Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Talizvar wrote:
So rather than GW specific rage, do we see any merit to tabletop gaming "end times"?

For the same reason that the theatre continues to survive in the age of tv and movies, table top gaming will always have it's adherents. Though niche, it gives you something computer games don't.

It will have a big effect on other companies should GW fall over.

The vacuum will benefit some, but wildly over-stretch others. I'd worry for UK based companies trying to jump in graves too quickly, and getting hit with the gravedigger's shovel so to speak.

I suspect it would be like that anecdote Javier Bardem's character tells in Skyfall - there'll be a load of rats in a bucket, ultimately you'll be left with two rats with a taste for other rats.

The Division Of Joy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

The Division Of Joy wrote:
It's not stupid nonsense at all.

I didn't make that statement though. I said I'm happy to play a price to play a certain type of game. If a better option was available, I would switch my buying elsewhere.

I have no real loyality to a brand, I just want to use the best standard of mini to play the best type of game. It's because I've included 40k and WHFB in the list of things I play, it's made people, that have an issue with GW (for a number of reasons, right or wrong) froth at the mouth.

It's very similar to the tribal attitudes people have to games consoles. I don't understand that either.

Hobbys exist to serve us, it's existance is purely to create joy within us. Why it would make people foam at the mouth on the internet is beyond me.

And here comes the final goal post moving and the haterz accusations, again...

No one is frothing at the mouth because you like GW, people are just contesting your claim that GW makes the "bestest miniatures in the whole wide world".

Believe it or not, your tactic is a really old one and people are tired of having to deal with it. You start with a ridiculous claim, when people contest that claim you start moving the goalposts and when even that doesn't make you "win" you resort to calling people haterz... Its getting pretty boring by this point.

When you can point out where i've exactly said "bestest miniatures in the whole wide world" (and no goal post moving, I want that exact statement) I'll stop claiming you seem to be annoyed that i've spoken about a games company you are mad at.

I actually think for the record, Malifaux hold the title of 'best looking mini in a games system'.

Yeah nothing you said was even remotely unfair, I certainly qualify as someone that dislikes GW and your post was entirely reasonable, it certainly didnt warrant the patronizing "besty westy miniatures" thing.

PV is one of a very tiny minority of users that make hating GW seem like an utterly irrational thing to do.

 Blacksails wrote:
Well, I'm sure we'll disagree on some of those users, and I certainly don't feel the negative vibe. I see a lot of people questioning what's going on with a game they clearly love enough to log on to a forum and express that sentiment, so I don't really have a problem with it.

Frankly, I see as much backlash in those threads from people complaining about complaining, or threads started in response to this 'anti-GW content'. Its a discussion forum, you're going to get opinions of every sort. Putting them into boxes with labels like 'Anti-GW', and by extension, 'Pro-GW' does nothing to further good discussion.

Always remember most of what you might deem negative is coming from people who genuinely either still love or care about the game, or want to come back to it. For a number of reasons, these people feel its not worth their time, money, and effort.

Instead of calling it a negative vibe, or disease, or anti whatever, try engaging and asking why or what GW could do in their opinion to bring them back. You'll develop a better understand of where these posts come from.

I haven't typed out pages worth of stuff about GW and 40k because I like to hate things. I do it because I would love for GW to pull its head out of its ass and make a game worth the price their asking.

Either way, I wouldn't so quick to dismiss this as a cyclical thing. The GW of 20 years ago is not the GW of now in any way. They are two dramatically different companies in two dramatically environments, and I'd heed the warning signs and voices that are popping up.

Though, to be fair, some of us have given up on GW - in my case very recently. (The continuing quagmire of the lawsuit against Chapterhouse. With their recent tactics... I will never buy a GW product again unless the current management is ousted, and quite possibly not then.)

I used to hope that GW would turn their ship around, but lately... as far as I am concerned the only negative result if they were to sink beneath the waves would be to the third party manufacturers that supplement the games. I would dislike it very much if Chapterhouse, Kromlech, or Victoria Miniatures went under because of the collapse of GW.

In any event, the next financial report is going to be interesting. I predict that there will be a slight uptick because of 7th edition, but not as large as Kirby and the Kronies would like.

But I have not bought 40K since 4th edition, and have not played any edition since 3rd ended. (Mind you, up until recently I still played 3rd....)

So, yeah... some of us have given up.

