I'm just curious whether people prefer a game that has some really beautiful miniatures, but not that great rules, or a game with an awesome ruleset, but with kinda ugly and creepy minis.

What I mean under "bad rules" - rules, that are not really thought through, have a lot of holes, imbalanced and are generally not interesting to play. Rules, that need a lot of tweaking. Probably, over-simplified ones (like AoS), or over-complicated (like Infinity) to the point, where the game becomes nearly unplayable.

Basically...Warhammer as the first choice? Pretty minis, garbage rules? Good thing I can buy WH minis if I want and play them in MULTIPLE other game rule sets. I like having my cake and eating it.

Hmmm tough one.
I actually loathe the Malifaux and Infinity aesthetics but have heard they have pretty cool rulesets.
WMH falls kinda in the middle with some cracking minitaures and a decent enough ruleset.
Something like 40k whilst not as tight does have terrific miniatures imo and is still fairly playable.
Poll probably needs an inbetween option for me so.

 Ratius wrote:
Hmmm tough one.
I actually loathe the Malifaux and Infinity aesthetics but have heard they have pretty cool rulesets.
WMH falls kinda in the middle with some cracking minitaures and a decent enough ruleset.
Something like 40k whilst not as tight does have terrific miniatures imo and is still fairly playable.
Poll probably needs an inbetween option for me so.

The whole purpose of this poll is to give two mutually exclusive options - it's either one or another. No in-betweens.

*tucks tail and scampers off to a dark cave*

c) Find nice minis, and a good ruleset to use them with if the one they're attached to isn't any good (though in all honesty, I struggle to think of a widely available ruleset that is 'bad' to the point of being unplayable. For all their faults, even Age of Sigmar and 40k are fine if you approach them with the mindset they're designed around. But that's another thread...)

Minis and rules are really two separate entities, and the more options you have for each the better!

Please define "bad rules", because for me there are two levels of this:

1 - The current 40k level;
2 - AoS Level (aka the clusterfeth).

Is it level 1 or level 2?

Given only those choices and a gun to my head, I’ll take good minis, bad rules. Frankly I spend more time at the paintbench then the game table these days, so would get more enjoyment from them.

This also assumes an identical price point. If the cost is low, I’m OK with crummy markers as game pieces, as long as the game plays well.

But as others have said, there is a lot of wiggle room in this situation IRL. Bad rules can be tweaked, good minis can be used in other systems, etc.

I would gladly play (and do play) awesome and fun games that use wooden chits as the miniatures. Nice looking miniatures are a huge bonus, but in terms of game play, they're just a bonus.

If a game comes out with amazing miniatures, but terrible rules, I'll never play it. I might possibly buy some of the miniatures for conversion of general assembly/painting, but they'll never see use in their intended game.

I probably wouldn't play either, as presented there

If there was a woeful ruleset with excellent mins I'd probably buy and paint the minis, but I wouldn't play the game

(this is the most likely option for me to take if I had to do one or the other)

If there was a brilliant rule set with woeful minis that I wanted to play I'd go counts as

A bit of a non-poll.
I would take a good rule-set any-day and push bits of cardboard around.
The thing is: we play tabletop games for looks AND a good game.
I WANT to have good looking miniatures to play the game.
If I cannot have both, I would say I do not want it at all and go find a game that has both.
It is like getting a poll of who are the painters who happen to be gamers or gamers who happen to be painters.

Is this going to turn into another GW vs Mantic thread?

I honestly would choose neither.

Where the need both to be good option. I play Infinity and Batman they cover both way would I waste my the on crap models or rules that took a few days to make.

It's easier to fix bad models (to whatever standard you personally have) than to fix bad rules.

"Oh, I'll buy this and convert it to remove the boob window. And I'll buy that model from this other company to use instead of that one. And I'll just not buy that one faction because I think their tanks look terrible."
Versus spending endless hours debating with people in the rules forums, and spending several minutes before a game discussing which pot holes in the rules you're aware of and don't want to hit.

There is a third option

Ugly minis have no appeal for me. Even a bad mini in an otherwise good looking army won't get bought, no matter how good a unit it is.
On the other hand poor rules and unit balance irritate me.

So I'd choose the best of both worlds. Use the best ruleset I can find, and use and/or convert the minis of my choice to represent the units from that ruleset.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Basically...Warhammer as the first choice? Pretty minis, garbage rules? Good thing I can buy WH minis if I want and play them in MULTIPLE other game rule sets. I like having my cake and eating it.

You can use warhammer minis in other systems, an elf is an elf in d&d, sobh etc.

Great minis, poor rules any day. The rules give me an extra use for my models. I don't collect models in order to use rules.

Decision between pest and cholera, or GW and PP.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
I honestly would choose neither.

Pretty much.

I'm not going to waste my time playing a crappy game even if the miniatures are awesome and I'm not going to waste my time painting crappy models to play a game that is awesome.

Miniatures draw me in, rules make me stay.

If the miniatures aren't great, I probably wouldn't look at the game even if the rules are good.

