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.

I'm not going to start a new game. I don't care how tight the rules are, or how immersive the background, all I care about is being able to find players. The only use to me of most minis is the potential for conversions.

The WoW comparison is the PERFECT model for this and let me explain why.

WoW is pretty much the apple of the MMO world, you better have some serious clout and fantastic graphics, stories and characters if you're even THINKING about stepping up to the plate.

GW is the same in that respect. They've refined their products again and again. They've gone through how many incarnations of both 40K and WHFB to update and constantly give new players a fresh way in.

1st edition 40k = Vanilla WoW

Not only that but IIRC both companies have dabbled in the other's pool. WoW put out some miniatures.. didn't go far.

GW put out an MMO. didn't go far.

Both were supposed to be the KILLER of the other but the bottom line is that both of them have created enough of a presence and enough of a understanding of their product that the familiarity is appealing to the masses.

I've known people that have gone halfway across the world, to one of the countries with the best food on the planet, arguably, and they walk into the nearest McDonald's..

Having the best product sometimes is not as important as having the most WELL KNOWN product.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Delephont wrote:Fair point. I guess I should have posed my statement better. It wasn't that I was not aware of the amount of sub forums dedicated to GW products, it was more that I always considered that Dakka was simply giving people what they want. However, providing people with a canvas to discuss their interest is a bit different from stating that this is the primary function of the website. I guess you live and learn.

Stating that a site where people mostly talk about X is a site mainly about X does not require pulitzer prize winning reporting, it's just pointing out a basic fact that someone can determine with a casual perusal of the site. Taking a simple statement of fact about what mostly is discussed on a site and trying to turn it into "affiliation" or trying to say that somehow the site is not giving people what they want (or whatever your complaint above is) doesn't really make a lot of sense.

However, even though your point may be valid, its still sad that, at least from the average Dakkites point of view, this galaxy is clearly not big enough for anything other than The Grim Dark!

No, it's sad that you're so narrow-minded and desperate to feel superior to those terrible GW players that have to post drek like this. You're not some sort of cool super-genius just for not liking the popular thing.

Dude, seriously, you need to take your head out of your backside. Considering you feel this thread is "Drek" you're enjoying an active role in it. The comments you make smack of an inferiority complex rather than a counter point for my comments. How the hell can I be narrow minded, when my view encompasses GW et al, wouldn't you agree that a correct definition for narrow mindedness in this context, would be admiring one company to the exclusion of all others?

I'm saying GW has a place in the grand scheme of wargaming, and theres no denying their size! However, that doesn't necessarily make them THE wargaming hobby, they're just one option in a bucket load of options.

And seeing as you wish to drone on about Dakka's affiliation or not to GW, again, try reading my post again. Providing a place where people can discuss a subject, and announcing that the place is primarily set up to discuss a subject are two distinct and different things.

dude.....relax.

Delephont wrote:How the hell can I be narrow minded

Well, not meaning to be rude or anything, as that would be mean, you seem to be ignoring pretty much what everyone else is saying regards not agreeing with your view point - or rather, people seeing your viewpoint and recognising certain aspects of it as truthful and attempting to then show you how they, and as far as I am aware, many people, think regards the subject.

Your views are vailid - sure. However I, and many others, disagree with some of what you say. Even when back up with simple facts (such as the number of forums dedicated to GW products and games on this forum, as well as the number of topics and posts they contain compared to the "other" game systems) they are casually brushed aside in your need to be "right".

I'm saying GW has a place in the grand scheme of wargaming, and theres no denying their size! However, that doesn't necessarily make them THE wargaming hobby, they're just one option in a bucket load of options.

Of course. However, you seem to ignore that because of their scale and spread, they are often the first point of entry into the wargaming world, and are thus going to be the baseline product that everyone knows, so everyone can compare against. Added to which is the GW message being beamed through pretty much every point of contact that "GW is wargaming and there is nothing else". This is easy to believe if you play in a GW store with their aggressive sales, GW PVA, GW knife, GW toilet paper, etc.

And seeing as you wish to drone on about Dakka's affiliation or not to GW, again, try reading my post again. Providing a place where people can discuss a subject, and announcing that the place is primarily set up to discuss a subject are two distinct and different things.

