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.

Agreed. TTGN is a great place to find out about new stuff coming out, The minatures page is also another good resource.

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:People are complaining about the GW price increases and lack of sales to Oceania...so you started a thread to bash Privateer Press?

Did you read the OP? No? Okay, here it is again: a lot of folks are claiming they will quit GW in favor of PP but PP is not actually a viable alternative to GW for everyone.

I did read the OP. It's some terribly offended poster ing about how he doesn't like GW but wants to play GW games because he doesn't like other games.

So you don't like Privateer Press's miniatures, why start a whole thread on it? You're not asking for alternatives (you've dismissed them all already), you're not asking for a solution to GW's "war on customers." You're not asking for other people's opinions on the models, nor are you asking for a defense from PP apologists. You're just whining about how PP isn't GW.

1: Play something else.
2: Suck it up and put up with GW's gak.
3: Stop playing.

/thread.

Ouch, total ownage. Although I'm sure by this point you've been warned/banned all "fair and balanced" like.


Anyway, there are plenty of WTF sculpts (although the Circle for the most part is quite good IMO), and the IP has still failed to grab me after 8 years of playing the game (holy crap, I'm getting old), but I stick around for the rules. Not to say that they don't occasionally screw up (ironically, the most horribly balanced model in the game is called Triumph), but having a set team write and playtest all the rules appeals to me far more than GW's approach.

Manchu wrote:The list I'm getting together is for in-print games with rules and associated miniatures. So Brushfire would go on but Confrontation or AT-43 sadly would not. Neither would D&D or Star Wars minis, for that matter. Generic rulesets and miniatures lines don't make the cut, either.

Why not? I mean you with this cut are probably cutting some of the best miniatures and some of the best games... isnt alternatives what you are looking for?
Its like you only want alternatives that are a copy paste of GW biz model and thats rather castrating if you ask me.

For example theres rulesets that you can play with ANY miniature form ANY manufacturer and some manufacturers that make superb sculpts but have no game associated I dont understand why those are auto excluded from alternatives. PArt of fun of gamming is finding games and minis that can go togheter

I believe your still suffering from the GW syndrome that everything should be done inhouse but thats not the only way to look at things.
I'm going to be honest with you... You look like your still enchanted with GW as the only one, as such, why not stick with it? Seems pointless to force yourself into something your not really ready to do.

I agree with Navarro. Not all companies are big enough to make rules and miniatures. Generic systems allow you take rules you like, models you like and make a background that interests you. With the internet making it easy to get a huge range of models many companies don't bother to make models, it's not neccessary.

Here's something that fits probably none of your criteria
(well, except maybe rules are free):

http://www.wrg.me.uk/HISTORY/HOTT2.pdf

Hordes of the Things is a generic fantasy ruleset based on
DBA. All armies can have the same elements in them, but not
every army can have every element. It's up to the player (and
points restrictions) to decide what a Dwarf army can or can't
have.

I've painted up some Dwarves for it using Mantic's line, but the
system is open to you using what you want.

HoTT is a good game if your looking for competitive play as it is very balanced. Not so good if you want a narative game as everything plays the same.

NAVARRO wrote:I'm going to be honest with you... You look like your still enchanted with GW as the only one, as such, why not stick with it? Seems pointless to force yourself into something your not really ready to do.

I'm disappointed that you're replying without really following the thread closely. First, as I've stated multiple times, I'm not personally disenchanted with GW. I'm interested in new franchises for their own sake. The idea that PP's lines or any others could simply replace GW is ludicrous to me. But many people post as if that's the answer to GW's business practices. Second, the criteria I listed fit the discussion as it developed on page 1: i.e., the three parameters were rules, models, and fluff. You can't rate generic rules for models or generic minis for rules and fluff. I think we can't include OOP stuff, either, as getting into a discontinued game as a new player hoping to get your friends into it is, well, unlikely at best.

But that's the problem Manchu your trying to rate games by Gw criteria. Obviously nothing is going to equal it. However what GW does isn't the only way.

Generic games don't need to be rated by models or fluff you are free to use any you like. Since there are so many options it would be hard for them not to succeed in fluff and modeling categories.

When I play FWC I use miniatures that I like, and make a setting that I enjoy. Therefore in my game the models are of a high quality and I love the fluff. Whether this is how the game was designed is irrelevant the way it affects me is exactly the way it would if it was a game designed for those models in that setting.

4M2A wrote:But that's the problem Manchu your trying to rate games by Gw criteria. Obviously nothing is going to equal it. However what GW does isn't the only way.

Generic games don't need to be rated by models or fluff you are free to use any you like. Since there are so many options it would be hard for them not to succeed in fluff and modeling categories.

One more vote here for generic games or combining your games until you get a resuilt that you like.

As to generics, there are great sets our there that let you use whatever minis you want, many of which are free open source games. Song of Blade and heroes (not free), WarEngine(free) spring to mind, but there are many others.

One nice thing about WHFB, 40k, or even WarmaHordes is that they are so deeply developed with so many different races and units, that you can find a place to incorporate nearly any models. Mixing and matching figs and rulesets opens a new level of enjoyment for those who don't feel that one closed system meets all their needs.