If the miniatures are good but the rules are bad, it depends on how bad they are. If there no sign they'll improve, or only need minor tweaking then I might continue to stay. But if they are so bad they need to be completely overhauled then I probably would move on. The only other thing about good looking miniatures, I might use them as a proxy for other games but there are already a lot available without needing to purchase a new game.

I'll play the great rule set. As to wich system will get more of my money? The Minis. I'll happily proxy good minis from a lousy game in the great game with lousy minis.

No-brainer. Great rules, using whatever minis I deem appropriate.

Take the best minis, use the rules I like the most changing where needed. It's not an either/or choice, it's an open choice.

I'd go for the Miniatures. I don't think I've ever started a game based for rules instead of for the miniatures. In almost all cases I buy them before trying out the game, if I even ever play the game at all.

This is of course ignoring rulesets with no related model line. Those I get on the strength of the rules. Plus I can use any models that suits the game's setting.

False choice- I can play good rulesets with any minis I want.

How about 3. Game with Awesome rules and proxies for the bad minis?

shyzo wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Hmmm tough one.
I actually loathe the Malifaux and Infinity aesthetics but have heard they have pretty cool rulesets.
WMH falls kinda in the middle with some cracking minitaures and a decent enough ruleset.
Something like 40k whilst not as tight does have terrific miniatures imo and is still fairly playable.
Poll probably needs an inbetween option for me so.

The whole purpose of this poll is to give two mutually exclusive options - it's either one or another. No in-betweens.

So black or white with no shades of grey at all?

Good luck.

If there was no inbetween for this question, then I would just stop playing miniature games and enjoy video/computer games.

Because the reality is that neither game could become popular enough to matter or exist for long.

 Vertrucio wrote:
If there was no inbetween for this question, then I would just stop playing miniature games and enjoy video/computer games.

Because the reality is that neither game could become popular enough to matter or exist for long.

We have proof that your statement is false.

So WHFB/AoS vs KoW.

I picked good rules over models. I'd rather have a balanced game than play a faction that has no chance of winning.

 RivenSkull wrote:
So WHFB/AoS vs KoW.

I actually kind of the like the newer Mantic models...o well...

A little from column a and little from column b

Great rules, bad minis. I can always sub the minis from my collection.

Noir wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
If there was no inbetween for this question, then I would just stop playing miniature games and enjoy video/computer games.

Because the reality is that neither game could become popular enough to matter or exist for long.

We have proof that your statement is false.

If you mean games that have existed for decades now and became one way or another? It applies, but also doesn't since they often start somewhere on the spectrum and mature in direction not on this binary list, except maybe GW.

Which also highlights how silly this poll is overall. Rules and miniatures do mature over time, including consumer's tastes for those. In some cases, like GW, you can get overly nostalgic consumers.

Stealth GW vs Privateer Press/Mantic thread?

Guys, listen, please.

I am just trying to figure out what people would do in this exact hypothetical situation. Imagine that someone's holding a gun to your head and forces you to make a choice between these two.

It's just to quench my curiosity, that's all. No hidden "GW vs %company_name%" meaning.

False dichotomy - it truly is not too much to ask for both....

But if I had to choose - awesome minis, since I paint more than I play. For example - I have painted 10+ Relic Knight models over the last year. Not one game yet.

Mez

Miniatures all the way. I am more sensitive to price or fluff quality than to rules quality. I probably won't even get to play 90% of the rulesets I already own.

Awesome rules. I could just use other miniatures from my collection in that case. It's what I do for KoW.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Awesome rules. I could just use other miniatures from my collection in that case. It's what I do for KoW.

Pretty much this. There's enough 3rd-party stuff that's usable for almost any system if you don't like the base models. My only caveat is that I want a compelling universe to go with my good rules.

For example, imagine a world where 40k and WMH are both equal in terms of clean, concise, balanced rules (shocking, I know, but stay with me). Now to me, 40k has an interesting narrative and aesthetic that WMH's steampunk+magic doesn't really achieve. So using 40k models with the WMH ruleset wouldn't be as great for me as using WMH models (assuming I liked them) with 40k's ruleset, even though for the purposes of this thought experiment they should theoretically be the same. In other words, even if Ruleset A = Ruleset B in terms of how good they are, using models from B in Ruleset A might not be as good as using models from A in Ruleset B, due to what those rules represent. Hope that long rambling made some sense.

TL;DR: I want good rules, which effectively represent an interesting and diverse background universe. After that, I don't care where I get my pretty models as long as I can make them work for the game I want to play.

shyzo wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Spoiler:

Hmmm tough one.
I actually loathe the Malifaux and Infinity aesthetics but have heard they have pretty cool rulesets.
WMH falls kinda in the middle with some cracking minitaures and a decent enough ruleset.
Something like 40k whilst not as tight does have terrific miniatures imo and is still fairly playable.
Poll probably needs an inbetween option for me so.

The whole purpose of this poll is to give two mutually exclusive options - it's either one or another. No in-betweens.

Ha!


I'd play the game with the better rules with 3rd party miniatures!

I picked miniatures because I buy models.just to paint much of the time. Hut to be honest.I wouldn't.play a game.I don't like the rules for. In either siutstion I proxy to combine good models.and.rules.

