already stated.

From a gameplay perspective it is very tactical, nuanced, and challenging.

However it is a game that has pretty much been co-opted by the uber-compete tournament crowd. Scenarios are often an after-thought, and Caster kill the accepted norm. It is essentially M:TG in miniatures form. That can be good or bad depending on your expectations...

Yes and no.


Its about the players comfort zone. It's already a hard nut to crack to get into 40k, but after getting peed on each and every edition, and watching people leave and splinter off... the issue isn't so much that people don't WANT to play a new game, they just don't want to shell out a tone of cash and end up feeling... cheated.

Issue comes down to investment, value, and time.

You really can't fault someone who is in thier zone, all you can do is try to work with them, and either the game sells itself, or it doesn't.

Warmahordes isn't everyones game, neither is 40K. It just depends on your site, and the X factors involved.

I saw one group of hard core 40K gamers go to Flames of War in the space of two years, and another group of 40K players go Historical in the space of a month, it just depends on your group and the game you present. Might have a bunch to do with how you present it, as well. I saw someone trying to sell malfaux as "The new 40K" and almost start running people off, and another guy try to sell Inquisitor like it was something special, even before the figures started showing up in that larger scale. Both were priceless comedy gags in the making to watch.

Gamers are a fickel bunch. It just takes time to get people into new games.

Grot 6 wrote:Its about the players comfort zone. It's already a hard nut to crack to get into 40k, but after getting peed on each and every edition, and watching people leave and splinter off... the issue isn't so much that people don't WANT to play a new game, they just don't want to shell out a tone of cash and end up feeling... cheated.

Issue comes down to investment, value, and time.

That's an interesting point. In a way, I think people will be more willing these days to try something new having been elbowed out of picking up a new army from one of GW's systems.

I think like anything you will find variety within gaming groups and the way people behave with wargames according to their character. My club had guys who would seem to pick up new games every 2 weeks (come to the club with fully painted forces for them, god knows how they found the time!), while at the same time people who have wheeled out the same army year after year and played the same game. That being said, at heart I think most of us are pulled in by the site of well painted miniatures on good terrain (and people having fun by that process) - if you take time to set up a good demo game, take time with minis/terrain etc. then you will probably find a good percentage of wargamers would be willing to give it a try, especially if it's a game with a lower model count and/or price point.

augustus5 wrote:Try talking Warmachine players into playing 40k. .

Please don't do this. Some of us had to work really hard to get the Warmafail kids out of GW, we don't want them back.

Worglock wrote:

Please don't do this. Some of us had to work really hard to get the Warmafail kids out of GW, we don't want them back.

Nerd on nerd violence: the plague of wargaming

Most good points have already been made, but I wanted to bring up two:

First, the 'sunken costs' fallacy. I'm not denying that Warhammer takes up a substantial investment in time and money. However, psychologists and behavioral economists have also documented the 'sunken costs' fallacy. This is a behavior where people overestimate or overvalue their previous investment in a choice, and avoid benefitting from a change. This occurs in all sorts of arenas, from financial investment to personal spending decisions. Dan Ariely has covered it in his Freakonomics books (very interesting reading). I'm not suggesting a cure for the fallacy, but it's just something to be aware of. People will value the $200 they have already spent on a game a lot more than the $200 they could spend on a new one.

Second, have you considered preparing some skirmish game yourself? Rather than asking someone else to invest in a game system, maybe pick up a set and paint up two small factions (I know Warmachine is releasing this very soon themselves). Instead of asking someone to invest in a new system, you can just invite them to play a new game with you. They don't have to buy any models. They just have to spend time learning and playing the game. This might get them interesting in starting their own faction, but if it works at all, it will get you some games in a new system.

Worglock wrote:

augustus5 wrote:Try talking Warmachine players into playing 40k. .

Please don't do this. Some of us had to work really hard to get the Warmafail kids out of GW, we don't want them back.

And it was such a nice thread, too. Oh well.

I can just imagine gangs of 40k players ambushing unsuspecting Warmafail players and then beating them with Dreadsocks.

CT GAMER wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

A big part of that is because I enjoy maneuvering blocks of troops around. Skirmish games have little to no attraction, because the maneuver aspect is so... trivialized. Move x inches, no need to worry about turning, facing, fire arcs, nothing. Just move.

