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.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
And yeah, I have a problem with the fact that GW, KDM and Malifaux all lost best miniature or range to Perry or Bolt Action. That's insanity.

Probably because they're better than GW and KDM is extremely specialist and difficult to buy and Malifeux simply isn't stocked much anywhere. If at all.

That's a lot of subjective opinion there. And why should the fact that a range be specialist or not high street purchasable mean that it isn't considered? While Kingdom Death isn't hugely to my taste, the range blows the hell out of Perry and Bolt Action. Almost embarrassingly so.

Range is more than quality.
Kingdom death produces limited run figures and doesn't have a huge range regardless.

Perry covers dozens of periods with dozens of plastics per period and hundreds of metals.

It's a no brainer.
And again it's a Wargaming magazine that concentrates 75% of its attention on the biggest wargaming market. Historicals.
Not NSFW collectors items.
It's comparable to saying Bugatti should win best car manufacturer because they made a 1000hp car with a dumb name one time that nobody can own in reality instead of some sensible company who produce dozens of cars anyone can own to suit their needs.

That's really rather irrelevant. Very little of Kingdom Death is limited run, it's just so extremely popular it sells through constantly. And quantity shouldn't be a key factor. It should be overall quality as presented. And if their focus is primarily historicals, then they should limit themselves too that rather than ignoring superior lines in favour of historical bias.

Superior for you.
You're ignoring everything else that exists because of your bias.
Pot.
Kettle.

The people spoke and voted.
GW and KDM won nothing.
That's the end of it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


Well, aside from some obvious hyperbole--I don't hate anything the way my dog hates BB-8, but this is the internet--

Poe's Law, dude. Unless you are obviously filling your posts with emoticons or whatever, people are going to take your position at face value. But since your using the "lolz, I was kidding" defense, then fair enough.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
For older posters, that's like saying I want to pay ten cents and get a Bazooka Joe gum and comic in one package. Am I getting a free comic or free gum? Does it matter?

I don't think it does matter and that is what I and others found so confusing.

Using your analogy if you wanted the gum all along and were curious about the comic, or if you wanted the comic all along and were curious about the gum, purchasing the pack of Bazooka Joe equals a win.

That is where your logic seems wonky. You want the boats and could use the boats, and if the boats are worth the magazine cost, who cares what is in the magazine that you are at best curious but apathetic about and at worst find sneer worthy? The boats are still there to use and enjoy.

Well, if we're being real world about this, WI's list was neither surprising nor exciting, but a thread full of, "Not what I would have chosen, but fair enough." is terribly boring.

ValentineGames wrote:
Superior for you.
You're ignoring everything else that exists because of your bias.
Pot.
Kettle.

The people spoke and voted.
GW and KDM won nothing.
That's the end of it.

If it's biased awards, then nah, it's really not.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Superior for you.
You're ignoring everything else that exists because of your bias.
Pot.
Kettle.

The people spoke and voted.
GW and KDM won nothing.
That's the end of it.

If it's biased awards, then nah, it's really not.

So the readers of a HISTORICAL WARGAMING MAGAZINE not voting for a SCIENCE FICTION MINIATURES GAME or collector's items focused on tits and weird dick monsters is biased?

My dear god...the logic...it hurts

ValentineGames wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Superior for you.
You're ignoring everything else that exists because of your bias.
Pot.
Kettle.

The people spoke and voted.
GW and KDM won nothing.
That's the end of it.

If it's biased awards, then nah, it's really not.

So the readers of a HISTORICAL WARGAMING MAGAZINE not voting for a SCIENCE FICTION MINIATURES GAME or collector's items focused on tits and weird dick monsters is biased?

My dear god...the logic...it hurts

It's like if GW ran a vote competition for "best sculpted model" in White Dwarf and all the nominations were GW models!

Of course if you get a niche market and pool their opinions they are going to be heavily weighted toward that niche market! An historical wargamer reading an historical wargamers magazine and voting for a model is most likely going to be nominating historical based models. Even if they play sci-fi games they might not nominate them because they have nothing to do with historical gaming; which the magazine is focused on.

 Overread wrote:

It's like if GW ran a vote competition for "best sculpted model" in White Dwarf and all the nominations were GW models!

I hope if that ever happens these exact same people will speak up about Kingdom death not winning.

 Irbis wrote:

insaniak wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I am detecting a strong WWII bias in the winners!

The magazine is largely focused on historical gaming, of which WWII is the most prominent right now, so it's not too surprising that their readership would be largely more interested in the same.

If so, why is Frostgrave and Rome among the winners?

I have a feeling they just pretended all votes for GW didn't exist, say what you will about them but in some categories GW offerings from this year alone easily beat whole ranges the competing companies had ever produced. To not get even top 3 mention? Naaah...

Largely!=only. But what IS missing from the magazine is GW games. They don't cater to that. Not sure could they even legally do that? And even if would it be good idea for them. But as it doesn't cater to GW game crowd wouldn't surprise me if most of the readers(and ergo voters) would be non-GW players. As much as GW likes to think there are people who don't play their games

ValentineGames wrote:

So the readers of a HISTORICAL WARGAMING MAGAZINE not voting for a SCIENCE FICTION MINIATURES GAME or collector's items focused on tits and weird dick monsters is biased?