 Mezmaron wrote:
False dichotomy - it truly is not too much to ask for both....

Yep. There have never been more games than now that fulfil both criteria, it's seriously a good time for wargamers. So you shouldn't have to accept either bad rules or bad minis, there is probably something out there that you'll enjoy in both counts.

shyzo wrote:
Guys, listen, please.

I am just trying to figure out what people would do in this exact hypothetical situation. Imagine that someone's holding a gun to your head and forces you to make a choice between these two.

It's just to quench my curiosity, that's all. No hidden "GW vs %company_name%" meaning.

In that case I'd go with great rules, bad minis.

shyzo wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Hmmm tough one.
I actually loathe the Malifaux and Infinity aesthetics but have heard they have pretty cool rulesets.
WMH falls kinda in the middle with some cracking minitaures and a decent enough ruleset.
Something like 40k whilst not as tight does have terrific miniatures imo and is still fairly playable.
Poll probably needs an inbetween option for me so.

The whole purpose of this poll is to give two mutually exclusive options - it's either one or another. No in-betweens.

It's really not that binary, though - is it? I use Warhammer Minis as the mainstay of my Kings of War armies. Good minis, good ruleset. No problemo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xca|iber wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Awesome rules. I could just use other miniatures from my collection in that case. It's what I do for KoW.

Pretty much this. There's enough 3rd-party stuff that's usable for almost any system if you don't like the base models. My only caveat is that I want a compelling universe to go with my good rules.

Of course, the background can be from anywhere as well - it doesn't have to be married to the rules, either.. When I use the KoW rules for a punch-up with my GW Ogres on one side and my GW Undead on the other, why would I not "use" the (former) WHFB universe for it? I know people who play a Rogue Trader-style campaign set in the 40k universe using 40k models as well as all kinds of other weird and wonderful things and the Pulp Alley rules.

 warboss wrote:
Is this going to turn into another GW vs Mantic thread?

Fortunately you can play Mantic Games with GW minis.

And even Warhammer using Mantic's Undead or Ogres isn't an uncommon or poor choice. Mantic's new Ogre Berserkers are some of the best models I've seen from them, if you can handle Metal (I can!)

Game with awesome rules and awesome miniatures.
Has to be invented yet. Maybe X-Wing.

I would buy the great figures from game one and the great rules from game two.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Game with awesome rules and awesome miniatures.
Has to be invented yet. Maybe X-Wing.

Obviously it's all a matter of taste, but I'd say

Malifaux
LotR (mostly, there are a few duds but in a line with several hundred minis that's to be expected)
Infinity
Batman Miniatures Game

all fall into that category, the latter possibly being (in my opinion) the best combination of rules and mini range ever published.

I sometimes think that the greatest trick GW ever pulled was instilling the concept of "must use our minis to use our rules".

That's true.

A concept that Flames Of War tried to follow but failed, because anyone can make WW2 figures.

However when you see the number of alternative SMs and IG that people use, maybe GW failed too.

Hmmm, I started wargaming around 1974 - Avalon Hill board games had cracking rules, but no miniatures at all.

Miniatures wise... we had Minifigs and Heritage....

So, I have played good games with bad, few, or no miniatures - and greatly prefer that extreme to having wonderful looking miniatures and no game worth the time spent playing.

To fill in the obvious poke - I play Mantic games, and buy Mantic miniatures to support the company.

Some Mantic figures are great (Undead), some are... awful (Basilean Men at Arms, some of the other Basileans).

On the plus side, Mantic has been getting better over time.

The Auld Grump

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's true.

A concept that Flames Of War tried to follow but failed, because anyone can make WW2 figures.

However when you see the number of alternative SMs and IG that people use, maybe GW failed too.

Don't forget Soda Can Drop Pod

It has to be Awesome rules and ugly miniatures, since I can use any miniatures I want in the ruleset. Win-Win.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I sometimes think that the greatest trick GW ever pulled was instilling the concept of "must use our minis to use our rules".

I'd gladly use GW minis in a GW sanctioned Tournament, since that would imply they actually give a damn about rules. But so long as they keep branding themselves a model company, I'll use their miniatures with whatever rules I want. (And vice versa)

 sing your life wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
So WHFB/AoS vs KoW.

I actually kind of the like the newer Mantic models...o well...

Oh yeah they have been getting better. I play Undead so I'm not really complaining about the models.

But the goblins and some of the Basileans......

-

I play Warhammer 40,000. I'm already playing the "awesome minis and bad rules" game!

 RivenSkull wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
So WHFB/AoS vs KoW.

I actually kind of the like the newer Mantic models...o well...

Oh yeah they have been getting better. I play Undead so I'm not really complaining about the models.

But the goblins and some of the Basileans......

I love the KOW Goblins. They have such a wicked look to them.

This is such an arbitrary argument. Different people will make a different value judgment about what is good, so it's impossible to talk about specific gaming systems.

