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.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Want your goblins in perfect formation? Awesome you can. You dont even have to multibase (although its a vastly better way both gameplay wise and transport/ease of play wise). Really the only thing that matters is base size. When the limit is how much space the unit can take up, the options are almost endless.

Yeah I'm aware of that but I was talking specifically why *I* struggle to find reasons to try KoW.

Personally I'm 50/50 on whether I prefer individual models or entire units anyway. In some ways I like each dude that I paint to represent something, even if it is only a wound counter. I know some people don't like the idea of models as wound counters, but for me it's kind of like why even bother painting models if they actually serve no purpose in the game. I might as well put a tissue box down and call it a unit of Orcs. Basically I'd rather have single models being wound counters than a large base of multiple models being a unit counter. But then I understand why some people prefer that as well and I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other.

I mean, it's not hard to house rule WHFB to act as units rather than individual models. A few mates of mine did that, we didn't really like it though so went back to the individual model method. Even if you do follow WHFB core rules for unit construction it's usually not hard to make your unit a diorama. You can base multiple models together if you like, have successive ranks lowering their spears. Have one rank offset to the left and the next rank offset to the right so the formation is staggered. Or you can mount models more loosely or even have bare bases/terrain to create that look. I've seen lots of variations over the years with multiple model basing used for WHFB.

But the main thing that turns me off KoW is it does feel too much like generic fantasy to me. WHFB is specific, it's nuanced to the fluff (maybe not always accurately, but things like Knights Errant being unique from Knights of the Realm or Night Goblins being unique from Common Goblins, I *like* that).

That and lack of opponents If AoS had of come out after 7th instead of after 8th and KoW had of been on its feet at that point, I probably would have been more inclined to pick it up. Unfortunately 8th killed my WHFB group and I'm too old and cranky to try and organise a new group for KoW now, lol.

In the original WRG Ancients rules, a singe figure represented 20 men. Casualties were read off a chart as numbers of incapacitated. Once you reached 20, you removed a model from the target unit.

WHFB can be read exactly the same way. One figure representes 20 men. One hit represents 20 incapacitated. Remove a figure.

The idea of whole element removal is based on several points.

1. Morale and exhaustion are far more likely to deplate a unit's fighting power than actual losses.

2. Units don't really get depleted man by man. Rear rank men fill up the front ranks, maintaining the fighting power.

3. It is much easier to move units as blocks. Even in WHFB, people use movement trays to remove the disadvantage of individual figures.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the original WRG Ancients rules, a singe figure represented 20 men. Casualties were read off a chart as numbers of incapacitated. Once you reached 20, you removed a model from the target unit.

WHFB can be read exactly the same way. One figure representes 20 men. One hit represents 20 incapacitated. Remove a figure.

That theory dies as soon as anyone asks what the hero on the dragon (as big as an entire 400-men regiment) is supposed to represent.

A mage also represents 20 mages?

A much bigger beast than it is possible to model.

Why would wizards travel alone? Apprentices, guards, attendants etc.

I think you are picking holes for the sake of it as it matters very little in a scaled wargame.

Heroes with retinues featured both in the Hellfire & Stone campaign book for 1st Ed and in the Brotherhood army list that just came out in Uncharted Empires. That second one was a proof of concept after I discussed the idea with Ronnie last year.

I did propose it for 2nd Ed, but Alessio kaiboshed it, and after the RC took control of the development we were too busy making existing stuff work to concentrate on new stuff. The idea will hopefully be expanded in future.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The idea of whole element removal is based on several points.

1. Morale and exhaustion are far more likely to deplate a unit's fighting power than actual losses.

2. Units don't really get depleted man by man. Rear rank men fill up the front ranks, maintaining the fighting power.

3. It is much easier to move units as blocks. Even in WHFB, people use movement trays to remove the disadvantage of individual figures.

I'm aware of that and... I don't really care

It's all just abstraction anyway. I've always seen removal of models to represent more of a breakdown of unit cohesion as the battle progresses more than "Fred, Bob and John died, we must now take a leadership test!". Having archers knock off a few models to reduce the rank bonus of a unit, I never really pictured it as an actual person dying and thus the unit being incapable of making full ranks of 4 or 5, I just see it as the unit being peppered by arrows was enough to disrupt unit cohesion to reduce the bonus it gets in close combat.