Movement, proximity and facing are vital in Warmachine and the movment phase and consideration of facing (Models have front and rear arcs which effect what they can attack, if they can charge, and can potentially give opponents bonuses to hit for rear strikes) is a very important part of the game.

In addition models can be knocked down which is an added level of consideration tied to movement and attack bonuses, etc..

On top of that the placement of models in relation to friendlies in order to benefit from spells and abilities makes movement and position pivitol to victory a lot of the time.

Your above quote suggets that you know very little about Warmachine...

I never said I knew a lot about it. I've watched it played. I've flipped through the books. And compared to WFB, the maneuver system seems quite simple.

And I know all about positioning models so that effects overlap, I play Dark Elves and usually have the general, battle standard, and Cauldron in three separate places...

coolyo294 wrote:I can just imagine gangs of 40k players ambushing unsuspecting Warmafail players and then beating them with Dreadsocks.

Ha, I can picture this in an episode of that "Deadliest Warrior" show or whatever the hell it's called, where they'd bring in some fat neckbeards with socks full of Behemoth Warjacks and Ork Dreadnoughts and have them smack ballistic gel torsos covered with accelerometers.

sennacherib wrote:
This apathetic attitude extends to all things that are not GW and typical reasons why the players dont want to try a new game usually involve the money is gonna cost, learning new rules, but mostly it seems like they lack motivation or are just addicted to GW tit. it even extends to some games that GW does produce. I sold all of my LotR stuff because no one here would try the game, even though i had about 7 armeis painted and ready to go. Anyone have a similar experience.

It's actually very simple. Most players are like me, they don't live and breathe and sleep miniature wargames. I have lots of hobbies, of which playing wargames is only one. I don't have time to invest to anything else than one (maybe two) systems and they're GW games as they're most common, and easiest to find both models and opponents for. It was same with MtG, I played that when convenient and had no interest to any other trading card game systems.

It's simple demographics and probabilities, and nothing to do with GW making its customers to mindless zombies. (I'm sure they would do that if they could).

coolyo294 wrote:I can just imagine gangs of 40k players ambushing unsuspecting Warmafail players and then beating them with Dreadsocks.

Luckily most of those guys like that are now safely segregated into the ghetto called 'Ard Boys. They can beat themselves and their own kind all day.

coolyo294 wrote:I can just imagine gangs of 40k players ambushing unsuspecting Warmafail players and then beating them with Dreadsocks.

Heh. I too enjoyed the Warhams crowd until I tried WM/H and realized, in every possible way, it's simply a better game.

Enjoy your "competitive" tickle fest as you bro-punch your opponent while muddling your pile of toys around the table throwing buckets of dice until someone wins.

And I know all about positioning models so that effects overlap, I play Dark Elves and usually have the general, battle standard, and Cauldron in three separate places...

There's no comparison between WH and WM/H. There simply isn't.

Is that directed at me?

I too used to see warmachine as a threat to my 40k experience since a local warmachine league pulled 40k players out of my opponent base. As i said before some of the primary mechanics of the game i dont enjoy. Namely the alphastrike the caster and you win...

That said, many good points have been made. Im gonna pick up some Uncharted seas, paint two fleets and make some terrain and then play demo games with the open minded members of our community. The fickle and the unwilling i just wont play with untill they are either ready and willing or never at all.

sennacherib wrote: As i said before some of the primary mechanics of the game i dont enjoy. Namely the alphastrike the caster and you win...

The steep learning curve is really difficult to get your head around initially... for people who aren't used to 0 tolerance mistakes (because generally it's you making a mistake that your opponent capitalizes on), having the game end before you really feel like you've played one is an un-fun element.

You have to have an in-depth understanding of your opponent's lists and models, which again makes the game hard for new players, but once you begin to overcome the steep learning curve it really does become more of a game, not 'whoever alpha strikes first wins'.

You learn how to deny your opponent assassination vectors and how to make an attempt at an assassination run impossible or so costly that doing so will punish them horribly. Althought many games are won via assassination, I have played many, many games through horrible grinding attrition where the majority of both lists are dead.

insaniak wrote:The thing is, a lot of people really just aren't interested in playing every game that's released. Or, in a lot of cases, in playing anything other than whichever game they've decided to follow.