To me, KoW is incredibly dull and boring. Yes, the system is tight, but lacks anything to grab my attention. The models are also smaller than what is more or less an industry standard heroic scale (based on market share), with hard to work with mold lines and a general lack of sharp detail. As such, KoW has bad rules and bad models... for ME.

AoS on the other hand is not dull and boring. Sure, the battles can be a little clustered if you're not playing scenarios, but that's easy to get around. Use scenarios! The rules are actually pretty tight, too. The AoS rules forum is a ghost town. There are a few very isolated issues that people like to bicker about, but that common sense and a dash of sportsmanship solve immediately in the real world. The models are also far, far more detailed and of a higher quality. As such, AoS has good rules and good models... for ME.

Others might feel differently. I know some people can't handle AoS because it's not a points driven, regimental style game with pre-made army lists. Instead, it's a sportsmanship driven, skirmish style game with army lists made on the fly during the start of the game. If you want points based, pre-made lists, you should probably look elsewhere. There are tons of games out there. I think it speaks to the quality of GW's models that so many people are willing to spend so much time and effort trying to hammer the AoS rules into a WFB shaped hole.

I also think you need to look at what people want out of their hobby. As much as people like to judge GW, their outlook on "The Hobby" makes sense. The Hobby is made up of collecting, assembling, painting and playing. GW clearly focuses on catering to the first three elements. If you're a player, first and foremost, you're probably never going to be totally happy with the way GW does things. If you only buy, build and paint models, you're likely to be happy with GW. Even their pricing is reasonable when you consider how many hours it takes to assemble, convert and paint a model to a very high standard. Even a $150 Tau Stormsurge is cheaper than going to see a movie. Movies are generally about an hour and a half and cost $13 where I live. I only need to spend ~18 or so hours with my Stormsurge to come out on top in the dollar per entertainment hour calculation.

Ultimately, my answer is that I'll pick models over games any day of the week. Having said that, the hierarchy is more like this...

1. Good models/Good fluff/Good game
2. Good models/Good fluff/Bad or no game
3. Good models/Bad fluff/Good game
4. Good models/Bad fluff/Bad or no game
5. Bad models/Good fluff/Good game
6. Bad models/Good fluff/Bad or no game
7. Bad models/Bad fluff/Good game
8. Bad models/Bad fluff/Bad or no game

I tend to prioritize good models THEN good fluff THEN good games.

Neither. I'd buy the awesome miniatures, and use them to play the game with the awesome rules.

In fact I'm doing this for Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, running a campaign at my club using my LOTR/Hobbit SBG miniatures. Not that I think the SBG is a bad game, far from it - I think the SBG is by far the best quality ruleset of GW's current 3 games. Its just hard to find local opponents, and its more that I dislike the official D&D miniatures.

Neither.

But really, this question presupposes that one uses the manufacturer's models to play the game. I have been known to sub in alt models to play a game I enjoy, and vice versa.

In my humble opinion, interest in a table top wargame most often starts with art and then progresses to rules. And a game with great art but only mediocre rules will get better traction than a game with great rules and mediocre art.

People do not play table top miniatures games just for the rules. There are easier ways to enjoy a good set of game rules. People play table top miniatures games partly because of the artistry of the game pieces, perhaps largely because of it. This includes people who 'don't treat their models well'. Most likely they purchased the models partly due to their aesthetic value, even if they don't clean them well and never paint them.

Of course, you can say this about almost any game genre, but in table top miniatures, the models are a primary interest when it comes to the quality of artistic assets. A game can survive on decent rules if the models are high quality, but bad models can tank a fantastic rule set.

I wouldn't play any game that wasn't fun.

I wouldn't buy any models that were terrible.

So, frankly, it's not a good poll question, because there are better things to do in life than play bad games with good models or good games with bad models.

I really only want to play GREAT games with AWESOME models though sometimes I will male small compromises, recognizing that I probably wont love every single model made for an army.

In addition, I think both measures are highly subjective.

I'll add that models give a quick first impression of a table top miniatures game. Bad art can often reflect badly on the game/manufacturer. It takes lots more time to evaluate a rule set, and potential players may not even look at a rule set because the models are uninspiring.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Game with awesome rules and awesome miniatures.
Has to be invented yet. Maybe X-Wing.

Bollocks.

 Mezmaron wrote:
False dichotomy - it truly is not too much to ask for both....

But if I had to choose - awesome minis, since I paint more than I play. For example - I have painted 10+ Relic Knight models over the last year. Not one game yet.

Mez

To be fair, I do not think it is that much of a false dichotomy, at least in practice.

The reality is that lots of us, dare I say most of us, do not commonly mix rule sets and models, with an exception for models without associated rules and rules without associated models. It takes more time and effort, generally, to proxy models, and there is some degree of social stigma attached to mixing the products of multiple companies. There really shouldn't be, but there is.

If you want to proxy, you've got to at least spend time matching models and representative rules. If you are playing in an environment where most players do not proxy, most folks will wonder what other players will think, and how to navigate that space. Again, that's extra effort. That's a barrier, a barrier that does not exist if you like the models. It is much easier to buy the 'proper' models.