So I see individual models in WHFB as both wound counters and a representation of how well the unit can put up a fight after being depleted, and that's kind of the way I like it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Personally I'm 50/50 on whether I prefer individual models or entire units anyway. In some ways I like each dude that I paint to represent something, even if it is only a wound counter. I know some people don't like the idea of models as wound counters, but for me it's kind of like why even bother painting models if they actually serve no purpose in the game. I might as well put a tissue box down and call it a unit of Orcs. Basically I'd rather have single models being wound counters than a large base of multiple models being a unit counter. But then I understand why some people prefer that as well and I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other.

And you can play WHFB with individual models represented by cardboard squares. I know from personal experience because back in my "poor starving college student" days before I could afford to buy sufficient models (even back at '80's prices!), we did just that...

This type of objection seems to me, like many objections people seem to have with the KoW mechanics and design philosophy, to be as much a rationalization to dislike the game for not being WHFB as anything else.

Valete,

JohnS

If you want to play KoW more like Warhammer in that way, you can.

Have the number of models you have removed from the unit = the damage the unit has taken. Nothing wrong with doing it this way from a rules perspective, and most opponents will be fine with it as the movement try can remain.

Some people have started out by playing KoW this way, but then switched to damage counters after realizing how much it slows the game down, other have stuck with it.

It can be a good way to play it if you've spent 2 decades playing warhammer fantasy and need some time to adjust to a change.

I'm almost convinced about the role of heroes in KoW - almost. I still prefer order/action point phases. But I wouldn't be opposed...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I know some people don't like the idea of models as wound counters, but for me it's kind of like why even bother painting models if they actually serve no purpose in the game. I might as well put a tissue box down and call it a unit of Orcs.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?366126-KoW-Scenic-Bases

http://www.gad.net/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/TissueBox-800.jpg



Thumbnails in Warseer aren't opening for me. For good measure, here's some other stuff.

http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=41342.0
http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=55940.msg664380#msg664380
http://finiatures.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/sworn-to-house-aratheon.html
https://callingbanners.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/heavy-patrician-cavalry-weis-von-limpurg/

But the main thing that turns me off KoW is it does feel too much like generic fantasy to me. WHFB is specific, it's nuanced to the fluff (maybe not always accurately, but things like Knights Errant being unique from Knights of the Realm or Night Goblins being unique from Common Goblins, I *like* that).

Blimey. I've been looking at Bretonnians recently for a skirmish warband, and wondering how they can justify so many types of knights in the game. Or how much difference there'd really be if you assembled a wedge of a few dozen to a couple of hundred of them and charged them at a gaggle of peasants.

Korinov wrote:That theory dies as soon as anyone asks what the hero on the dragon (as big as an entire 400-men regiment) is supposed to represent.

A mage also represents 20 mages?

This is where the Individual rule comes in. (1st ed's, anyway) Greater mobility, harder to target, can't bring a unit's full attacks to bear on it - all represents the fact it's just one guy or small retinue, compared to a full unit, regardless of the size of base.

And even if they're plonked on a dragon and lose Individual, that's not to say they go on a full 100x80mm regiment base.

Other games go further. In Warmaster, Hail Caesar and Mayhem, heroes and characters can't be targeted or charged at all, even if mounted on a monster, unless they join a unit. They can be killed if an enemy unit contacts them, and they can't escape to a friendly unit, but I think that well represents the idea that a unit of a few hundred or thousand warriors isn't 'engaging' a lone character or small retinue in combat, it's rolling right over them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's all just abstraction anyway. I've always seen removal of models to represent more of a breakdown of unit cohesion as the battle progresses more than "Fred, Bob and John died, we must now take a leadership test!".

But isn't that what happens when the other guy only loses Tom and Dick from his back rank, all other things being equal?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 scarletsquig wrote:
if you've spent 2 decades playing warhammer fantasy

I think this is the main cause of so much trouble and friction in the uptake and performance of other games, rules, settings and minis, not just KoW.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The idea of whole element removal is based on several points.