That's nothing to do with GW or not. For some, these games are just something to do to while away a few hours... but to others, each new game is a substantial investment in time (to learn the rules and assemble whatever is required to play) and money.

And some are simply happy with what they're playing. Supported or not, if you have a game that you enjoy, there's no particular impetus to go out and try a similar game made by someone else.

Insaniak hit it right on the nose. I, myself, was and still am an avid 40K player. When Fantasy released the IoB set, a bunch of my friends wanted to try it out for the first time, or just expand on what they already had, especially with the new rules that had come out. For a long time, I fought the urge to get into another game, mostly due to time and money constraints. Eventually though, I did "cave", so to speak, and now have close to 4000 points worth of High Elves.

For the most part, I've enjoyed Fantasy. However, I still find 40K to be more fun, and as such, continue to play 40K more often. I guess "change" being the "spice of life" is true for some, and not for others. And to add a little more to what Insaniak said, human beings are creatures of habit by nature. Once we find something we're comfortable with, we have a tendency to stick to those routines for a long time, until we are convinced otherwise that something else out there is better.

Some people are happy with what they've got and the games they play now. They might not have enough money to start something new, or may view it as turning their back on an investment made.

Personally I'd like to try out HeavyGear, AnimaTactics, or Infinity. One night at the table I was saying as much and one friend said that he'd about 3K invested in 40K and he didn't want to get into another system.

I figure I'll just by enough of the new system and lend my stuff out demo style. If my friends like it, they'll buy in. Either way I get to play.

And compared to WFB, the maneuver system seems quite simple..

Does not compute.

Warmachine has the same elements that WFB has:

1. both have three types of movement: normal, chargin/assaulting and running/marching

2. Both factor in facing in regards to what can be attacked/charged/seen, etc.

3. Both games have rules/abilities/etc. that factor in the proximity of friendly/enemy models.

4. Both games are often won as a result of who manages movement and model placement/facing the best

So in fact both are fairly similar. What seperates WFB is that ranked blocks have to reform or pay to wheel while Wm models can turn freely before/during after movement for the most part (except in certain situations like having to face what you charge, etc.)

So yes while WFb's restrictions on block/ranked units may be more restrictive then what exists in WM this does not mean Warmachine's movement is "simple" as you keep suggesting, and in fact in most ways the games are highly similar...

I think for a lot of people, when they play a game, they want to relax and enjoy themselves. Playing a game of 40k (or whatever their favorite game is) is something they know will be fun, won't stress them out, and they'll know what they're doing. A new game involves learning new rules, learning no tactics, and generally being very actively engaged, with no guarantee of fun at the end.

When you get one or two gaming sessions each week, you want each one to count.

sourclams wrote:

And I know all about positioning models so that effects overlap, I play Dark Elves and usually have the general, battle standard, and Cauldron in three separate places...

There's no comparison between WH and WM/H. There simply isn't.

You're right. From my point of view, there is no comparison at all.

Your position seems to be "I don't know anything about Warmachine, but I'm sure gonna say things as if I do!"

He is strong in his ignorance.

MightyGodzilla wrote:
I figure I'll just by enough of the new system and lend my stuff out demo style. If my friends like it, they'll buy in. Either way I get to play.

This is really the best way to go about it. You're sure to get in at least a few games, and if you've carefully picked a game that might appeal to your friends, you may even get them on board.

Just tonight I agreed to play a naval game with one of my clubmates. I'd never seek out a naval game myself, but he has all the ships painted and ready to go, so why not give it a try?

Vulcan wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:

sennacherib wrote:@ Monster rain. I hear you. I have school and 5000$ medical bills for bone grafts i had to have.

you have insurance right?

Spoken like someone with little experience with the American 'system' of health care and health insurance.

It works like this: If you can actually afford the premiums of insurance that will cover that much medical expenses, you can probably afford the medical expenses in the first place.