The Auld Grump

Although I am baffled on why one would like to play a game like 40k at the model size it has been bloated nowadays, purely out of tabletop size vital space available after the models and (the limited) terrain are placed on it, I can understand the visual appeal somebody may have from masses of things cluttering the table.

But I must add that this is not a decision the developers had, but it is a decision the accounting had, if somebody cares to listen to podcasts interviewing ex GW designers Rick Priestly in particular one would have known that 3rd edition (and every edition onward) is nothing but the hastily jury-rigging of his home made 15mm WW2 ruleset because the tops send a memo demanding the rules to field twice the miniatures 2nd edition had, they had to scrap their, according to him quite good skirmish system they had developed and modify on the fly the above mentioned ruleset he used for playing at home, imagine that a 15mm rules set used with 28mm miniatures.

So no no other company will ever provide sanely the experience GW tries to offer, primarily because they do not have the in house plastic production GW has and are not driven by the same need to sell that many models to justify the economics of scale for the plastic models infrastructure and secondary because the humble 6x4 table is not an area big enough to play such massive forces with 28mm (approximately) models.

As for the models debate, I cannot accept the comment about CB and GW having equal miniatures (or GW having better) especially when 2nd ED gets involved in, everything is different but on equal terms that is individual "hero models" GW looses on quality, price and execution even in their monopose plastics which are a far better quality that multi part plastics and no cluttering the model with stuff on it does not raise the models "quality" it just makes it more cluttered.

On the actual subject, I do not thing much will change for the worse if GW leaves, although I am sure somebody will try and salvage the wreck before it goes, either internally somebody who has a clue or externally somebody or a group of companies, the IP is well established and loved, but more importantly their plastics production is one of the best there is (although disappointingly under utilized) and I am sure many can see the potential in rescuing this part.

Most of the companies running today are smart companies who can manage their growth and their manufacturing does not demand to bloat their games to the levels GW has to survive indefinitely, GWs massive armies size comes primarily from their plastics production which demands due to the economy of scale massive production runs to justify the cost, something the other companies do not have and do not intent to have "size creep" is not a one way road and if a company knows what they are doing, they do not need to go that road.

Funnily enough, I think I might have got the 4th Ed rulebook for a fiver off ebay on a whim, a while back. I still have the 5th Ed book, and I know I got 6th Ed for £10 just a couple months ago.

I also have the Space Marine Codex 4th Ed - 6th Ed.

Assuming that I ever motivate myself to play 40K again, I could if I wished (and found a willing opponent) play 4th, 5th or 6th.

Not gonna bother with 7th whatsoever...Unless I can get it for a fiver of course.

Do the older Edtions compare favourabley to the current 7th Ed? I started with 5th Ed, have not yet played 6th and 4th was before my time...or rather, I was a spotty teenager playing LOTR not 40K. Now I'm a 23 year old once again playing LOTR, not 40K.

The Division Of Joy wrote:
The would all look better if they had the same paint job standard, apart from the Abaddon maybe. I'll give you that one.

I had the operation Icestorm box in my hands last night, nearly bought it as the models would proxy well for awful Enforcers in Deadzone. I bought some Malifuax stuff instead.

Not trolling at all. If you can't have a discussion without calling windup within a few minutes, I'll have to assume you are trying to start one of these 'flame wars' I keep reading about.

I notice no-one has given me a better product, at a cheaper pricepoint, for a large scale 40k style or fantasy style game

I will also post a link to a page i talked about exactly the reason why most companies do not create a 28mm large scale game http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/619633.page#7294644

In sort summery it is due too first off how the game scale does not work with the miniature scale and leads to a very poor game system and a lack of many aspects gamers want in their game ( such as mobility and some scale of realism in the game) , Also that the price cost for doing so is rather extremely high and it is better for companies to start with something that can be funded set up and then supported with reasonable investments. In the end 28mm scale wargames should never ever be set at a bigger scale than a single platoon size scale and some times that can even be pushing it.

as a guy who just buys what i like, and doesn't play any games, my collection runs across many manufacturers...
having been collecting for 30 years now, it also runs across many editions of the evolution of 28mm minis, as well...
i buy, and have bought, minis from GW, Rackham, Ral Partha, Dark-Age, Hasslefree, Freebooter, CB, Studio McVey, CMoN, Ilyad, PP, and many others...
as i've said many times, the mini that i keep coming back to above all others is the humble Space Marine...
nothing in the whole industry inspires me to paint like a Space Marine does...