1. Morale and exhaustion are far more likely to deplate a unit's fighting power than actual losses.

2. Units don't really get depleted man by man. Rear rank men fill up the front ranks, maintaining the fighting power.

3. It is much easier to move units as blocks. Even in WHFB, people use movement trays to remove the disadvantage of individual figures.

I'm aware of that and... I don't really care

It's all just abstraction anyway. I've always seen removal of models to represent more of a breakdown of unit cohesion as the battle progresses more than "Fred, Bob and John died, we must now take a leadership test!". Having archers knock off a few models to reduce the rank bonus of a unit, I never really pictured it as an actual person dying and thus the unit being incapable of making full ranks of 4 or 5, I just see it as the unit being peppered by arrows was enough to disrupt unit cohesion to reduce the bonus it gets in close combat.

So I see individual models in WHFB as both wound counters and a representation of how well the unit can put up a fight after being depleted, and that's kind of the way I like it.

Well, that's fine and it's a good thing we have a variety of rules available to depict battles in different ways.

Super good points concerning: ascetics, single vs multi
base, what are individuals to you etc. Yet I want to follow up on one question, the one concerning generics. In WHFB you can build real thematically, fluff wise armys that have special rules that fit them yet there is a downside (in my experience). In WHFB you need (and in some cases must have) ¨comp¨, otherwise the game is way to often over before it started. It does not require much (if any) skill during the actually game, I myself have experienced that my HE list plays itself as long as i max out my 6 dices on my ultimate spells. This is as far from KoW as a game can be as KoW requires you to calculate your decisions during the game in a much larger extent thanks to the generics of the stats (the zombie horde will smash my dragon if it gets them in the flank). Thoughts on this?

Butterqwist wrote:
Super good points concerning: ascetics, single vs multi
base, what are individuals to you etc. Yet I want to follow up on one question, the one concerning generics. In WHFB you can build real thematically, fluff wise armys that have special rules that fit them yet there is a downside (in my experience). In WHFB you need (and in some cases must have) ¨comp¨, otherwise the game is way to often over before it started. It does not require much (if any) skill during the actually game, I myself have experienced that my HE list plays itself as long as i max out my 6 dices on my ultimate spells. This is as far from KoW as a game can be as KoW requires you to calculate your decisions during the game in a much larger extent thanks to the generics of the stats (the zombie horde will smash my dragon if it gets them in the flank). Thoughts on this?

Heck, you have to start planning while starting the game - the number of times where mistakes made during deployment come back and bite my opponents in the butt.... I win about a quarter of my games during set up, I swear....

The Auld Grump - of course, I have never done the same thing, and had it bite me in the butt, no siree Bub....

cygnnus wrote:This type of objection seems to me, like many objections people seem to have with the KoW mechanics and design philosophy, to be as much a rationalization to dislike the game for not being WHFB as anything else.

Or, ya know, it's just a reason to prefer one system over another....

I explicitly stated I prefer the idea of individual models being wound counters vs blocks being unit counters. So I'm directly acknowledging both systems are simply using counters to represent something, either a wound or an entire unit...

I'm just stating what *I* prefer as people often tout this as being a "pro" when in reality it's just a personal preference and frankly it's not hard to house rule WHFB to act like KoW or house rule KoW to act like WHFB.

I like the fact I have a visual representation of how unit cohesion has broken down., whether you think of them as wounds or unit cohesion is up to you, and whether you prefer a unit to look the same at the start of a battle right up until it gets removed, that's also entirely up to you.

Vermis wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I know some people don't like the idea of models as wound counters, but for me it's kind of like why even bother painting models if they actually serve no purpose in the game. I might as well put a tissue box down and call it a unit of Orcs.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?366126-KoW-Scenic-Bases

http://www.gad.net/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/TissueBox-800.jpg



Thumbnails in Warseer aren't opening for me. For good measure, here's some other stuff.

http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=41342.0
http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=55940.msg664380#msg664380
http://finiatures.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/sworn-to-house-aratheon.html
https://callingbanners.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/heavy-patrician-cavalry-weis-von-limpurg/

So, you're trying to convince me that well converted and well painted models look well converted and well painted?