Dakka is mainly a place to discuss GW games though, since it is geared towards mainly GW products. Just look at the number and type of sub forums there are - the majority are for discussing GW related games and products, and they are the most heavily trafficed areas of the site (for games related discussion). No one has said, as far as I am aware, that this is essentially a GW forum, designed to talk about GW stuff - it is a forum dedicated to wargaming, where GW have a large chunk of the market, and so have a large chunk of the forums and traffic.

@The OP:

While I can understand the complaint to some degree or another, I think I may be able help you see the light here. DakkaDakka, as you can readily notice, is a site dedicated to hobby gaming, and the dominant brand of that gaming just happens to be GW. This is a simple enough point to put together just by a quick skim of the main forum and/or the front page of the site. As a result of this de facto, though unofficial, affilliation, you will find that many of the players here will compare a piece to what they already know. In many cases, just to keep from being intentionally obscure, they will tend to fall back on GW, because people readily know what they're talking about.

As far as judging a model on it's own merits, I'd think that versitility in use IS, in many cases, a merit in it's own right, as the viewer may or may not be considering it for thier own hobby purposes, which includes playing a game, and not just filling a shelf with models, or randomly collecting figures and kits from games they don't actually play, as that is money likely put to better use, for the party in question, at least, to further the pursuit of their already pricey hobby. I've seen some models that look like the coolest gak ever, but since I really don't have the time/inclination/desire to own what will become a nifty nik-nak on my bookshelf, I don't really feel any need to purchase it, and if I feel that I want to share this fact with the community at large, that is my own choice to make, provided I do it in an intelligent and polite manner.

If I'm going to put my money into "Art", I'll put it into an investment piece, like a Tuan bronze piece, or perhaps a Salvador Dali etching or tapestry, something likely to appreciate in value significantly on the market, and doesn't require Ebay to find a buyer. Most of the community is here to play a game, and are within their rights, as well as entirely right, by your own argument, to comment on the utility of a model, even if it isn't primarily for their game of choice, as the utility of a model, even as a paperweight or something to hold your shelf down, is a big part of the decision-making process for a lot of hobbyists.

So before you go off about the fact that people judge models based on what they can use it for, you really do have to take a look at why they might be taking that approach. If someone were to try and sell you a paper towel dispenser for a paper towel roll two inches shorter than standard, even if it was of superior craftsmanship and design, you'd still probably call it gak and not buy it, amiright?

Slighty off topic:

H.B.M.C. wrote:do you deride your toaster because it can't vacuum your house?

Yes I do, and on a daily basis. Lazy good-for-nothing piece of junk only sits there and singes my bread products, how dare it not wash my car?!

Back on topic:

There are definitely different kinds of people in the minis hobby. Among them are the wargamers who mostly buy the models they are specifically using in a game and collectors who buy rare pieces or beautiful sculpts that they will enjoy painting and showing off that often are not used in a gaming system. Of course there are varying degrees of people lying in between, but just looking at those two ends for now. When a mini shows up in the News forum it's definitely bombarded with people looking at them from a gamer perspective. While there are plenty of remarks such as "Wow, beautiful mini!", the comments and interest often do not generate sales because the wargamer doesn't have much use for them.

While many miniatures often do point back to GW or are left unpurchased because 40k/Fantasy players have no intention of having a pretty knick-knack in the house, other minis companies appear to be doing pretty well and are specifically catered to being non-GW compatible. Soda Pop Miniatures comes to mind most immediately with their over-the-top anime-styled minis that are nearly all fantastic sculpts and appear to do pretty well on the collector side of things. Heck, their Super Dungeon Explorer minis sold out at Games Day and I can't see anyone using those in a GW system ever.

I do wonder if the OP is basing his litmus test of non-GW interest on the forums here or in similar forum sites like Warseer and such. I would think that other forums with a more collector-based community such as CMON would show much more interest in non-GW sculpts and not base their opinions on whether or not it fits into a particular gaming system.

JOHIRA wrote:When I go to a nice restaurant, my first thought is rarely, "Well, this would never work at McDonald's!"

That's exactly what I thought on my first trips to Lotteria and Mossburger....


On topic: I agree with most of the other posters in that it's natural to compare something new and unknown with something familiar; that's why meat you've never tried before tastes like chicken, the human brain looks for a familiar point of reference.