If you can't afford that sort of premuims... well, my work offers el cheapo insurance that covers $300 worth of doctors visits a year - and that's about it, no hospitalization coverage AT ALL - for about $2600/year ($100 per biweekly paycheck) for a couple. And I'm going to have to take it, because of the 'compromise' Obama accepted with the Republicans, and because the next step up - with hospitalization coverage of $7K a year, which won't even cover a broken ankle - costs twice as much and is well out of my price range.

Whoops, getting well off subject...

sennacherib wrote:I just sold two armies for 40k and about 7 for LotR so i can afford to spend $80 on something new. Have an army sitting around Vulkan.

Four, actually, but I still enjoy playing all of them.

Oh I have insurance, very good insurance. I was hit by a car 9 years ago. 243 grand in medical bills. Seven surgeries on my left side of my body. Most of this was paid for by my insurance, but my out of pocket expense was close to 19 thousand and I been disabled since then.

I even have long term care insurance to take care of me when I will be unable to take care of myself. Would rather die at my work table, doing the hobby I enjoy than to be locked away in a nursing home. Being disabled means that you look at things in a very different perspective, especially when you have had your health taken away from you by another. I was lucky to think ahead in my youth 35 years ago to get the proper insurance to cover me when the unexpected happens.

I made my comment because of aspect of concern for the person the pain of the grafts is bad enough, The lack of insurance plaguing on a person's mind is even worse.

Back on topic. Gamers are gamers and many of their opinions are polarized by their beliefs. I'll go back to parallel arguments and attitude back in the 80's between D&D and Chivalry and Sorcery. C&S was a more sophisticated version of D&D that a lot of SCA'ers in my region at that time, embraced it and considered nothing else was better. And yet D&D was the most popular of the two. Arguments between the factions were pretty heated back then.

To me it is the same thing now. Different kind of a hobby in a different era, but similar arguments. People are going to choose what they want to do for leisure. You might be able to show them different things to do but it is up to them to decide if this game/hobby/sport/etc is for them.

insaniak wrote:The thing is, a lot of people really just aren't interested in playing every game that's released. Or, in a lot of cases, in playing anything other than whichever game they've decided to follow.

That's nothing to do with GW or not. For some, these games are just something to do to while away a few hours... but to others, each new game is a substantial investment in time (to learn the rules and assemble whatever is required to play) and money.

And some are simply happy with what they're playing. Supported or not, if you have a game that you enjoy, there's no particular impetus to go out and try a similar game made by someone else.

insaniak has pretty much hit the nail in the head.

Take... well.. Warmachine's a good example actually. I have no interest in that game. That doesn't mean it's a bad game or that I think it's a bad game, I just have no interest in it. 40K is a bad game - terrible mechanics and rules writers with no clue how to make a balanced game - but I still like it because I like the universe and the models. BattleTech is a great game with 50% ok and 50% laughable models, but I play it because I like the universe and the detail. Warmachine could be the greatest wargame of all time - but I still wouldn't play it because I just have no interest in the universe.

I currently play GW's 40k & WFB, along with PP WMHD. To me that's really enough. I have little interest in expanding further to BFG, LoTR, or Flames of War. I have nothing against any of those systems, however I don't want to have hordes of models. I'm all about people playing whatever they want, but I dislike the attitude that peoples friends "have" to play what they do, or expand simiply because others to.

When push comes to shove, its the individuals wallet, and shelves. If they don't want to spend money out of their wallet to fund a new game system, or put new models on shelves, that should be respected. Otherwise if you really want your friend to try out a new games system. Buy them the demo pack or intro models for a gift if you really want them to play.

I just bought the rules for Uncharted seas, agreed to play in a warhammer fantasy game for the first time so i could learn the rules, and agreed to play with borrowed minis in a Infinity game. There is nothing wrong with trying out something new. Who knows .... it might be better than what your used to.

As for everyone saying they like the fluff etc for 40k. I love 40k but i think the fluff well, the fluff dosnt match the game. A great example is the Nids codex. They loose every time. Thats their fluff. They arrive at a planet, maybe its not garrisoned and they eat the people there. They commander farsight and a 100 battlesuties kick their butt. Hmm. Chaos fluff is really cool. but then on the table chaos just gets hammered. Ultramarines, my favorite marines chapter. If they were only as good as their fluff. Whenever i run Sicarius everyone looks and adjusts their glasses to make sure they are really seeing what i have on the table before them. Honestly most of the fluff besides the stuff concerning the horus hearasy does nothing for me. I dont play the game for the fluff. I do it because i enjoy the models and the game. If all people cared about was the fluff then there are plenty of other games with great fluff that would be kicking butt right now and they arent.

