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 would hope that is the case, we must be grateful for that at least.

wildger wrote:I would go with FOW. Don't forget. GW constantly upgrade their figures and comes up with new edition. Even if you painted up the latest army, it will eventually become obsolete. If you are competitive, you have to purchase and learn from many army books and buy new editions. You don't have such a hugh issue with FOW. Smart peopel don't play 40K.

Obviously you were not around in FoW during the shift from 1st to 2nd edition...hahahahahahaha...

Skriker

It would seem sir, that you should have your answer by now! However allow me to add my two cents as some one that has rabidly collected 40k and FoW, and played both.

FoW is the way to go. Especially if you are looking for a long term hobby. Its alot easier to get models for FoW, as many have pointed it. You are not restricted to simply getting GW models. Rule Set wise, FoW has a better flowing game. It feels more real and compelling then 40k. (not saying FoW is the best WWII set out there.)

The players for FoW are also, a cut above the average 40k player. I have stopped playing 40k outside of my house simply because Im tired of dealing with the 14 - mid twenty something with daddy's Credit Card and who just play whatever gak GW decides it wants to sell that month. Balance is awful in that game, and has ruined the player base. (IMHO). Ontop of that, you could invest your heart and soul into an army only to have GW come along with a "rule revision/new codex" and half the models you have painstakingly detailed, crafted, and modified are now COMPLETELY USELESS!.

At the end of the day, a Panther is still a Panther, a Sherman still comes in Bulk numbers, and Soviets are like swarming ants. You cant change those!

Do yourself a favor and go with FoW.

(For the record, I love both games.)

Game to game, Im sure you will get a greater sense of satisfaction. Mission setup in FoW is superior to 40k's generic 3 random combo setup. Infact, my friend and I have taken to using FoW missions for our 40k games where we can "jerry-rig" it. On top of all that, no matter the force you play, you are going to feel like you are commanding a real army in FoW! 40k is now, really nothing more then a lesson in probabily & statistics. And granted, while really all miniature games are that to a degree, when a game revolves around chance percentages and nothing more, something has been irrevocably lost!

Great answer Comintern! I was concidering about collecting Flames of War due to the fact that I am fed up with GW screwing me around.

ref Codexes

GW is a victim of its own success

It makes the models and the rules. You the player have to buy into both to get the benefits.

which are GW makes the models and the rules , and has near a monopoly / lock-down on this

This is like plug and play software, a handy package. But what you designed 25 years ago may not be the best. 25 years of hindsight means players and the company are aware of all the flaws.

= pressure to change the codex

= inevitable winners and losers

with ww2 miniatures it is the nature of the environment to have a more free for all / open source approach. The +side is that it its infinitely adaptable. Levels of ww2 realism can vary. The - side is that the players are fragmented more and may have to pick up ww2 several rules sets as fashions change.

Do you go for APPLE ( Gamesworkshop ) Or IBM and M$ windows ( generic war gaming ) and then you have Linux Wargamers , they make their own custom rules , use anything that's out there





There are a lot of similarities between computer systems and war gaming systems. The 3 options "ways" tend to have a consistent spread. Many industry/ market sectors are divided like this.

IBM compatible /M$ 85% share ( generic war-gaming )
Apple 10% share ( games workshop and similar )
Linux 5% ( DIY & share )

while it may appear that GW has the lion share in the high street and the club i doubt if even 1% of miniatures sold globally are GW miniatures. This will also be reflected on the % of all tabletop games played globally.

Astute observation is Astute!

Well put!

wildger wrote:I would go with FOW. Don't forget. GW constantly upgrade their figures and comes up with new edition. Even if you painted up the latest army, it will eventually become obsolete. If you are competitive, you have to purchase and learn from many army books and buy new editions. You don't have such a hugh issue with FOW. Smart peopel don't play 40K.

i currently only play 40k, might get into FoW eventually because it sounds cool and like WWII stuff, but i hope you were joking around in your last comment. What is that? Smart PEOPLE do play 40k, just because someone has different values than you does not make them dumb.

but it sounds like for you FoW is the game, GW is definitely more expensive, but contrary to what people say, i predict that 40k will still be around and popular in 20+ years. I think you should build a sizeable army first though, and if you have trouble finding games, then get a smaller one and play friends and ask people if they want to play to get them involved. But in the end, do whichever models and game you like more, and things tend to work out(usually.)

swuk wrote:There are a lot of similarities between computer systems and war gaming systems. The 3 options "ways" tend to have a consistent spread. Many industry/ market sectors are divided like this.

IBM compatible /M$ 85% share ( generic war-gaming )
Apple 10% share ( games workshop and similar )
Linux 5% ( DIY & share )

Interesting theory there Swuk....I only disagree with one point I see GW more as the Microsoft of the gaming world. They do things similarly. By now, with Windows 7, the OS should be near perfect, but instead they continue to re-invent the wheel with each new OS release instead of perfecting what is already there. Yes some things should be reworked, but there is no excuse for the file handling problems that were inherent with Vista when it first came out. This is what GW does as well. They see a "flaw" in the rules, a codex, or whatever and instead of fixing the flaw they completely revamp the whole thing and while the original flaw is likely removed (due more to new mechanics than actually fixing it) they, at the same time, introduce a whole new pile of flaws.