How many of us have taken a pass on a game because the models don't excite us? I do it all of the time. How often does it happen that really exciting models make us take a second look at a game?

I don't know the intention of this poll, but I am certain the results will be horribly misused as part of some kind of vendetta.

I withhold my vote.

 Azazelx wrote:

Of course, the background can be from anywhere as well - it doesn't have to be married to the rules, either.. When I use the KoW rules for a punch-up with my GW Ogres on one side and my GW Undead on the other, why would I not "use" the (former) WHFB universe for it? I know people who play a Rogue Trader-style campaign set in the 40k universe using 40k models as well as all kinds of other weird and wonderful things and the Pulp Alley rules.

To me, KoW is a special case as it has been designed with other minis in mind... That is to say that the KoW rules are generic enough that they can represent a wide variety of fantasy miniatures (this is sometimes why people feel it's boring, I think). What I was getting at though was that some rulesets, despite being good and/or elegant, are so closely tied to the fluff behind them that you cannot just sub in models you like. Basically, there's a difference between playing Game A with Game B's models representing Game A's units, and playing Game A with Game B's models as themselves.

Maybe a better example of what I'm talking about would be trying to use some CoD/Modern Warfare style ruleset to represent 40k. Even if the rules were really awesome and functionally perfect, it wouldn't be a good system for playing Tyranids because there is no analogous force in that style of game. At that point, you'd be better off creating your own ruleset from scratch.

Hope that makes more sense.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


Some Mantic figures are great (Undead)
The Auld Grump

Their undead are superb -I just ordered some of their ghouls and zombies. Better than the GW ones by a good bit.

 theHandofGork wrote:
False choice- I can play good rulesets with any minis I want.

Yep. I don't have any friends who would object to me playing a game we enjoyed with different miniatures, so long as it fit within the rules regarding size/base.

I'd prefer a set of good rules and good models.

They don't have to come from the same source. I'm old school, the company that did both was a rare thing - still is.

Buy the minis you want and use them with the games you want.

That's the only sensible answer IMO.

Come for the minis, stay for the minis

I'd take good rules & bad minis.

If you think about it, pretty much every boardgame out there has very rudimentary and sometimes even ugly miniatures. Games like Decent, Pirates, Axis & Allies (board and miniatures), etc... don't feature the most beatuful or detailed minis, but the games themselves have had me hooked.

If someone hands me some nice miniatures and a bad ruleset which doesn't hook me, I might as well not play at all and return to 1/48 scale modelling.

You forgot the BOTH choice in there.

You live in a false dichotomy, my friend.

A lot of people saying use the good models with the good rules... what if they aren't all that compatible?

Aside from historics where models are by nature highly interchangeable and a game like KoW which is basically designed to be generic, I don't usually like using models from one system in a different system because they often aren't all that interchangeable.

So often the options just aren't fully or properly represented in a different range, usually one range will have more more variants of the same troop as another range (game A has frogmen in 4 forms, basic, giant, elite, commander, game B also has frogmen but only basic and commander), or different equipment options (like game A gives 4 options for guns and 2 options for swords, game B only gives 2 options for guns and no options for swords).

I'd be interested to know how many people actually play one game with models from another game (outside of KoW and historics) because it's something I very rarely see and times I've thought about doing it usually it falls flat on it's face before it even gets started.

I would honestly prefer to have cool models, since I spend so much time in between games I would prefer to at least spend that time looking at some cool models.

 _Monolith_ wrote:
Come for the minis, stay for the minis

yes!!!
minis, every time...

cheers
jah

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A lot of people saying use the good models with the good rules... what if they aren't all that compatible?

Aside from historics where models are by nature highly interchangeable and a game like KoW which is basically designed to be generic, I don't usually like using models from one system in a different system because they often aren't all that interchangeable.

So often the options just aren't fully or properly represented in a different range, usually one range will have more more variants of the same troop as another range (game A has frogmen in 4 forms, basic, giant, elite, commander, game B also has frogmen but only basic and commander), or different equipment options (like game A gives 4 options for guns and 2 options for swords, game B only gives 2 options for guns and no options for swords).

I'd be interested to know how many people actually play one game with models from another game (outside of KoW and historics) because it's something I very rarely see and times I've thought about doing it usually it falls flat on it's face before it even gets started.

This is kinda the point I was trying to make as well. It's often difficult to play a game with a different game's models, assuming you are actually trying to represent those models as "themselves" rather than just proxies for the units in the game system you're playing. Usually, I find it works only when you use 3rd party models designed for the system - which still happens to some degree.

To answer your question, I play BFG using almost exclusively 3rd party, non-GW models (I find the BFG models to be great - don't get me wrong - but as they're mostly OOP, building a fleet is kinda hard nowadays). However, this works because the 3rd party models are being made specifically for BFG to represent BFG units.

On the other hand, this wouldn't work very well if I were trying to use Tyranid models as Tyranids in a game of Dust Tactics or some such thing, since they're not really compatible that way. Even so though, I still prefer good rules over minis. When there's a game with cool minis, I just collect them a bit but don't play.

Awesome minis, bad rules.