All wargames use models as counters (at least by my definition of a wargame).

When it comes down to the game itself, all our models are is glorified counters. People can have varying preferences on what those counters represent (if I'm painting a 28mm model, I like that specific 28mm model to represent something... if I'm painting 6mm figures I'm happy if 5 to 10 of them combined represent something, it's just how I cope with painting an army ).

But the main thing that turns me off KoW is it does feel too much like generic fantasy to me. WHFB is specific, it's nuanced to the fluff (maybe not always accurately, but things like Knights Errant being unique from Knights of the Realm or Night Goblins being unique from Common Goblins, I *like* that).

Blimey. I've been looking at Bretonnians recently for a skirmish warband, and wondering how they can justify so many types of knights in the game. Or how much difference there'd really be if you assembled a wedge of a few dozen to a couple of hundred of them and charged them at a gaggle of peasants.

You've kind of nailed the point that I was making, that game wise it doesn't really matter if you have 200pts of Knights Errant vs 200pts of Knights of the Realm., but it adds to the heart and soul of WHFB that these small differences exist. The fact Bretonnians have Knights Errant, Knights of the Realm, Questing Knights and Grail Knights is more important from the *fluff* perspective than it is from the *rules* perspective, but part of the draw of WHFB is that the rules are creating a tie-in for the fluff.

Every time I've tried to translate my WHFB to a KoW army list I feel like I'm removing the heart and soul of my fantasy army.

I wasn't intending to post in this thread at all, I just decided it was important for people to realise that when they tout things like being generic as a good thing, that's actually part of the reason many people don't want to make the transition

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's all just abstraction anyway. I've always seen removal of models to represent more of a breakdown of unit cohesion as the battle progresses more than "Fred, Bob and John died, we must now take a leadership test!".

But isn't that what happens when the other guy only loses Tom and Dick from his back rank, all other things being equal?

Sorry I don't follow?

 scarletsquig wrote:
if you've spent 2 decades playing warhammer fantasy

I think this is the main cause of so much trouble and friction in the uptake and performance of other games, rules, settings and minis, not just KoW.

Sometimes the reason you love a game is the very reason someone dislikes it. I like parts of both games. If only there was a game that combined tje parts I like into one.

Since AoS we consider 2 options:
1) Play WHFB 8th, but without the 6th spells.
2) Try KoW rules
We will probably do both, but since we also have more than enough other wargames, we above all focus more on those (40k, X-Wing, Dystopian Wars, Firestorm Armada at the moment).

The KoW background, fluff and most of the models do very little for us. The current rules look allright though.

 Korinov wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
The first is the fluff. Mantic's factions are definitely different than Warhammer's - enough so that perhaps they enjoy playing in the Old World instead of Mantica.

Honestly I'd find this excuse quite lame. Many KoW armylists have been designed with the main goals of letting veteran Fantasy gamers play with their already existing Fantasy armies. You can set the game in whatever universe you want.
From what the OP is saying, it looks like the archetypical "GW-centric" community that will simply refuse to play anything non-GW, because GW is all they know and stepping beyond such limits would be heresy.

It's not an excuse, it's a reason. And we're talking about choosing to play or not play a game, so any reason is a good enough reason - none are "lame". ergo: "I just don't fething want to" is a perfectly legitimate reason.

Oh, and I say this as someone who hasn't played WHFB for years, and credit KoW for drawing me back into Fantasy Battle Gaming - with many armies on the go. Still, the way that their not-40k (WarPath) appears to be developing, I'll probably be on the "Yeah, not interested" side when that eventually comes out.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

lonestarr777 wrote:

I guess the thing is I look to the source matieral for inspiration, and find Mantic's writing to be rather bland. I will freely admit its a personal hangup.
Our group makes a lot videos and batreps too so alot of Salamander unit names, which grate my nerves, would have be used a lot and I couldn't get away with refering to units with other titles.

The source material is whatever I want it to be. My source material is largely taken from The Old World and Middle Earth, with a healthy helping of human history and mythology. Well, lots of them still need to be built and painted, but hey!