Delephont wrote:Dude, seriously, you need to take your head out of your backside.

The guy who was suprised when a mod said that Dakka is a site mostly about GW games is the one who needs to take his head out of his backside. You really, really shouldn't be making comments about other people's head's and backsides if you fail to make truly basic observations like that, though I find the irony amusing.

The comments you make smack of an inferiority complex rather than a counter point for my comments.

You should really save this irony for the war effort - I'm not the one who started a thread to belittle and insult people for playing a particular game as a hobby and for commenting on miniatures in relation to how they would use them for that hobby. I'm not the one who responds to someone disagreeing with my position with a lecture on how inferior and limited they are.

How the hell can I be narrow minded, when my view encompasses GW et al, wouldn't you agree that a correct definition for narrow mindedness in this context, would be admiring one company to the exclusion of all others?

You demonstrate your narrow-mindedness through your unwillingness to even seriously consider other people's arguments, through your unwillingness to accept other people's choice of how to spend their hobby time as legitimate, and through your refusal to accept the legitimacy of people discussing miniatures in the context of 'would I use this'. If someone offers a different opinion, you don't accept it as someone else's position, you instead belittle them.

Comments like the following come from a narrow-minded individual, if you were not narrow-minded you'd be able to accept that other people have different opinions and would not feel a need to find something 'wrong' with every differing opinion. "Dude, seriously, you need to take your head out of your backside." " I know theres no way I can convince you that there is life beyond the realm of WH40K, you're so entrenched in their "way of marketing" that I doubt you would even recognise a better game if it came along...for you, this (GW) is it." "at least from the average Dakkites point of view, this galaxy is clearly not big enough for anything other than The Grim Dark! "

And seeing as you wish to drone on about Dakka's affiliation or not to GW, again, try reading my post again.

Actually, you were the one who talked about affiliation, I've only used the word to point out that no one said Dakka was affiliated with GW.

Alright, chaps.

Regardless of whom we may think needs to perform an intra-rectal cranial inversion, one of the rules of the site is that we don't tell them.

Another off-topic note:

Can it be made an official forum ruling that all modquisition friendly reminders come coupled with pictures? I do so enjoy them over the standard text-based friendly and less-friendly reminders.

Just throwing in my two pence - I guess it'll go down the same as all the previous posts, but here goes.

OP, I got into wargaming though 40k. Since then I've learned of other games systems - I'm building a FOW force, I've looked into Infinity and wasn't at all interested my Warmachine. I readily acknowledge the existence of better rulesets, more balanced gameplay, better models and more affordable content.

The downside to this of course is I know nobody who plays any other game. I play a bit of M:TG on the side, and that's cool - convincing my buddy to buy a £5 pack of cards to have a game is one thing, but convincing him to ditch his plastic space soldiers and start investing in tiny resin tanks, or single-pose metal gribblies to play another game is something else.

I know of precious few gaming clubs near me. One club about 30 miles away plays FoW, and a couple closer to home are 40k/WHFB-oriented. If I want to get a game with a larger crowd, it has to me market favaourite. Regardless of whether I like it or not (on record - I love 40k), the fact remains.

It's not my fault for being stupid, blinkered, ignorant or anything else. It's the fact of the situation and to be honest I don't really mind so much.

If you don't like Warhammer, no-one's forcing you to play it. Go get yourself a Starship Troopers army if you like. Just don't expect to get many games in.

But, people playing games, isn't whats being judged is it? Neither is your desire or need to actually buy it!

When someone posts news of a new miniature line or individual mini, the comments I see, are more akin to:

"well, thats crap because it would never fit into my Imperial Guard army"

Yes, you might not buy the miniature or the miniature line because of your tie in to GW products, but does that then make the miniature crap?

Some guys have stated here that they like certain miniatures, but wouldn't buy it because they couldn't use it for a number of reasons....this is fine, theres absolutely nothing wrong with that sentiment, and this thread wasn't aimed at those people or those types of critique. This thread was aimed at those who can't see beyond their current choice of hobby provider, and write things off as rubbish because it didn't have their chosen hobby provider in mind during its design.

That was all.....to be fair, if you go onto forums like Infinity, you'll find the guys on there talking about all different types of miniature companies, including GW! The forum owners Corvus Belli, don't throw a hissy fit and ban people, in fact, you even find the Corvus Belli employees involved in the discussions....and no, they arn't running down other companies products, they judge it on its own merits, even going so far as to discuss how well that miniature suits its intended game...even WH40K!