No one said I HAD to play, so I'll do what I've been doing for years and just collect/paint minis I never play with.

I can proxy miniatures, so rules first.

The poll more or less equates to "Are you a modeller first, and a gamer second OR a gamer first and a modeller second?"

I would easily go with awesome rules and poor minis. You likely could sub in better minis with the awesome ruleset. As someone else indicated, there are many games in the past that used cardboard counters but were really good games - the counters were fine for that. And some games that used minis gave the person cardboard counters to use with the option to buy minis to have a better look. For me it is about a better game first and then the minis. That is why 40K is so depressing. When I started in 4th ed I regularly heard stories of how bad their rules were in the past editions with either wonky core rules or OP units but I so often heard that GW was getting better (and we had errata to fix issues). Boy was that optimistic or just plain dreaming.

This kind of makes me think of the old 'graphics vs. gameplay' argument that used to do the rounds some years ago on computer game forums.

Less of it now as top-line releases tend to have a lot of money spent on them and very few have poor graphics per se.

But, in the same way that I think if you are really experiencing a good video game, and you start to look beyond the graphics, I think its the same with a wargaming system. One that's good, fun and enjoyable you will come back to time and time again. One that's not you could refer to as a 'polished turd', you start to look past the style and to the substance, and you're far less likely to

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A lot of people saying use the good models with the good rules... what if they aren't all that compatible?

Aside from historics where models are by nature highly interchangeable and a game like KoW which is basically designed to be generic, I don't usually like using models from one system in a different system because they often aren't all that interchangeable.

So often the options just aren't fully or properly represented in a different range, usually one range will have more more variants of the same troop as another range (game A has frogmen in 4 forms, basic, giant, elite, commander, game B also has frogmen but only basic and commander), or different equipment options (like game A gives 4 options for guns and 2 options for swords, game B only gives 2 options for guns and no options for swords).

I'd be interested to know how many people actually play one game with models from another game (outside of KoW and historics) because it's something I very rarely see and times I've thought about doing it usually it falls flat on it's face before it even gets started.

My group plays Mordheim with miniatures from all over the place.

Necromunda - minis from all over the heck and gone - and by gummagy, we are looking forward to the Frostgrave Cultists for use as Cawdor. (The Jailbirds from Raging Heroes are better Escher than the original Escher minis.)

My RPG miniatures are likewise from all over - and some of those minis date back to the '70s.

A nearby group plays Battlesystem (the old TSR mass combat game for AD&D) using, you guessed it, minis from all over the place.

I don't think that all that many games are all that specific in what minis will work.

The Auld Grump

War Kitten wrote:
I would honestly prefer to have cool models, since I spend so much time in between games I would prefer to at least spend that time looking at some cool models.

Ah, but the question isn't "would you collect awesome minis from a game with bad rules" it asks "would you play a game with awesome minis and bad rules".

Some people make a point that many board games have basic minis despite have good rules (risk, etc), but I think it is worth considering the question doesn't ask if you will play awesome rules with basic minis, it asks if you would play awesome rules with ugly minis. While basic, I don't think the playing pieces (if we can call them minis) for monopoly, risk, etc are ugly, so these games are outside the scope of the question.

Honestly, the question seems so hypothetical and loaded it is unanswerable for me. At least it has provoked interesting discussion, which is sufficient end within itself, I suppose.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A lot of people saying use the good models with the good rules... what if they aren't all that compatible?

Aside from historics where models are by nature highly interchangeable and a game like KoW which is basically designed to be generic, I don't usually like using models from one system in a different system because they often aren't all that interchangeable.

So often the options just aren't fully or properly represented in a different range, usually one range will have more more variants of the same troop as another range (game A has frogmen in 4 forms, basic, giant, elite, commander, game B also has frogmen but only basic and commander), or different equipment options (like game A gives 4 options for guns and 2 options for swords, game B only gives 2 options for guns and no options for swords).

I'd be interested to know how many people actually play one game with models from another game (outside of KoW and historics) because it's something I very rarely see and times I've thought about doing it usually it falls flat on it's face before it even gets started.

If you don't like it, don't do it?

I'll just give the one example - There are enough flavours of official Imperial Guard models (more if you include FW) that you could use some kind of IG model as your futuristic humans in a great many games. Conversely, the IG is so vast with so many incredibly different looking regiments you could easily use almost anything as IG. I'd include the MEdge, GoA, WarZone, AvP, Anvil's Afterlife, Mantic Corp, most WarMachine Infantry and any number of other models and ranges in that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xca|iber wrote:

On the other hand, this wouldn't work very well if I were trying to use Tyranid models as Tyranids in a game of Dust Tactics or some such thing, since they're not really compatible that way. Even so though, I still prefer good rules over minis. When there's a game with cool minis, I just collect them a bit but don't play.

It depends on what the things are that you're using the other things to represent. You might be able to use your Tyranids to represent the stat line of Nazi Zombies or Nazi Gorillas in DUST, but they're obviously still going to look like Tyranids.

I wouldn't play either. I'd use the good minis to play the good rules.