The difficulty of course is finding like-minded people to play against, but if I can do it so can you!

Manchu wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:I'm going to be honest with you... You look like your still enchanted with GW as the only one, as such, why not stick with it? Seems pointless to force yourself into something your not really ready to do.

I'm disappointed that you're replying without really following the thread closely. First, as I've stated multiple times, I'm not personally disenchanted with GW. I'm interested in new franchises for their own sake. The idea that PP's lines or any others could simply replace GW is ludicrous to me. But many people post as if that's the answer to GW's business practices. Second, the criteria I listed fit the discussion as it developed on page 1: i.e., the three parameters were rules, models, and fluff. You can't rate generic rules for models or generic minis for rules and fluff. I think we can't include OOP stuff, either, as getting into a discontinued game as a new player hoping to get your friends into it is, well, unlikely at best.

How can you be interested in rating new fresh options if your only stuck with the GW Biz model? Thats why I say your criteria/taste is someway hostage of GW and that you seem not trully commited in finding new things under a new fresh prespective... Thats why I say your porbably not ready to look into this seriously.
GW was probably the first to implement the "do it all and sell all " but before them and also after them theres a interesting scope of options that you can explore that dont follow this model.

Its like you want to rate/find alternatives based on what you already like and dont want to change... and in the process discard all that doesnt follow GW model.
Theres cool games, cool minis and cool fluff, sometimes all is blended in one banner, other times these companies establish partnerships and even if they only produce one thing, lets say rules other companies partner up with that system and produce minis... its all part of the wargamming scene and IMO you cannot get to a good wider result if you auto exclude a world of options just because its not how GW did it.
See my point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

4M2A wrote:But that's the problem Manchu your trying to rate games by Gw criteria. Obviously nothing is going to equal it. However what GW does isn't the only way.

Exactly how I tried to post in my arcaic english, thanks

NAVARRO wrote:Its like you want to rate/find alternatives based on what you already like and dont want to change... and in the process discard all that doesnt follow GW model.
Theres cool games, cool minis and cool fluff, sometimes all is blended in one banner, other times these companies establish partnerships and even if they only produce one thing, lets say rules other companies partner up with that system and produce minis... its all part of the wargamming scene and IMO you cannot get to a good wider result if you auto exclude a world of options just because its not how GW did it.
See my point?

Nope, but at the same time you have not provided links to these combined systems so that we can evaluate them. There are plenty of places to go that do the all inclusive diner, and while I know there are quite a few out there I'm always open to trying a new one. For me a good example is Black Scorpion with their newly released Cutlas game, which I have bought into.

Well actualy I did mention Future war commander. Their site has many links to companies that produce suitable models, most of which they have produced rules for. The site also has fan rules (perfectly balance because they use the FWC formula) for many other ranges.

Im a fan of songs of blades and heroes (fantasy skirmish)... they have other several books (scifi, dungeons etc) and Im looking into Gruntz atm for my 15mm but I think Im going for another ganesda book for the scifi skirmish.

These "songs" books you dont have limits of minis manufacturer or even scale... yet some manufacturers develop minis just for those books... heres one... http://www.splinteredlightminis.com/druidschildren.html lots of 20mm for a song book....

I didn't see Heavy Gear on your list (Balance must be busy this weekend!) so I'll pop that one in. Its in print, has 15 years worth of fluff/development since its first edition, and has a line of nice anime inspired minis for most of the core factions. The books are also generally done with high production values that you may be used to so you wouldn't be buying something that looked like it was designed on a windows 95 pc and photocopied at Kinkos. While most people obviously feature lots of gears in their army (hey, it is the titular war machine after all!), there are rules for using tanks, infantry, giant mechwarrior type robots called striders as well as airstrikes and offboard artillery.

@NAVARRO: Yes, I understand. I just don't think it's really relevant.

Whether or not GW was the first company to tie rules, miniatures, and a line of models together or not (I mean, it's easy to remember the most successful example that's still around), the practice is not really a "GW business model." It's just a generic business model for creating a miniatures wargaming franchise. In the days before, well, now, most miniatures wargaming could be classified under the "historicals" umbrella. In these case, producing franchise-specific rules and setting made no sense. I mean, any two Panzers are still Panzers. It's just a question of which sculpt is better and which is cheaper, etc, as well as finding a scale that you want. Similarly, no one has the exclusive rights to the Napoleonic Wars.

At least for me, historicals are not interesting in the slightest. I'm interested in Fantasy and Sci-fi. This is where a meaningful division between franchise-specific and generic develops. Some people like sci-fi period: Wells, Huxley, Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, Dune, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, V, Firefly, whatever -- they'll take any of it and all of it. On the other side of the spectrum are people who like sci-fi because of specific series or franchises. Not everyone who enjoys Firefly is going to get into S:TNG. They're very, very different worlds, after all.