If a company website can manage such civilised product discussion, surely an NON affiliated website can do the same thing?

To be perfectly honest with you, I look at a lot of the news and rumors topics showing off new models and kits from various companies and see very little of this low brow "this will not fit in with X army therefore it is crap" attitude. The vast majority of posters will comment on it in a mature way.

I've never seen anyone banned on Dakka for saying they do or do not like a model, just because it is not produced by GW, or will not fit in with the GW range. Hell, lots of the new stuff put out by GW is panned for looking rubbish, or "not as good as other companies", etc.

In my view, this non-affiliated website does just fine. A larger user base (and I am given to understand that Dakka is one of if not the largest wargaming forum on the internet) will obviously attract a larger number of trolls and knuckle draggers, so a larger number of poorly thought out critiques is only to be expected. However, as I mentioned, the majority of people posting regards new models do so positively, whether they are GW or not.

Delephont wrote:If a company website can manage such civilised product discussion, surely an NON affiliated website can do the same thing?

You're going to have to provide actual examples of that happening, because all I'm just not seeing it.

Gw is standard cuz they make great stuff. Sure some other companies have OK other models but that's bout it. You'll find 1 or two keepers and rly only reason people come back is to get things like bases and heads for conversions on GW stuff. Smaller companies/games aren't fun because there not as wide spread. If I buy Infinity which does have cool models or flames of war cuz I do love WW2 if I move to say Arizona there might not be a gaming store with 3 hours or more then what's the point of having that game?

Delephont wrote:

If a company website can manage such civilised product discussion, surely an NON affiliated website can do the same thing?

You forgot this is the interwebz111

Politeness here is a cyber-myth...

SilverMK2 wrote:

I've never seen anyone banned on Dakka for saying they do or do not like a model, just because it is not produced by GW, or will not fit in with the GW range. Hell, lots of the new stuff put out by GW is panned for looking rubbish, or "not as good as other companies", etc.

I never said that Dakka had banned someone for not liking a miniature! I said that Corvus Belli (as an example) doesn't throw a hissy fit and ban people for discussing other companies miniatures on their website. Big difference....

That said, can you imagine a GW forum allowing the discussion of non citadel miniatures?.....wel, I won't go there.....

Bookwrack wrote:You're going to have to provide actual examples of that happening, because all I'm just not seeing it.

What do you want examples of? people running down a product for not being usful for GW games, or Corvus Belli allowing the discussion of other companies products?

If its the latter, then simply go to www.infinitythegame.com and have a read. If you want "proof" of the former comment, then take a look around the dakka news web forum.......

Delephont wrote:I never said that Dakka had banned someone for not liking a miniature!

I know, I was saying that I'd never seen anyone banned on Dakka for something like that.

I said that Corvus Belli (as an example) doesn't throw a hissy fit and ban people for discussing other companies miniatures on their website. Big difference....

Quite true, though how exactly that relates to your OP is not all that clear to me I'm afraid.

That said, can you imagine a GW forum allowing the discussion of non citadel miniatures?.....wel, I won't go there.....

I'm pretty sure there used to be GW forums (I may be wrong on this one as I was not really active on the internet back in the day - certainly not for wargaming) - don't know what the rules were regards non GW chatter. However, I can't really see modern day GW allowing all that much discussion about non-GW stuff. However, again, I am not entirely sure how this relates to your OP.

If its the latter, then simply go to www.infinitythegame.com and have a read. If you want "proof" of the former comment, then take a look around the dakka news web forum.......

I'm sorry, but you can't expect people to trawl through hundreds or even thousands of threads to find "proof" to back up your point. Besides, anything you find will be subjective. Just how critical of a model for not fitting in with the GW range/game is enough to skew a post into being some kind of raging "anti-anything-that-is-not-GW" post? How many of these such posts do you need in a thread before you are left with a feeling of bitterness and disgust?

As I said before, Dakka is a very large wargaming forum, which means that there will be a correspondingly higher number of members who a) Know nothing but GW games/models, and/or b) are a bit dim when it comes to posting critique of a model/range/etc. You have to expect a certain amount of dross posts anywhere you look. Some forums will be better than others (and smaller forums like the infinity forums will tend to have a higher proportion of veteran gamers who have moved on through the gateway games such as 40K/WHFB and so will be correspondingly more mature).