Hi all.
Is everyone aware you can use your existing minatures to try out new (free to down load rules)!

Or is it me, bieng a gamer , so that the game play is what interests me.The background and the minatures are the 'icing on the cake' as it were.
(As opposed to Jervis Johnsons comments about GW core games... )

You try a few out , and find the ones you like...


Assuming that every game HAS to have its own (expensive) minature collections, and HAS to have its own extensive (abstract, overcomplex ) rules, has more to the bad influence of GW plc than ACTUAL contact with multiple game systems.

If you dont like a game you tried out, fair enough.

But flatley refusing to try out new rule sets seem to be denying yourself the chance to find your prefered game.
And I realy can not understand this attitude....

How many competing sports team do you support? There's nothing stopping you from supporting several, but human nature says you tend to pick one per sport.

My answer - it's human nature.

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
Is everyone aware you can use your existing minatures to try out new (free to down load rules)!

Or is it me, bieng a gamer , so that the game play is what interests me.The background and the minatures are the 'icing on the cake' as it were.
(As opposed to Jervis Johnsons comments about GW core games... )

You try a few out , and find the ones you like...

Assuming that every game HAS to have its own (expensive) minature collections, and HAS to have its own extensive (abstract, overcomplex ) rules, has more to the bad influence of GW plc than ACTUAL contact with multiple game systems.

I mostly agree. I enjoy the mostly free and indie rulesets that we play at my club and being able to try out various rulesets has led us to some great games.

My one point of difference is that for me, I really enjoy fluff, but the painted minis are the real reason that I'm in the hobby. I want rulesets that are flexible, simple and fast ways of getting my painted minis of many manufactueres on the table, and there's alot more of that in the indie wargames world than in the mainstream.

CT GAMER wrote:

Worglock wrote:

Please don't do this. Some of us had to work really hard to get the Warmafail kids out of GW, we don't want them back.

Nerd on nerd violence: the plague of wargaming

Shouldn't we all present a united front against the M:TG players?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:How many competing sports team do you support? There's nothing stopping you from supporting several, but human nature says you tend to pick one per sport.

My answer - it's human nature.

This is a bad analogy in my opinion, and would fit better if applied to people that only play one system or company. People playing multiple factions of WFB or 40K as an example.

I play High Elves in WFB, Space Marines in 40K, Menoth in Warmahordes, and thinking about picking up Flames of War. This is the same way I handle my competing sports teams:

Thunder in the NBA, Oklahoma State in College Football, FC Dallas in soccer, and Red Bull Racing in Formula 1. I would bet that you will find more people that have a favorite team in multiple leages than people who only support one league.

Yeah... i usually dont pay any attention to who is winning or loosing in sports. And when i do i usually root for the underdog. Lots of food for thought here. when i started this thread i was genuinely annoyed by my freinds attitude. Weather its because of blind brand loyalty, desire not to spend any more money on a different hobby or the desire not to learn something new etc., I still hope to be able to enlist him to play something different that is also fun. The fact that he is only really playing MTG now because he is bored with 40k and unwilling to try anything new is immaterial. Other people are willing to play and try new things.

I do feel that promoting new games that are fun to help people break out of their one sided GW only mindset will be healthy for all gaming in the end though. IF it means that other smaller less well known game companies can get a foothold on the gameing scene, the competition will help force GW to eiither make their games more accessible (cheaper), more fun (better rules) or at least improve GW public relations ( faster FAQ, better playtesting so we will have to deal with less broken and poorly written codex etc.) Its never good when one company has a monopoly on a part of the market. Diversity in biological as well as commercial systems is always a good thing.

Lanrak wrote:But flatley refusing to try out new rule sets seem to be denying yourself the chance to find your prefered game.
And I realy can not understand this attitude....

That new game could be the greatest game in the universe.

But I still won't play it.

Because it's not 40K.

I play 40K because it has things I like, namely Marines, Daemons, Orks and Inquisitors.