I'd still call it an excuse rather than a reason, for what Korinov already said. It's not a valid reason. It's not even at the level of "because I just don't fething want to", because it's not expressing personal preference, but faulty reasoning. Countless players (including yourself) can demonstrate that you can use the KoW rules without any reference to Mantica. If folk think that all those who made the exodus from 8th ed to KoW with their WFB armies, mimicked GW by completely abandoning the old world, and fully embraced Mantica, that just makes their reasoning more... lame.

What was said was reasons, ie. noun not verb. As a noun a reason is just an explanation /justification of some action. An excuse requires an offence to be the thing that you are justifying, why someone doesn't play a game does not fall into the excuse category. Any answer given is by definition a reason and not an excuse. You may not like the reason, but that doesn't mean it is not one.

Even as a verb I would say it was valid reasoning. There appears to be plenty of players leaving (or not trying) AoS because they hate the official background and/or loss of the old world. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that they might also not go to KOW for exactly the same reason - its background is not liked or it is not the old world officially.

puree wrote:
What was said was reasons, ie. noun not verb. As a noun a reason is just an explanation /justification of some action. An excuse requires an offence to be the thing that you are justifying, why someone doesn't play a game does not fall into the excuse category. Any answer given is by definition a reason and not an excuse. You may not like the reason, but that doesn't mean it is not one.

Blimey...

It's a crap reason because it's no reason, whether you think that involves 'reasoning' or not. It's a mind worm set up by GW that you can only play in the warhammer world with Warhammer, and therefore only in Mantica with KoW. If you take KoW rules, especially all the lists written to accommodate WFB armies in the wake of 8th's sinking, but still can't bear to set your warhammer-world minis on a warhammer-world geological layer of skulls surrounded by warhammer-world plastic rocks, because you think that 4x6 patch of static grass is somehow Mantica and you have to identify everything - all the table and your models - with the abyss, or elvenholme, or basilea or whatever, that's not validation of KoW's inferiority, it's a freakin' psychosis.

And yeah, you can say the same thing about 8th, and AoS. 8th can only be considered dead because fans have it hammered into their heads that the thing must be constantly retweaked and repackaged and resold with more and more 'things to buy' retconned in, in order to be a valid gaming experience. Some will continue to mourn the 'loss' of 8th, and that is their loss, and some realise that AoS hasn't come round to their house to burn their books and minis (that one guy did it all by himself), and that the models are still on general sale for now, and they can still keep playing it, and that's their gain. Other people can play in the warhammer world with 9th Age, or any number of other fantasy wargame rulesets, and that's all fine and dandy too.
And that includes AoS. GW did release warscrolls for old armies, and you can use them (to some degree) to keep playing your old armies in the old world using AoS rules. That is valid. I'll say that's just as valid as playing your old armies in the old world using KoW rules.
But the difference is, AoS is not just an alternate ruleset and alternate, optional setting. They're official replacements. As much as books will still be on individual gamers' shelves, there won't be any more progression of the setting (such as there was); no more exploration of the history, to spark off players' imaginations; the minis, I expect, will gradually disappear unless they're sucked into AoS like the lizardmen. It's not just rules and a setting, it's GW reacting to poor sales of their own making, by offering a big middle finger to a big portion of WFB fans - some still active and some patiently waiting (in vain) for GW to stop taking crazy pills. To fans who considered block maneouvre to be integral to the game. To fans who didn't have to expect to do GW's job for them and do a halfway decent balancing act on the fly. And so on.

And so they move to Kings of War. They might do it because they consider WFB as dead, and yes, that's a bad reason. But also because Mantic does offer them that mass block combat, and reasonable balance; and perhaps a little reassurance that Mantic do the otiose and listen to their customers and fans, and don't plan on pulling the rug from underneath them anytime soon. And because a lot of those switching find that they like KoW, even finding it better than WFB, let alone a game with no inherent balance; barely any tactics, let alone maneouvre; where the most that matters is how many special rules you can pile on in the form of minis undergoing a jaw-dropping process of scale creep, flanderisation, and price-gouging.