SilverMK2 wrote:

That said, can you imagine a GW forum allowing the discussion of non citadel miniatures?.....wel, I won't go there.....

I'm pretty sure there used to be GW forums (I may be wrong on this one as I was not really active on the internet back in the day - certainly not for wargaming) - don't know what the rules were regards non GW chatter. However, I can't really see modern day GW allowing all that much discussion about non-GW stuff. However, again, I am not entirely sure how this relates to your OP.

Well it wasn't allowed and made clear by their own forum rules, even suggesting things outside the gaming like non-GW paints could cause a post to be removed or a warning. They also didn't like discussion of certain figure lines especially Squats, mention squats in any more than passing and it wasn't taken well. They also didn't like criticism of their products, White Dwarf got so much flak for being the rag it is that they closed the WD discussion section some time before the rest of the forum.

Their forums were pants though, you couldn't even post pictures and links to other websites, like a link to a picture of your models, was also against the rules IIRC.

All in all, a depressing place IMO.

To the Op;

I didn't get the chance to read through the multiple walls of text because I am at work, but to your orriginal concern-

Its funny that your analogy provides the answer to your question. All roads lead to rome because rome built them. GW built this market and is still in the golden age of its lifespan. Other properties are out there, and doing well on their own, but most of us are Roman citizens, by birth or conquered . . .

When more roads are built and rome falls, you may get what you're looking for. But for now . . . All Hail Ceasar!

My only real complaint with any of this discussion is the repeated assumption that having a bunch of GW product means that you're "invested" in their games and can't really play anything else. I can see the point of view that "I've spent X hundred/thousand dollars on these models, I'm not able to spend Y hundred more just to start ANOTHER game", but I think that it's kind of missing a vital point, as is the argument of "I can't find players for anything but GW".

A model is simply a symbol, nothing more. There is absolutely no reason why someone that owns a Space Marine army can't pick up, say, Warmachine and play that with their GW models. Even if the models are completely out of whack with the aesthetic, as long as you can distinctively represent one model with another, there's nothing stopping two consenting adults from agreeing to try out other games without spending anything more than the cost of a rulebook. The only time the "official models only!" rules should really come into play are the strictest of tournaments, and that's really a small subset of the population (though a rather vocal one).

Wargaming is, at heart, a creative hobby. You're painting, converting, creating some small bit of fiction within a larger world. Making a square model fit into a round ruleset should be child's play for people around here: don't be afraid to try other games just because you don't have the models. Use what you have and you can have plenty of fun trying out different and/or better rules.

Wargaming is also very much a social hobby: you have to play against at least one other person, and the frequency of game nights at stores means that you're often playing with a bunch of other people hanging around. The argument that "I can't find players" holds little water in the face of this. If you try out a new game (given the above example) and enjoy it, then it is up to you to introduce other players to that game! Go to your shop's game night*, and see who's interested in trying out that game. Create sample army lists that use their regular army, and show them the ropes of the game. Explain how it's a better game, or how it would be nice to not play the same bloody thing all the time, and how they DON'T need to spend all that extra money, that they can play this game without "cheating" on their main game.

Do just a little legwork, and you can easily find players for a game that you find superior (or just a change of pace).

As a Role Playing Game Master with a weird school/work schedule, it's pulling teeth sometimes to find players for my games. I've had to do some evangelizing here and there to bring gamers that maybe hadn't given RPG'ing a go (in my case, my sister and her husband who were big WOW players), but it paid off as I got two fresh players that have been fairly enthusiastic. The same general rule of thumb can be applied to wargaming: if you're willing, you can make anything work.


*: does not apply if your only local shop is a GW store, in which case you have my condolences.

Lucid wrote:To the Op;

I didn't get the chance to read through the multiple walls of text because I am at work, but to your orriginal concern-

Its funny that your analogy provides the answer to your question. All roads lead to rome because rome built them. GW built this market and is still in the golden age of its lifespan. Other properties are out there, and doing well on their own, but most of us are Roman citizens, by birth or conquered . . .