For example, there is no way whatsoever that I would spend my money on those crappy Epic rip-off miniatures, is it Dropzone? The models are utterly without imagination, artistry or apparent skill, they're the definition of blandness and cheapness, but they cost as much as GW miniatures despite being no match for them in any way whatsoever.

Well I play Warhammer 40k, and would like to start inquisition, but I refuse to do so cause the models are so godawful.

But I also play Heroscape. (not my models though)
And I plan on buying Arena of the Planeswalkers and expansions.

For me, I'll take the uglier models if they're pre=painted and cheap. If I have to do work and pay a feth-ton for it, those models better look like the badass artwork.

Every ugly model GW has is a stain on their product line and hurts them as a company. Make good models or make me pay less.

I started gaming when all minis sucked, and I'd never enjoy a game with bad rules, so rules over minis.

In the real world I'd use good mini's with good rules, and I actually like most of Mantics offerings.

'Awesome rules with ugly miniatures.'

That sounds like a pretty accurate description of KoW to be honest.

But Mantic have also flat out said they don't really care what company's models you use to play their game so long as they are appropriate in scale and representation - and this even holds true at their events. So to be fair, Mantic have pretty much solved that issue as well.

I think you can only really answer "play a game with awesome minis and bad rules" if you haven't ever played a good game, and are therefore unable to differentiate what constitutes it being good or bad(!)

Otherwise there is no way in hell that you'd spend hours of your time doing something that wasn't fun, when you could be playing something so much better

 NoPoet wrote:
I wouldn't play either. I'd use the good minis to play the good rules.

For example, there is no way whatsoever that I would spend my money on those crappy Epic rip-off miniatures, is it Dropzone? The models are utterly without imagination, artistry or apparent skill, they're the definition of blandness and cheapness, but they cost as much as GW miniatures despite being no match for them in any way whatsoever.

When no other reply will suffice:


I know this kind of thing is always going to be subjective, but... come on !!!

I can only assume you haven't actually looked at any of them

 Pacific wrote:

I know this kind of thing is always going to be subjective, but... come on !!!

I can only assume you haven't actually looked at any of them

All those examples are bland, talentless and obvious rip-offs from Epic!

Of course, I'm blind and dress in nothing but neon pink and fluorescent green polka dots and zig-zag stripes, with a teal and vomit brown fedora to match, but that doesn't mean anything!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Aside from historics where models are by nature highly interchangeable and a game like KoW which is basically designed to be generic, I don't usually like using models from one system in a different system because they often aren't all that interchangeable.

There are few things that you can't find an alternative model for and even less things that can't be appropriately proxied.

As an example, my Warmachine faction contains very little PP models because I absolutely hate PP's aesthetic. All of the infantry come from a different manufacturer (Renegade IIRC) and that is a system that has a reputation for being very closed.

This poll is really rather pointless in a world with such a huge variety of wargaming miniatures for all scales.

Easier to fix ugly models with conversions and proxies than make an universally accepted fix of terrible rules.

I'more of a modeler than a player so I'm gonna have to go with pretty minis. Now I do play frequently, but I most of my enjoyment comes from the modeling and painting aspects of the hobby.

This reminds me of the personality over looks question, and I think my feelings are largely the same. It is looks that first attract me to something, but it's what's underneath that keeps me interested. I will confess that if a game had ugly creepy miniatures then there is a good chance I might not try it. But all things considered miniatures don't make a game, and I think I'd rather find a great game than a lousy one. I'd certainly rather spend my time converting and fixing up miniatures, than I would trying to adapt and fix lousy rules.

I play lots of games, but only ones with good rules/design. Playing a bad game with good tokens just seems like a stupid waste of time. Models or graphics are just the icing on the cake. (I do collect a few models just because I like them though, but emphasis on few).

Do I care that my little settlers of catan doohickeys aren't perfect rectangles and squares? Not really. Its well designed and fun.

Do I care that crusader kings 2 isn't the most graphically bueatiful game? Not really. its well designed and fun.

On the other hand, who still plays dreadfleet?

Since the wording of the topic insists on playing the game, I stand by the second option. The rules are integral to the process of playing the game, while game pieces can be improved or exchanged.

2nd option every time. Lots of great games (Risk, Pandemic etc) have uninspiring board pieces, but are awesome to play.

I wouldn't play either game. You need decent rules and you want good minatures.
As much as people whine about 40k they are not bad rules. They have issues but people have fun playing 40k which offers elements of large battlefield tactics and individuality and customization.

As much as people complain about gw prices they are also one of the best miniature game models. Whether you like thier aesthetic or not they are regularly praised as high quality.

I wouldn't buy awesome miniatures for a crap game I have no fun playing because then I'm just collecting models and not a miniture game and thier are better quality models I can paint even if they cost a ton.

I also wouldn't buy crap minatures for a well made game because 99% of the time my minatures are not being played but displayed in a case and the majority of the time I actually spend with miniatures is modeling and painting. If I wanted to paint Undetailed blobs of plastic I would play infinity or whichever other poor 3D printed game currently being developed. This is actually the worst scenario because at this point why even play a miniture game if all I care about is a balanced ruleset I would be playing Starcraft or some other rts game where each team is balanced perfectly against each other.