Bleedin' Nora! KoW isn't even my first - or second - fantasy wargame of choice, but it's a step up from Warhammer, I can tell you. You might disagree, you might say "I just don't like it", and I can accept that. You might say "it's too bland for me", and I'd disagree, but understand it. But when you start giving excuses against it based on the made-up bull-hockey that exists only in your head, or because GW said so, then watch out.

 Vermis wrote:
It's a mind worm set up by GW that you can only play in the warhammer world with Warhammer, and therefore only in Mantica with KoW.

That's an unnecessary simplification which borders on insulting at times. GW don't have to have a mind worm, players can independently identify that Warhammer: The Game better represents Warhammer: The Fluff.

Warhammer: The Game was always written to sell Warhammer: The Miniatures which live in the land of Warhammer: The Fluff. Even if you don't think it's a good game in and of itself, it does the job it set out to do well and that's what some people *want* even more than they want a game that is technically good by itself.

And so they move to Kings of War. They might do it because they consider WFB as dead, and yes, that's a bad reason.

Why is that a bad reason? Gaming communities have a tendency to drop games that aren't officially supported for plenty of good reasons (difficulty getting rules, difficulty deciding on which version to use, difficulty getting models, difficulty getting new players to replace the old ones that naturally drop out over time).

Communities that continue to play outdated games tend to be small and dedicated.... not everyone wants to play in a small and dedicated group.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That's an unnecessary simplification which borders on insulting at times.

Pain is nature's way of telling you something's wrong. But if you want some elaboration...

GW don't have to have a mind worm, players can independently identify that Warhammer: The Game better represents Warhammer: The Fluff.

Mostly because GW have crammed so many special rules in to act as mock-fluff, which a lot of the time are arbitrary mechanics and modifiers that bear relation to the fluff only in that they have a title.

Warhammer: The Game was always written to sell Warhammer: The Miniatures which live in the land of Warhammer: The Fluff.

Maybe that's the underlying problem.

Even if you don't think it's a good game in and of itself, it does the job it set out to do well

Yeah. Like you hint, that's debateable. Especially in the face of people ostensibly getting their Warhammer: The Fluff jollies with KoW, and other games. But...

and that's what some people *want* even more than they want a game that is technically good by itself.

... that's alright, but like Puree you're missing the point. Some consider it inherently impossible to use fluff with other games at all. Not just "I like warhammer world with warhammer better" but "if you play KoW you have to use Mantica fluff".

Why is that a bad reason? Gaming communities have a tendency to drop games that aren't officially supported for plenty of good reasons (difficulty getting rules,

In some quarters 8th ed was dropped like a snake just as AoS was released. I think there might still have been some rulebooks floating around then. Including the ones on home bookshelves. And if 9th Age is basically tweaked 8th, and available online for the forseeable future, well...

difficulty deciding on which version to use

Given GW's history of rules churn with little actual change or improvement, I'm not sure if that's entirely a 'good' reason.

difficulty getting models

I mentioned this, didn't I? But then there was that thing about Warhammer that GW decided it didn't like - generic fantasy models. I figure the old players who'll eventually drop out already have their models with all the right gewgaws on them, and once they drop out of their still-active group I guess they might be past caring. Sucks to be the last two or three.
Players new to Warhammer, a few years down the line, might not be so picky as long as they get elves or dwarfs. Or maybe they will. Or maybe they'll be struck by lightning, or win the lottery. Or it might be more likely that they get their alternate elf and dwarf models and play KoW with them.
I dunno. All this stuff about "What about the new players? Won't somebody think of the new players?" doesn't sit right with me. I think it's a bit overrated. At least, it points to an expectation that they'll just fall into your lap with no effort, which might've been true in stores, when Warhammer was still current. And of course a lack of available, official models in a few years is going to factor into the 'mainstream' uptake of the game. But it shouldn't, yet. They're still there.

You can keep playing, Skinky. Without GW's consent, and as long as you're able. I don't recall saying you could do it indefinitely, more's the pity. Games come, games go, but you don't have to bin them the very instant GW waves it's hand and issues a decree, and attics and cupboards are still a thing.