the only difference among the best quality companies is aesthetic...
the quality of an Infinity sculpt is equal to a Space Marine...
they are both sculpted and cast to the highest capabilities of the mediums involved (plastic vs. metal)...
one is only better than the other if you prefer one style over another...

i love my Infinity minis, but i paint Marines because they fire up my imagination, and desire to create little parts of the fiction in miniature form, way more than any Infinity mini does...
what's more, i can sell a painted Marine for four times what my Infinity minis sell for, with the same quality of work...
95% of my commissions are Marines, too...
for me, as a painter who needs to make a living, Marines are still the big item...

i wouldn't mind if Infinity could pay the bills, but i know i would miss painting Marines...
no fiction, art, or sculpt, on the market gives me the same joy that a Marine does...
does that mean i have bad taste in minis???
i don't think so, as i buy minis from a broad range of companies, in a variety of styles...
yet, when it comes time to paint, 9 out of 10 times i'm reaching for a GW mini...

call me a white knight if you will, but in reality it is just a love for a certain aesthetic, backed up by nearly a lifetime of being inspired by the art and fiction of GW...

if GW ever failed as a company, and 40K products dried up, i would still have enough minis to last me a lifetime...
it would definitely be a boon for all the smaller companies out there, allowing their products to get more of the hobbyists' money...
i would definitely be buying more Infinity...
i'd still be painting Space Marines, though, as there are enough dream projects in my head to carry me along for many years to come...

cheers
jah

While I can appreciate that the topic is a rather heated one, maybe, everyone needs to remember to follow all of the rules of Dakka Dakka when posting anywhere on...Dakka Dakka.

Especially Rule #1.

Maybe I feel the End Times are not coming to the Hobby in general. Reading your messages maybe the End Times are coming to Large Scale 28mm Battle Games?

I still think GW is going downhill. Even if some oldies say " People been saying this for years", the wargaming market is full of alternatives like never before. Many companies are getting a slice of GW market, offering product at least equal to GW quality but most important: Giving better value to START THE GAME. Period. GW can make awesome models, may even have prices more of less compatible with the newcomers. But to start their games I need to spend hundreds of dollars, and many more to achieve average games.

Is not so drastic when some of you already been in the hobby for 2,3,10.17 years...But try to start from scratch today, like I'm trying to do, and honestly tell me that what GW offer is great.

I was leaning towards 40K. But when I enter many Foruns and everyone is talking about a bloated ruleset, and singing praise about other sytems, it's simply a no brainer to invest in other games.

Personally, this White Knight or Plaguebearers stuff about liking/disliking GW is kinda childish to me. There's only gamers and customers. Some are happy with what they're buying, some are not. Each have the right to speak their minds without risk of being conscripted at one of the two "armies".

Large-scale battle games were always an outlier, especially in the way 40k handles it. WHFB worked decently because, despite the fact it had casualty removal you moved things as blocks of units, not individual models.

The big issue with 40k is that for the type of game it wants to be (i.e. large-scale), 28mm with individual figures is not the right way to go about it.

I have been assuming that The End Times part of the title is referring only to GW - that a more accurate description of the topic might be:
The End Times of GW and Its Effect Upon Tabletop Wargaming.

But then I sometimes read academic papers, where verbose titles are present in an effort to limit misrepresentation of the materials....

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I have been assuming that The End Times part of the title is referring only to GW - that a more accurate description of the topic might be:
The End Times of GW and Its Effect Upon Tabletop Wargaming.

But then I sometimes read academic papers, where verbose titles are present in an effort to limit misrepresentation of the materials....

The Auld Grump

LOL! Same here. The history papers I usually read are "Helmet and armor construction during the late Roman Empire, fifth century." A thrilling title!

WayneTheGame wrote:
Large-scale battle games were always an outlier, especially in the way 40k handles it. WHFB worked decently because, despite the fact it had casualty removal you moved things as blocks of units, not individual models.

The big issue with 40k is that for the type of game it wants to be (i.e. large-scale), 28mm with individual figures is not the right way to go about it.

Also, WHFB worked pretty well, because at the height of a battle it's not unreasonable to have hundreds of soldiers killing each other on a section of ground the size of a soccer field. Of course WHFB purports to be the entire battle, but at least the figs-to-area ratio is is easier to justify.

The Fantasy-Battles-in-Space thing as 40k presents itself is pretty goofy. Some folks -even myself- like goofy, but goofy get's less appealing the more expensive it becomes.