Is that a trick question?

Because, yes, of course it is. But it's also a bias that is to be expected, given that demographic.

That is an opinion piece

Laughable

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:Just a touch. I mean, Bolt Action for best range? With all the stuff that's come out this year, seriously?

Well, they have put out some really good stuff. And in plastic as well, especially the DAK and 8th Army stuff.

TwilightSparkles wrote:It’s reflective of the readership, though I’d disagree with the customer service one as so many of Warlird Ganes customers seem to think it’s good service that warlord provides the parts that should have been present in the first place....,

I remember when I had a small cast defect on a Churchill VII hull, nothing major, I could fix it. I sent an email just to let them know they needed to check the machines and they sent me an entire new kit. Likewise I once had a bof od germans that was missing a body off of the sprue. They sent me an entire new sprue plus bases for them. And they are always polite and helpful to boot.

Irbis wrote:
I have a feeling they just pretended all votes for GW didn't exist, say what you will about them but in some categories GW offerings from this year alone easily beat whole ranges the competing companies had ever produced. To not get even top 3 mention? Naaah...

Because GW models are gak, the releases have all been more of SPEESSSSMAREENNNN1111!!11 and NAWTFNTASYSPEEEESSSSMAREEEENNN111!11! for the most part. Everything has stupid names, and the new models look like the sculptor took inspiration from childrens cartoons and the old Dragon Ball Z anime with a side of generic action crap in there as well. And that is before you how the rules for both the primary systems are now so shallow one is hard pressed to actually call them wargames in the first place.
You might be surprised to learn this, but outside of a very niche group the vast majority of Wargamers and modellers consider GW's stuff to be crap, or just ignore it all together, as there are simply much better systems and models out there, usually for much less money as well.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
And yeah, I have a problem with the fact that GW, KDM and Malifaux all lost best miniature or range to Perry or Bolt Action. That's insanity.

Knowing you Bob, I am going to consider this a wee jot of sarcasm. GW are crap and KDM, whilst superb in detail, is very much a niche thing and also suffers from everything being a limited run item.

Aus Askar wrote:
GW pretends the hobby doesn't exist outside of their walled garden, why shouldn't mainstream wargaming return the favor?

This TBH. GW has its own stuff and insists every other game, model and system is a lie. The rest of the hobby world chooses to ignore them as well.

Well, show me any other range besides Warlord and Games Workshop that has so many products.
They are the two giants compared to everyone else. Yes, Corvus, Privateer and stuff are also not small... but damn Warlord has so many systems with so many miniatures.

I do love my WW2 stuff and I can fully agree with this award. I did not vote in it and I would've accepted any other result.

Getting angry about a vote like this one is childish to be honest. It really shouldnt upset you in the slightest. If you dont care about the magazine or the vote... just ignore it and let others have their fun.

Honestly most big companies with their own brand ignore and don't mention the competition in most of their marketing and communication channels. You don't hear about Games Workshop talking about Privateer Press; you don't hear Apple talking about Android (unless its to poo-poo them - at least wargames avoids that un-healthy level of competing) etc..

So basically each company presents itself as a bubble. It makes sense too. They don't want to spend their resources aiding the competition in marketing.


The only wargame companies that do mention other brands tend to be those that are making niche products. Eg Companies that make terrain with no model brand; or those making rules with no models or even models with no rules (or no rules they profit by). Ergo it benefits those (and other kinds) to mention and be open about the other companies because they are making a supplemental product not a complete product range.

Sure GW knows there's other terrain companies out there; some make outstanding stuff way better than GW; but GW profits only by the sale of their own so they are going to openly ignore the competition unless it benefits them to do otherwise (eg a sales deal )

aktuschuallly.... companies like Mantic promoted quite heavily other brands when they started with kings of war.

I've never heard of other companies shutting down everyone else like GW has ... they actively deny competitors...

True but some of those companies were promoting others because they were trying to slip into the market by providing an "alternate army" to the competition.

I'd go as far as to say many companies actively point out GW and the annoying things GW does so they can market themselves as totes not being like that, honest!

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:Just a touch. I mean, Bolt Action for best range? With all the stuff that's come out this year, seriously?

It's even funnier when you consider all the glaring historical errors, especially in lesser known countries, or the fact good 60% of the "range" is copy pasted from other countries due to lend-lease on allied side, soviets supplying minor armies on the other, and german captures on third. Some vehicles serve in almost every single army, reminds me how everyone in 40K used Rhino in the beginning

insaniak wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I am detecting a strong WWII bias in the winners!

The magazine is largely focused on historical gaming, of which WWII is the most prominent right now, so it's not too surprising that their readership would be largely more interested in the same.

If so, why is Frostgrave and Rome among the winners?

I have a feeling they just pretended all votes for GW didn't exist, say what you will about them but in some categories GW offerings from this year alone easily beat whole ranges the competing companies had ever produced. To not get even top 3 mention? Naaah...

Frostgrave and Gangs of Rome are both produced by historical wargames companies. GW tried historical wargames once and washed their hands off the entire industry as not being profitable enough.

Or it could be that rather than GW not considering it profitable enough.........the people behind it left and set up on their own........as Warlord Games