When more roads are built and rome falls, you may get what you're looking for. But for now . . . All Hail Ceasar!

Interesting opinion. GW built all the roads, is a statement loaded with potential for argument......what you seem to be saying here, is that GW is responsible for tabletop wargaming.....I'm sure there'd be alot of WWII and Napolionic tabletop wargamers that would argue that isn't the truth! I'm not even sure GW were the first to adapt tabletop wargaming to a "Sci Fi" setting, I certainly wouldn't stake my life on it.

However, even IF GW created the whole shebang, and was the first company in the history of man to pit one side of small miniature pieces against another (ignoring chess of course), that has nothing to do with my original point:

Are "we" really incapable of looking at a miniature, discussing the quality of the sculpt, the scale, the form, the detail, etc without thinking of it in terms of the great GW?!?!?

That was all! No talk of whether you can get a game in at your local gaming shop, whether you intend to buy it with last months lottery win, whether the moon is made of cheese or any of the other myriad variations of displacement that have pounded the life out of this thread....just that simple question stated above..

Lucid wrote:To the Op;

I didn't get the chance to read through the multiple walls of text because I am at work, but to your orriginal concern-

Its funny that your analogy provides the answer to your question. All roads lead to rome because rome built them. GW built this market and is still in the golden age of its lifespan. Other properties are out there, and doing well on their own, but most of us are Roman citizens, by birth or conquered . . .

When more roads are built and rome falls, you may get what you're looking for. But for now . . . All Hail Ceasar!

Nice analogy.

As a long time historical wargamer who got started before GW was even a twinkle in Ian Livingstone's and Steve Jackson's eye, I would like to point out that all roads lead to Rome only in the Roman Empire.

In the rest of the world they lead to all sorts of interesting other places. The majority of Roman citizens, however, never leave their home town, and are unaware of the larger vistas beyond the frontier.

On the topic of people talking about minis fitting into a GW game...maybe they always scrutinize them for compatibility because the GW game is all they play, and all they want to play. Some people only play 1 game, and may not have the time, money, etc to collect and play multiple systems and minis.


Another thing I think makes GW a leader is they have a hugely deep and consuming background and fluff. Sure, it may be the minis that first gets someones attention, but the more they read about them the deeper they sink into the game world...especially 40k.

As far as I go...I rarely look for cross game compatibility unless it jumps out at me. If you really get down to it there are few models that fit perfectly into another companies game right out of the box. Some may be close, but you can tell they arent quite right. I find minis and bits are best used for conversions instead of direct stand ins.

Delephont wrote:Are "we" really incapable of looking at a miniature, discussing the quality of the sculpt, the scale, the form, the detail, etc without thinking of it in terms of the great GW?!?!?

While I'm a sample size of one, I know I've looked at GW's minis and thought they'd be good to use elsewhere, sort of turning the tables. Of course, I'm also primarily an RPG'er these days, and have played all of three games of 40k in the last two editions. For my own use I've probably bought more minis from Reaper than GW in the last year (to say nothing of the 8 Privateer minis I've bought for myself).

I'm also a bit of an outlier: I design games as a hobby, so I've usually got other ideas about what I'm going to be playing running in my head (so I see a new mini and it's "how can I write rules to use this mini", and I've been anti-"Official Minis" rules for as long as I've played wargames (my second 40k army that never really got off the ground was about half VOR miniatures).

As a community, though, you do need to look at context. Dakka Dakka STARTED as a 40k-centered site (hence the name). It may not be an officially GW-affiliated site, but when it first started it was supporting a retailer that primarily carried GW products and ran copious events for 40k and WHFB. Needless to say, the site is going to be a little bit GW-first.

However it is FAR better than many other websites on the internet about opening up to new ideas, and over the years has at least become one of the more open-minded sites on the web. They don't deride people for talking about other games (like I've seen elsewhere), and there is a general proclivity of the users here to at least consider looking at other titles and minis. There are places out there where you'd be slammed for even mentioning the existence of other miniature companies, much less trying to foster an open discussion about them.

On the other hand, as you can see, they don't like it when people shove pointy sticks at them trying to say they're something they're not.

Delephont wrote:
Are "we" really incapable of looking at a miniature, discussing the quality of the sculpt, the scale, the form, the detail, etc without thinking of it in terms of the great GW?!?!?