Of course then there is the sudden switch from windows standards to ribbon menus in Office 2007 so that people who used to really know how to use Office well had to completely relearn it again. Sound familiar?? At least windows tends to have some serious backwards compatibility that GW often completely throws away. My new machine comes with a new version of windows on it, but I can still use my old windows software. Can't do that with GW.

Oh well, definitely a cool theory you have there, though.

Skriker

I actually agree with the the theory completely, after all GW is very selective. You can only play with GW models! A conversion model has to be made from GW parts or be a majority percentage of GW Parts. That concept feels very Mac to me. Also, giiven the scope, I would say historical miniatures take up a good deal more of the wargaming market then GW. Gamesworkshop certainly doesn't control the market. Their rules dont dictate a majority of the gaming table.

The only thing they really have in common with Microsoft is the willingness to do anything for a buck and well, most companies are like that.

Comintern wrote:I actually agree with the the theory completely, after all GW is very selective. You can only play with GW models! A conversion model has to be made from GW parts or be a majority percentage of GW Parts. That concept feels very Mac to me. Also, giiven the scope, I would say historical miniatures take up a good deal more of the wargaming market then GW. Gamesworkshop certainly doesn't control the market. Their rules dont dictate a majority of the gaming table.

You know, macs which have used standard PC components for years, so really isn't that picky. And Apple packs the dev tools in with the OS (or they're a download)... And contributes to open source for several components. Yup, completely closed.

Comintern wrote:The only thing they really have in common with Microsoft is the willingness to do anything for a buck and well, most companies are like that.

yes... Which is why I'm not really buying this comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can we get back to the FoW/40k comparison?

Skriker wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:FOW has more fluff, and its better written.

Umm it isn't "fluff" its history...

That's an interesting name for it. HisssTory. I like the way that sounds. Tell me, who writes this "History"? Where can I find more?

Those Nazi's... Way better concept than Space Marines... FOW really knows how to come up with bad guys!

Big P wrote:Those Nazi's... Way better concept than Space Marines... FOW really knows how to come up with bad guys!

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks I needed that laugh!

Skriker

yeah, i have a hard time reading sarcasm on the internet, that was sarcasm correct Big P?

What sarcasm?

You mean WW2 was real?

There's an interesting thing though: Space Marines = Nazis. Deliberate choice or coincidence? Many people have been pointing that parallel out for years


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After all, people have been doing "equivalent" armies for years, claiming that Empire = Imperium, Orcs = Orks and so on. So can we translate Nazi into Space Marine? Does an Ork player go Soviet? Or are they the Guard?

Big P wrote:What sarcasm?

You mean WW2 was real?

yes, it was real, but FoW didnt invent the Nazi's, Nazi's were a real fascist regime that fought in WWII. Where GW invented the SM(sort of, they were based on other things). So I was just saying that FoW didnt invent its people, its historical

dajobe wrote:

Big P wrote:What sarcasm?

You mean WW2 was real?

yes, it was real, but FoW didnt invent the Nazi's, Nazi's were a real fascist regime that fought in WWII. Where GW invented the SM(sort of, they were based on other things). So I was just saying that FoW didnt invent its people, its historical

You Mean Adolf isnt a Primarch?

So glad this bit of confusion was cleared up for me.

lol, i think i missed the sarcasm in BigP's post earlier and thought he was saying that Nazi's were a better concept than SM...sorry errybody, im not always the best at picking up sarcasm on these forums...

dajobe wrote:lsorry errybody, im not always the best at picking up sarcasm on these forums...

You dont say...

I used to lecture on WW2 so I hope I know who the Nazis were! Or there will be some seriously misinformed students around.

I would personally say go for whichever game you can most easily get a good crowd with. If nobody plays FoW, barring two guys, you might prefer the wider fanbase of 40k. After all, if this is your first wargame, then one is as good as any other for introducing you to the hobby. As someone who built up a Fields of Glory Mid-Republican Roman army, and barely used it, but who has had no problems getting 40k games, this is a valid point to consider. You can always switch games later, and indeed many people do. You might want to look at Warmachines as well; a game that I don't like hugely, but which has a notable fanbase. It is also worth looking into local gaming clubs.

I don't play FoW, though I wouldn't mind a Bersaglieri or Royal Parachute Regiment mob, but 40k is as much fun as other wargames that I've played. The rules themselves are a minor element in the hobby; you will spend about 1/4 of your total time playing games, with the rest being chatting to people, getting glue on your fingers, giving yourself a vicious cut with a knife, and painting your little dudes. Thus, I would urge you to base your decision more upon availability of opponents, which is more visually appealing, and which you would prefer to spend unhealthy amounts of time interacting with. In terms of looks, consider that many people love 40k models, but others find the huge heads, hands and feet offputting; whilst I know people who would refuse to play a game in 10mm, or even 15mm, instead of 28mm. You could do worse than get your hands on examples of both, just to decide.

Additionally, I would not pay too much credence to the 'updating codices ruin your models' argument. The rules for each unit tend to change only slightly, and that over the course of a 4-6 year cycle, and outside of a hard-line tournament atmosphere you can use whatever you want. For instance, Ork weirdboyz are considered weak, and certainly their rules have changed, but people still use them and the models are still viable. I can't think of many examples of units disappearing, barring squats and other nonsense.

On a side note, the Space Marines are indeed space nazis, or at least space thugs in many cases. The 40k universe is a dystopian vision, where the 'good guys' are a theocratic, dictatorial bunch of nutjobs. It probably says a lot about British nerds that this is what happens when we create sci-fi universes.