Communities that continue to play outdated games tend to be small and dedicated.... not everyone wants to play in a small and dedicated group.

And some people think the ability to play in a GW store halfway around the world is one of the more valid reason to keep playing. The thrust of my last few posts is that there might have to be a shift in thinking - in fantasy gaming, at least - away from GW's way of doing things and hooking people, of sitting in one place and playing one game for two or three decades. I don't presume to imagine it'll be to everyone's liking, or easy, or that it won't leave a few ex-(pickup)gamers scattered over the landscape.
But even GW is hacking at the apron strings, now. They don't wantcha, WFB players. Not unless you can morph yourselves into AoS players. There are going to be changes whether you like it or not.

 Polonius wrote:
This is old school internet, Kirk/Picard type nerd rage here. It warms my heart to see the traditions kept.

Spank you, Helpy Helperton.

This is old school internet, Kirk/Picard type nerd rage here. It warms my heart to see the traditions kept.

It's a crap reason because it's no reason, whether you think that involves 'reasoning' or not. It's a mind worm set up by GW that you can only play in the warhammer world with Warhammer

That is bad reasoning. You are jumping to the assumption that those who do not think like you can only be the victim of some GW indoctrination. People can and do make their decisions for their own reasons. We are talking about a hobby, something that pretty much by definition people only do because they get some enjoyment out of it. Enjoyment is highly subjective - for some it is high level competition, others playing with painted minis and for others the whole feel of the game and its specific background/setting.

Most of the rest of your stuff was irrelevant to the argument of not playing a game because of background of a game. There are those who say they won't play AoS due to its background, there are those who won't play KOW due to its background. I don't fall in either camp, I will play either. However, I accept that background (official) is a thing for quite a number of people, and trying to make out that is some lame excuse rather than a reason is in itself ... lame.

 Vermis wrote:

puree wrote:
And yeah, you can say the same thing about 8th, and AoS. 8th can only be considered dead because fans have it hammered into their heads that the thing must be constantly retweaked and repackaged and resold with more and more 'things to buy' retconned in, in order to be a valid gaming experience. Some will continue to mourn the 'loss' of 8th, and that is their loss, and some realise that AoS hasn't come round to their house to burn their books and minis (that one guy did it all by himself), and that the models are still on general sale for now, and they can still keep playing it, and that's their gain. Other people can play in the warhammer world with 9th Age, or any number of other fantasy wargame rulesets, and that's all fine and dandy too.

For that matter any edition of Warhammer - I know folks that think that 4th was the best thing since sliced bread, and i am passing fond of 3rd.

If you have the rules, then you can play the game.

That said, once you have seen the rules, it is possible to say whether or not you think that you will enjoy playing them.

I felt that the rules for Lord of the Rings were too simplistic, yet I am very much enjoying Kings of war, which, if anything, has an even simpler rules set. (But also deals with large units being treated as units - big, unwieldy things that maneuver around the fields as a single piece, rather than fifty or so guys doin' their own thing.)

I can tell that AoS is not something that I would enjoy.

Malifaux is a lot harder for me to know whether or not I would enjoy it. (My best guess is that I would, but that some parts of the game would really annoy me.)

The Auld Grump

I'm going to be going back to 6th edition with someone i know, will see how it goes and my invote others i know who don't like aos much. though might give 7th a go as well as see what we prefur.

Butterqwist wrote:
So my question and hopefully basis for discussion: have others experienced this, and why do people keep stay so intensely with WHFB? The game is unsupported.

Forgive me for not reading every message before this, but you're actually asking two questions.

As for why WHFB, it's got lots of flaws, but it's still a system that:
-Has more detail than KoW.
-It's units "flavor" is more represented by their rules
-There's still (though for how long...) more folks out there with WHFB armies and rules than any other high'ish fantasy wargame.
-Is based in the highly developed WHFB world that so many folks really have affection for
-Is a different style of game that many folks enjoy.