Kaldor.
You do realise you can play 'games of 40k' with other rule sets?
And that your 40k minatures do not spontaneously combust if you use alternative rule sets with them?

You like the 40k asthetic,(background and minatures) , so do I, and eveyone else that bought into 40k.

Its I dont feel compelled to stick to using an abstract holistic mess of an over complicated rule set.
(40k primary development goal is to sell toy soldiers to children, NOT provide a well defined tactical wargame.)

When there are much more fluid and tacticaly focused rule sets available FOR FREE!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

insaniak wrote:The thing is, a lot of people really just aren't interested in playing every game that's released. Or, in a lot of cases, in playing anything other than whichever game they've decided to follow.

That's nothing to do with GW or not. For some, these games are just something to do to while away a few hours... but to others, each new game is a substantial investment in time (to learn the rules and assemble whatever is required to play) and money.

And some are simply happy with what they're playing. Supported or not, if you have a game that you enjoy, there's no particular impetus to go out and try a similar game made by someone else.

insaniak has pretty much hit the nail in the head.

Take... well.. Warmachine's a good example actually. I have no interest in that game. That doesn't mean it's a bad game or that I think it's a bad game, I just have no interest in it. 40K is a bad game - terrible mechanics and rules writers with no clue how to make a balanced game - but I still like it because I like the universe and the models. BattleTech is a great game with 50% ok and 50% laughable models, but I play it because I like the universe and the detail. Warmachine could be the greatest wargame of all time - but I still wouldn't play it because I just have no interest in the universe.

H.B.M.C. has it spot on as well.

If I chose not to play other game systems It wouldnt mean that I was blinkered or a fool or anything else.

Why should someone play something if they are not interested?

Respect the choice made and move on.

For the record I currently play other games and not with GW rulsets or minis, am I in the wrong for not currently playing and supporting GW rulesets as well?

Not at all. Mr. Burning. There is nothing inherently wrong with trying out new games. I think that Kaldors attitude is reallly puzzling though. Even if it was the greatest game in the universe he wouldnt try it. WOw. Not quite sure what to say to that. Im not sure what the greatest game in the universe is but I am sure that when i comes along Im gonna play it if i have the chance.

Just for the record. There were lots of games out prior to 40k that had marines, demons, orks and the inquisition. Maybe not all in the same univers, but a lot of them had just as many interesting aspects that GW games lack. Like alien races that really are different. Not just fantasy elements stuck in outer space. The only arguably unique race that GW has come up with on their own (and maybe they stole the idea from someone and i just dont know) are the Tau. But all the rest of this fluff comes from other preexisiting games, stories, movies etc. Its all out there and i think that limiting yourself to what GW has decided to adopt shows a lack of imagination. To use my mexican food analogy from earlier, you have limited yourself to eating only cheese quesadillas because they have cheese, and tortillas. There are lots of other menu items with cheese and tortillas, as well as a host of other tasty ingredients. Its a big world out there. You should try to branch out once in a while, wearing blinders all the time to all the other good things in life is your choice but you will really miss out on a lot of good stuff.

I understand your opinion but I still fail to see how someones choice not to play a new game is an issue for you.

It is not a lack of imagination.

It is not a mental defect.

It is not a problem.

Find another group of gamers who play other games or who are willing to try games out that you suggest.

Don't get hung up over the fact that your buddy is playing M:TG or 40K exclusively.

Sorry but it displays a closed mind to alternatives.
As I understand the issue this is to try a new game, not invest time and money into something. As stated there are ways of trying things out for nowt

No it is not a problem nor a mental defect. But there does seem to be something amiss in the character to utterly deny soething new without first sucking it to see.
To be so absolutist in rejection can't be healthy imho

I find it more "wrong" to try to force games onto people just because you want to play it.

If someone wants to play Dust: Tactics but not Warmachine, who cares. If someone wants to play Hordes but not Warhammer, again--who cares.

The game mechanics alone aren't what draw people in. The models, background, and more do.
You can not want to try a new game for any one of those reasons and it's not being "absolutist in rejection".