I always get a bit nervous going back into forum titles that are the classic GW bash, but I like a few elements in this one!

Yes, 28mm played not as skirmish but large battles as a "non-viable" means of play.
I must admit I often feel I am playing in a closet when playing on "standard" tables.
I know these games are not to reflect reality but here is an interesting math exercise (please excuse all the mixing of metric and imperial, I am keeping it straight):

Scale = 28mm, a "foot" in this scale is about 4.17mm.
Common longer range of a weapon is 48" = 1219mm.
Simulated distance of 48" is 292 feet or 89 meters.

Now going to quote "effective ranges of various weapons in meters: (grabbed stats from here:http://www.bu.edu/nrotc/semperfi/gouge/Weapon%5B1%5D.htm)
M-16A2 Service Rifle: 550m
M9 Service Pistol: 50m
TOW Missile: 3750m
Frag Grenades (M61 & M67): Avg distance thrown: 40m, kill radius: 5m

For interests sake a musket shot (http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/how-far-is-musket-shot-farther-than-you-think/)
300 yards = 274 meters (normal not being fired upon)
240 yard = 219 meters ("inattentiveness" by combat etc.)

So 27" on the tabletop is comfortable pistol use and 22" is grenade throw distance.

Scale = 15mm, a "foot" in this scale is about 2.5mm.
Simulated distance of 48" is 488 feet or 149 meters.

6mm scale puts 48" on tabletop at around 376 meters of simulated distance.

So yeah, GW "Epic" scale 40k seems appropriate for the scale that our latest edition wants to be played.
I am also aware that with all the future tech ranges could be rendered meaningless in many ways.

As someone who is by definition "one of those dagnab kids" I'm getting annoyed with this mentality of: "Kids have no patience!" "GW is pandering to children and ruining the hobby!" "Stupid American teenagers ruining 40k!"

Are there annoying kids in the 40k community, yes and I have met them.

There are also annoying adults who are far worse than any sugar fueled brat. (I played a kid around 11 when I was younger who URINATED on the floor while I was playing against him and I have had a lot worse experiences than that.)

Does that mean all kids are attention span-less, obnoxious hell demons barging in on this "srs bizness toy soldier game?"

Does that mean all adults who play 40k are Power gaming, social skill less neck beards?

No!

I know it is tempting to label all kids/teens as being horrible but the attitudes aimed towards them tempted me to leave the hobby more than a few times and I feel (just a feeling no statistics to back up) that might have something to do with the declining player base.

Just an opinion and not trying to point any fingers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also on style matter 40k may have some glaring issues (general lack of female models, few good robed models to work with) as someone who writes fiction from time to time 40K has a ridiculous amount of untapped ideas and creative potential that I really can't find in the same excess as 40k.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
As someone who is by definition "one of those dagnab kids" I'm getting annoyed with this mentality of: "Kids have no patience!" "GW is pandering to children and ruining the hobby!" "Stupid American teenagers ruining 40k!"

Are there annoying kids in the 40k community, yes and I have met them.

There are also annoying adults who are far worse than any sugar fueled brat. (I played a kid around 11 when I was younger who URINATED on the floor while I was playing against him and I have had a lot worse experiences than that.)

Does that mean all kids are attention span-less, obnoxious hell demons barging in on this "srs bizness toy soldier game?"

Does that mean all adults who play 40k are Power gaming, social skill less neck beards?

No!

I know it is tempting to label all kids/teens as being horrible but the attitudes aimed towards them tempted me to leave the hobby more than a few times and I feel (just a feeling no statistics to back up) that might have something to do with the declining player base.

Just an opinion and not trying to point any fingers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also on style matter 40k may have some glaring issues (general lack of female models, few good robed models to work with) as someone who writes fiction from time to time 40K has a ridiculous amount of untapped ideas and creative potential that I really can't find in the same excess as 40k.

Speaking as a curmudgeonly old grognard... I started wargaming in my early teens - once upon a time I was the youngest member of my local wargaming community. (Those days are long fled.)

I used to run a Military Science class at a summer program for teens and tweens and have run Mordheim campaigns for teens and tweens.

My favorite stories from those games are the ones where I lost.

The experiences of a teen become the experiences of an adult with the addition of time.

I do not blame teens, tweens, or kids for what is going on with GW - I blame GW's perception of those kids. The folks at GW are underestimating their target audience.

The Auld Grump, who wishes that he still had the Minifig Prussians that he painted in 1975....