GW makes a for a great benchmark when discussing products though. Malifaux or Confrontation or Ex Illis or Warmachine or Infinity all have limited availability. They have limited markets because they are younger companies still looking to expand. GW has the strongest international presence of any mini company.

With that in mind, anyone on this board can relate to their products. Whether they love 'em or hate 'em, they understand what GW offers.

So, when describing new products, it makes perfect sense to compare to a universally understood benchmark.

- I find Malifaux minis to be more "cartoonish" than Infinity.
- HellDorado is less dynamic than Confrontation, but has a more historical aesthetic.
- Ex Illis is slightly cheaper than AT43.
- AEWWII's casting is inferior to GW's

I can guarantee that the last point is the most valuable to the people of this site, because more people have direct experience with GW. Comparing an item to something you're not familiar with is pointless.

Sure, you can describe a product without a comparison, but it's hard to quantify some values when you're talking about gaming and miniatures to an audience of people from around the world, some of whom know English as a second or third language.

So there is a practical reason for comparing new products to GW's, not just weak-willed kowtowing to an Evil Empire.

@Mastiff

That model of thinking works if you're trying to describe something using words, but I've seen various really good reviews where the reviewer has used pictures to highlight their grips and positive impressions.

When I first saw the miniatures for MERCs minis, I looked at the photos and decided that they weren't for me, based on the sculpting, the proportions, and ultimately what MERCS were planning with their upcoming game! I can honestly say, how they fit alongside my current Inifinty Yu Jing army didn't come into the equation, I can honestly say, I didn't once consider if they could be part of an Imperial Guard army or how well they looked when compared to Imperial Guard miniatures.

I can see how some people might consider MERCS in this way (comparing to GW products) but then I would argue, why bother looking at MERCS in the first place, surely the best place for you to go would be www.gamesworkshop.com.

People who are looking aorund for conversion worthy material, are suggesting to me that their not happy with what GW is currently offering.

If they were, why bother looking at company X for something to convert into a GW type miniature or to add to a GW type miniature to improve it?

Because you never know where inspiration may come from.

Delephont wrote:@Mastiff
That model of thinking works if you're trying to describe something using words, but I've seen various really good reviews where the reviewer has used pictures to highlight their grips and positive impressions.

That's great, but we're talking about a forum here, not a review site. Words are an unavoidable hazard, since not everyone has pictures handy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are two issues here:

1) People referencing GW when describing a competitor's product.

I've explained this in my previous post, that people may use GW as a univeral frame of reference for comparison purposes. I think this issue is a bit different than your original point, but it's the reason why the words "GW" often end up in a review, or a response to a review.

2) People talking about miniatures in terms of their suitability for GW

What worries me though, is that when-ever these companies come out into the harsh light of day, and show their wares on here, all that seems to happen is that people straight away discuss how the miniatures could be used for WH40K etc, even going as far as running the miniatures down if they DON'T readily fit into GW games!!!

As has been explained several times, the majority of people on this board found Dakka because of a connection to GW. Either it's the first game they heard of, or participated in, or they've actively searched for a good place to discuss 40k and Fantasy. Other games do pop up in discussions, but there's a reason why Fantasy and 40k need a dozen forums each, while other games only require a single forum. I've been active on Dakka for nine years, and it's because of GW games. I enjoy other games, and go to other forums specifically for those games. I come here for GW.

Warmachine has a forum on this site. It has 1,580 posts. That's the third most popular game by my calculations. By comparison, the 40k forums (combined) have 80,000 posts. Fantasy, about 10,000+. You can pretend Dakka's audience is not focussed on GW games, but you'd be deliberately ignorant to do so.

Now, it seems like 3) you're simply complaining people think differently than you do.

When I first saw the miniatures for MERCs minis, I looked at the photos and decided that they weren't for me, based on the sculpting, the proportions, and ultimately what MERCS were planning with their upcoming game! I can honestly say, how they fit alongside my current Inifinty Yu Jing army didn't come into the equation, I can honestly say, I didn't once consider if they could be part of an Imperial Guard army or how well they looked when compared to Imperial Guard miniatures.

Awesome, That's how your mind works. Kudos to you.

But you're coming to a Warhammer site, and complaining that people respond to other products by thinking how they would fit into... a Warhammer enviroment?

That's just daft.