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Sorry but it displays a closed mind to alternatives.
As I understand the issue this is to try a new game, not invest time and money into something. As stated there are ways of trying things out for nowt

No it is not a problem nor a mental defect. But there does seem to be something amiss in the character to utterly deny soething new without first sucking it to see.
To be so absolutist in rejection can't be healthy imho

I wonder if the friend the OP references is open to alternatives affecting other aspects of their life.

I can't see how not trying other games affects ones life.

Senna is just wishing to try something out. Doesn't sound like he is trying to force anything.

It possibly does affect people's lives if they don't open up and help other guys out. May not have a major impact but you just don't know.
What if you had never decided to try Warhammer?

Not the impression I got from the OP, but if you say so.

Have scanned the posts and have seen nothing that would indicate he is doing anything other than asking to someone to try something different.

I see there is frustration but no pointing a gun at someone's head. Unless Senna is not telling us something!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:What if you had never decided to try Warhammer?

I would still be a gaming nerd. And a bit richer.

So your life would have changed and we wouldn't be having this conversation

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:So your life would have changed and we wouldn't be having this conversation

I would still be digging my heels in on this discussion.

Well maybe you should get of your horse and stop digging your high heels in...

wait, don't thinks I have that quite right....

or maybe I do?

High heels are so much better for digging in I find

I don't like high heels and nothing you can say will change my mind!

You should be more open minded and try them sometime!

. All i did was suggest that he try the new game and what i met was resistance. I am buying two sets so he wouldnt even have to invest any money. Just some time to try it out and see what he thought.

The reason i posted in the first place was because he was simply resistant to trying something new. that is all. Hes my freind. i would like to share a new game with him. My hope would be that he would enjoy it. Being totally resistant to trying it at all is what i find to be so unfortunate. ITs the same attitude that one of the earlier posters had who said that "even if it was the best game in the universe they still wouldnt play it. This is probably a more extream attitue than my freinds but either way the root is the same. Everyone is free to do what they want but when someone acts in what seems like an illogical fashion i think tis ok to question their behaviore. especialy when they are your freind.

Maybe the guy just isn't interested in the game. I don't think I'd bother playing a game I wasn't interested in, even if the models were provided for me to play with. I only have so much time each week to devote to playing games. I don't want to spend that time playing something I'm not interested in, and then having my friend give me a hard time about it.

Lanrak wrote:Kaldor.
You do realise you can play 'games of 40k' with other rule sets?

But it's not the same. I know 40K is complicated without being complex, and clunky where it should be streamlined, but I like it anyway, lol! Almost the entire attraction of a 'new' game for me is that I can slip into a different background, like Warmachine or Flames of War, and enjoy it. What's the point of just using my existing model collection? I already have a game to use those models in, and it's going to better represent those models than any other proxy.

sennacherib wrote:I think that Kaldors attitude is reallly puzzling though. Even if it was the greatest game in the universe he wouldnt try it.

I know you do, and the fact that you do is part of the reason your friend wouldn't try Firestorm Armada with you.

I'm not at all interested in some games. ESPECIALLY games that are similar to ones I already play. If I'm not interested in a game, then it doesn't matter HOW good the game is. It could, like I said, be the best game in the universe, and I still won't play it, because it doesn't interest me. For example:

I like battlefleet gothic. If I'm going to play a space battle, then it's probably going to be BFG.

I would almost never try firestorm armada or full thrust, because they don't appeal to me.

But I might try a star wars games system, because how freaking cool would that be?

You see, some games interest me, and some don't. And that interest has almost nothing to do with the mechanics of the game or the level of support it has, or who makes it. I have to be drawn in by the models and the background. If I'm not, then I'll never enjoy playing that game and trying it out would be a waste of my time.

Well Kaldor. You strike me as an interesting person just based on what few posts you have made here. Though i have only read what you have posted here, you seem to be true to whatever code motivates you.

Hi kaldor.
Now I understand.
You want a rule set to specificaly limit the models and special abilities used.To re-inforce the background asthetic on the gameplay.
I would say you are more of a collector than a gamer.

Gamers tend to pefer the rules NOT to get in the way of the gameplay.
Well developed games tend to allow fluid characterful gameplay without heavily restrictive 'scripting' in the rules.

Nothing wrong with your perspective, but its just going to cost you a lot more money than mine...