Now if I have a miniatures ruleset that can handle Star Trek as well as Firefly, great. Some people will love that. Thankfully, they can probably find miniatures from companies that only make miniatures to do either, as well. In fact, some of those people might want to use their generic rulesets to combine the Star Trek and Firefly worlds into one gaming universe. Fine, they can do that and maybe they even have a small group of friends that are interested in the same amalgamation. But there are a lot of people out there who don't like the idea of that kind of mishmashing. Extrapolating further back, there are many people who don't like the idea of genericized rules because the outcome always tends to feel like mishmash.

Next, let's consider an important aspect of wargaming -- actually, it's the reason we're all here. In other words, shared experiences. On sites like DakkaDakka we have people from all over the world who have been inspired somehow by the rules, models, and/or fluff of (predominately) Warhammer 40k. This franchise has attarcted tens of thousands of people, many thousands of whom are nearly daily participants in the discussion here.

Conversely, I doubt my Star Trek/Firefly crossover miniatures game forum would get much traffic. Oh, there are a few of you out there who would eat it up, I'm sure. (If the internet proves anything it's that there are at least two people who are into anything.) And the seven of us would be pleased as punch. That's fine and it's not a bad thing that generic rules and generic(ish) miniatures exist out there so that these small communities can form and, maybe in some cases, even thrive.

But let me reiterate that I'm not just talking about strange combinations of pre-existing franchises into a minatures wargame. The overarching point is that a system that is generic enough to handle franchises that are completely different will certainly please fans of generic sci-fi. It will not please people who are interested in something more original or distinctive. In the world of RPGs, this is why I can't get into Savage Worlds, even though I think the rules themselves are quite good.

4M2A wrote:HoTT is a good game if your looking for competitive play as it is very balanced. Not so good if you want a narative game as everything plays the same.

It's narrative if you make it narrative.

Of course that requires a bit of imagination and effort.

Updated List (with links for the "sheltered gamers")

- PP
- Infinity
- Malifaux
- MERCS
- Rezolution
- Battletech
- Heavy Gear
- Urban War/Metropolis
- Cutlass!
- Hisroricals (including FoW)
- Secrets of the Third Reich
- Incursion
- DUST Tactics
- Firestorm Armada, Uncharted Seas, Dystopian Wars
- Leviathans

Cool job Manchu, at least it's starting to come together. Is it worth changing the title (again!) and cement the list for the uninitiated in the first post so that it is easy to find, also with a cleanup the results could be stickied as a resource to point to?

Done and done.

Although I still think people should be allowed to give their honest opinions of non-GW games in this thread without it being off-topic or (as long as they're not breaking Rule Number One) being shouted down by fans of those games.

AE Bounty
http://darksondesigns.com/?page_id=135

AE WW2
http://darksondesigns.com/?page_id=54

Anima tactics
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite.asp?eidm=16

Wargods of Aegyptus
http://www.crocodilegames.com/
(Nice alternative to WHFB- similar feel but a good game in it's own right)

Freebooter's fate
http://www.freebooterminiatures.de/en/catalog/freebooters-fate

Pulp City
http://www.pulp-city.com/

Brushfire
http://www.on-the-lamb.com/?q=node/52

CAV
http://www.reapermini.com/

Nuclear Renaissance
http://www.ramshacklegames.co.uk/nuclear/index.html

Just off the top of my head

Can you be more specific about "CAV"?

I've added the others.

Keep 'em coming people.

Yeah sorry couldn't find the right page on reaper's site.

This on has a brief description
http://www.reapermini.com/Games/CAV

This one has models
http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/CAV:%20Strike%20Operations

Manchu a good example of how some models do escape the traditional formula as you mentioned is Historicals... but funny that even there the FOW copy paste GW formula also had a good sucess hey? Could you say its a accurate list if only FOW should be on this list discarding all other options?
But never mind mate I was just trying to hint that theres more to wargammes than the GW formula.
AS such:

How about

Alkemy and Helldorado? Both had some bumps down the road but they are getting there again.

You should add Kings of War to the first post as an alternative to warhammer. I will probably be switching to Mantic's sci fi setting as long as I get to use my already bought GW IG.

Laughing Man wrote:They made a Ringo miniatures game?

David Drake, actually. It's even been vetted and approved by the author.

Ringo did the Posleen wars/ Legacy of the Aldenata series. It's one of my gaming goals to someday play either the Battle of Rochester or the Battle of Rabun gap in 6mm with Future War Commander or something. I just need to get about $300 worth of 6mm Posleen and scratch build a SheVa.

Personally I only got into Wargaming because of a love for GW's fluff, which I had been reading about/playing on DoW for about two years before I even touched a model.

Thus my loyalty is pretty much absolute

Okay, I've added CAV, Helldorado, and Alkemy.

Does anyone know the name of that undersea-themed game?

-Sphere Wars http://www.spherewars.com/ you need to know spanish for this one, but lots of minis, rulebook and universe.

-Zenit miniatures http://zenitminiatures.com/blog/




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I seen you updated zenit as spanish only but mind that zenit has rules in english.

Another one:

-Warcanto http://www.dwarftales.com/articles/10

I would say PP usually comes up in these discussions is because they are GW's biggest competitor (in that it wouldn't be difficult to find an opponent, a lot of the other games mentioned are quite niche in an already niche hobby), and in my opinion at least, they have the far better business model.