This question is dumb because your scenario is a black and white picture which doesn't exist.

I'd choose Xbox

 Flashman wrote:
2nd option every time. Lots of great games (Risk, Pandemic etc) have uninspiring board pieces, but are awesome to play.

Then at this point why even spend a crap ton of money on a miniture game as you said there are many many games which have great rules sets where the minatures don't matter. Ffs play Starcraft where each team is balanced against each other.

If I'm spending money on a miniture game and painting and modeling then I want to spend my time with good models. If not I will never paint them or display them. I would throw them in a box in my closet with the rest of the board games. And this is exactly what happens to the many crap model games I have. Whereas my 40k miniture are displayed in a glass case.

Zombicide in a box in the closet unpainted
Risk, Star Wars assault, etc in a box in a closet unpainted.
Xwing minatures in a converted toolbox in a closet

Warhammer 40k in a lighted glass case in the family room.

I play all the above games as well as many other board games.
40k gets painted and displayed the others thrown in a closet.
Crappy rules minatures games are a dime a dozen and most fail.
There are also quite a few miniture games with good rules and sucky models that fail because as much as those miniture games try to be different it's very much the same game design. I think the Conan Kickstarter game is going to be good simply because they got great minatures and a good ruleset. It's not a phenominal ruleset. It isnt expandable much but it's a good enough unique ruleset with great models that it sold extremely well.

Risk sucks.

Nomeny wrote:
Risk sucks.

All a case of management

If I want to pain gorgeous models I paint gorgeous models.

If I want to play a game I want it to be a good game.

I can quite happily paint gorgeous models without needing a wargame to go with them and if the wargame has ugly models I can just batch paint them and throw them on the table.
Win win.

However if a game has bad rules I am simply not going to play it at this point.

False dichotomy. I wouldn't play either. I'd move on to one of the other two dozen games on the market with good rules and good models. Seriously, not that hard any more. We're spoiled for choice in this hobby, now more than ever.

 Guildsman wrote:
False dichotomy. I wouldn't play either. I'd move on to one of the other two dozen games on the market with good rules and good models. Seriously, not that hard any more. We're spoiled for choice in this hobby, now more than ever.

Easier said than done. Mini war gaming isn't that big of a market, at least not compared to some other table top games, so while I'd rather play a game with better balance, 40k is far more popular than my other options, and has much more nostalgia for me.

I remember switching to Warmachine when it came out, and really enjoyed it. Then I got out of the whole genre because I was moving around a lot, only to come back very recently because other people I knew now had nostalgia for 40k and were looking for people to get back into it (along with having access to cheap NiB items for 40k but not Warmachine).

So yea, I'd jump ship on GW if I could find another sci-fi game, with a big enough following. From what I remember warmachine had rather solid rules, but it's not sci-fi and I have less nostalgia for it than 40k (though I remember not liking the first expansion it released), and I hear Mantic is doing very well rules wise, but their sci-fi game is so fresh that I don't really want to invest in it just yet, especially when I can use my Tau models for it in the future.

 Pacific wrote:
I think you can only really answer "play a game with awesome minis and bad rules" if you haven't ever played a good game, and are therefore unable to differentiate what constitutes it being good or bad(!)

I'd agree there to an extent, but you can still have fun playing an objectively bad game, just as you can have fun watching Sharknado.

The sales of Dreadfleet and AoS certainly don't seem to indicate that people prefer form over function, the mini's for those games are both pretty great, but the rules are pretty lousy, so sales are trending towards lousy.

I think the difference there is that while you only need to spend 90 minutes of your life (and whatever the cost is of a beer) to watch Sharknado, a wargame takes a considerable investment of time and effort if you are going to get involved with it. I suppose with the caveat that you may have a quick 'pick up' game with friends at a club, or at a show, and enjoy the game without any plan to spend any more time or money on it.

 Pacific wrote:
I think the difference there is that while you only need to spend 90 minutes of your life (and whatever the cost is of a beer) to watch Sharknado, a wargame takes a considerable investment of time and effort if you are going to get involved with it. I suppose with the caveat that you may have a quick 'pick up' game with friends at a club, or at a show, and enjoy the game without any plan to spend any more time or money on it.

False! I have watched the first two Sharknados completely sober!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
False! I have watched the first two Sharknados completely sober!

You are a braver man than I.

I use my 40k Death Korps as German Infantry in Bolt Action games (But I use Bolt Action Tanks because 40k tanks are huge!). Also have used my Eldar miniatures for the occasional game of Infinity.

So, I'd go with Good Rules as I can always use other minis.

It just occurred to me that as a user of the mutilator rules and models, there is no suitable option for me to select .

I'm sure it's been said:

Aweome rules do not have to have ugly minis-you simply use minis you think are awesome.

Look at 15mm gaming. There are very few rulesets ties to a specific minis line.

I have spent a ton on 40k and such. I buy minis because they look good; if they look bad, I don't buy. If I didn't care about how they looked, I'd play with chits and counters.