As for the "unsupported" question, I think that:
-If folks are still playing the game and enjoying it, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's being expanded
-Folks still play necromunda and it's been unsupported for a decade.
-The overall experience of unsupported games can actually be rather easy since you can work within a closed system and not worry about how the game balance may change with the next codex/supplement/release.
-Playing a popular game that is recently unsupported may still yield more players than playing an indie game like Song of Blades and Heroes (or most of the other games I play).

That said, I've never had any interest in WHFB, but I've been playing KoW casually for a couple of years now using mostly vintage WHFB/Battlemasters figures. It's a great game with a very tight ruleset and handles it's abstractions very well.

 Vermis wrote:
I'd still call it an excuse rather than a reason, for what Korinov already said. It's not a valid reason. It's not even at the level of "because I just don't fething want to", because it's not expressing personal preference, but faulty reasoning. Countless players (including yourself) can demonstrate that you can use the KoW rules without any reference to Mantica. If folk think that all those who made the exodus from 8th ed to KoW with their WFB armies, mimicked GW by completely abandoning the old world, and fully embraced Mantica, that just makes their reasoning more... lame.

I wouldn't call it an excuse, because ultimately people don't need to justify their choices or preferences or phobias or irrational fears to you, me or anyone else. The term excuse implies a requirement for justification.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
I'd still call it an excuse rather than a reason, for what Korinov already said. It's not a valid reason. It's not even at the level of "because I just don't fething want to", because it's not expressing personal preference, but faulty reasoning. Countless players (including yourself) can demonstrate that you can use the KoW rules without any reference to Mantica. If folk think that all those who made the exodus from 8th ed to KoW with their WFB armies, mimicked GW by completely abandoning the old world, and fully embraced Mantica, that just makes their reasoning more... lame.

I wouldn't call it an excuse, because ultimately people don't need to justify their choices or preferences or phobias or irrational fears to you, me or anyone else. The term excuse implies a requirement for justification.

Oh, I'd call it an excuse.

But I would also call it a valid excuse.

I think that they should give KoW a try, and, given that the rules are available for free, that there is little cost aside from time to give the game a try.

But it is their time.

I am actually more annoyed with folks that have rage quit the entire hobby because they don't like AoS - sticking with a game that you like is a perfectly valid reason to not bother with a new game.

Burning your army and quitting in a huff... not quite so much, eh?

The Auld Grump

Really, for the sake of theme, there is no reason you can't base nearly all of the Kings of War armies in the Old World, other than outliers like Abyssals and Elohi.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I am actually more annoyed with folks that have rage quit the entire hobby because they don't like AoS - sticking with a game that you like is a perfectly valid reason to not bother with a new game.

Burning your army and quitting in a huff... not quite so much, eh?

I totally agree that burning your army is ridiculous. But it also represents a tiny fraction of the disaffected wargaming population (I think, the unhinged part ).

On the other hand, quitting the hobby and doing something is isn't really unreasonable. Hobby takes a big chunk of your time, and being disillusioned, one might go do something else, at least for a while. There's always the possibility of return, months, years, or decades later, right? Also, I know that there are a lot of people who like kickstarter companies and relatively small companies like Mantic (I only name them because you mentioned KoW). However, being the type of hobbyist/gamer that I am, I usually won't give a small company a chance, until they get to the size and popularity of PP/FFG (WMH or X-Wing). I like small and scrappy, and I can deal with small player pool.

But I would rather go with large catalog and fair certainty that the game will exist for a long time with lots of new releases not contingent on factors beyond their control, which is a promise that small or young companies can't truthfully make. I am not happy building armies from a company that relies on one brilliant sculptor, no matter how awesome he is, because if he is hit by a truck tomorrow, nothing new will likely come. Yeah, companies are not going to get big without people supporting them (or a big investor so that they can go big, and go fast), but that's not really my problem; I'd rather support the incumbent "big worlds" and pay the premium they command than go with the uncertainty of what the release cadence for a startup game world.

And, sadly, there are very few large companies in the scifi wargaming world. As I discovered just the other day, thanks to Azrael13's link to Companies House, Mantic is actually a tiny company (likely more than 10 employees, definitely less than 50, and net sales below something like 6 million GBP and balance sheet total less than half that... or something in that order of magnitude).