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.

For me, it is largely about being "too invested" as well.

Now, let me explain what I mean by that. I've been collecting GW games for 16 or so years, starting when I was about 10. Back then, there was little to no other wargames in my area, certainly none that I knew about. I got in to Fantasy because that's what my friends were playing and by far my most active years in the hobby were between the ages of 10 and 16 (now 26).

I know the backgrounds for my various armies as well as partially know the background of other armies, I know the background of the worlds, I know the miniatures, I (mostly) know the rules, I know where I can go to play some games.

These days, I have far less time for toy soldiers, whether it be gaming or painting. To start a new system would take me time researching various systems, time reading backgrounds, time deciding which game worlds interested me the most, time deciding which rules interest me the most, time figuring out if anyone in my area actually plays the game, time buying and painting my first few models. Time that I don't have to spend on the hobby these days.

These days, I mostly just paint a few models here and there, so it's easiest to just walk in to a GW store or peruse their website for a bit, decide which models I like and buy them. Chances are I already have some models from that army anyway. So the "investment" (time, effort, money) for me to continue with GW games isn't as high as it would be as if I started a new system.

Add to that GW games ARE the style of game I like. 28mm, Fantasy or Sci-fi, large armies going head to head (not in to roleplaying or skirmish games as much). Now, they do things that I don't like as well, "hero scale" has become "clown scale" in many cases and many armies have become overly comical, but it's not like if I start another system I'm not going to have some other issues with them anyway.

What don't you like about the minis? There are other producers of 28 mm WW2 stuff as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

almostreal wrote:
What stops me personally is the quality of the models. I think Warmachine is probably the closest in quality, but they aren't that close. I also don't like the crowd that plays Warmachine/Hoardes....from what I see, they are the worst of the worst TFG's from 40k. Too competitive and having no fun.

I REALLY like the rules of Bolt Action, but just couldn't make myself buy any of those mini's...they are truly horrible.

If another game came out that had models that were on par with 40k as far as detail and thoughtfulness I'd consider. Right now, most of my time I spend painting......GW models, especially the newer ones, blow me away.

Tabletop gaming to me is mostly about being creative, not about being competitive. I'd probably paint their mini's even if I never played another game. Their competitors IMO are so busy competing with GW's business model, pricing and rule system they don't spend enough time on the mini's.

just MHO

almostreal wrote:
What stops me personally is the quality of the models. I think Warmachine is probably the closest in quality, but they aren't that close. I also don't like the crowd that plays Warmachine/Hoardes....from what I see, they are the worst of the worst TFG's from 40k. Too competitive and having no fun.

I REALLY like the rules of Bolt Action, but just couldn't make myself buy any of those mini's...they are truly horrible.

If another game came out that had models that were on par with 40k as far as detail and thoughtfulness I'd consider. Right now, most of my time I spend painting......GW models, especially the newer ones, blow me away.

Tabletop gaming to me is mostly about being creative, not about being competitive. I'd probably paint their mini's even if I never played another game. Their competitors IMO are so busy competing with GW's business model, pricing and rule system they don't spend enough time on the mini's.

just MHO

Ahem.

It's a bit unfair, since they're pretty much the best minis in the industry. Helps that the rules are fantastic too.

Money, aesthetics, lore, etc.-- the whole gamut.

For example, I like some of the Infinity lore and quite a few of the models... but many of the rest of it just end up pissing me off or making me roll mye eyes, and I just... can't mentally justify buying many models at the moment.

almostreal wrote:
I REALLY like the rules of Bolt Action, but just couldn't make myself buy any of those mini's...they are truly horrible.

The rules aren't tied to any model range, or even scale (within reason; it's a squad level skirmish game so it might be a bit odd in 3 or 6mm, but should be perfectly fine in 10,12,15,20,25,28,32,35,40 or 56mm). You can use any WW2 models in existence to play Bolt Action with

What don't you like about the models or what would you suggest they do to improve them?

 Melissia wrote:
Money, aesthetics, lore, etc.-- the whole gamut.

For example, I like some of the Infinity lore and quite a few of the models... but many of the rest of it just end up pissing me off or making me roll mye eyes, and I just... can't mentally justify buying many models at the moment.

You only need 10-12 models. I think theres some bad minis in there too, but I just ignored them and bought the stuff I liked.

I like that the lore of 40k is not overbearing as you can make your own chapter with a backstory.

 solidcroft wrote:
I like that the lore of 40k is not overbearing as you can make your own chapter with a backstory.

You can do that in every single game in existence. No one can actually "forbid" you from imagining your own stories in any given fantasy universe...

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Money, aesthetics, lore, etc.-- the whole gamut.

For example, I like some of the Infinity lore and quite a few of the models... but many of the rest of it just end up pissing me off or making me roll mye eyes, and I just... can't mentally justify buying many models at the moment.

You only need 10-12 models. I think theres some bad minis in there too, but I just ignored them and bought the stuff I liked.

Too many for me to justify getting in to it. I just don't have the money I used to.

PhantomViper wrote:

 solidcroft wrote:
I like that the lore of 40k is not overbearing as you can make your own chapter with a backstory.

You can do that in every single game in existence. No one can actually "forbid" you from imagining your own stories in any given fantasy universe...

True, however GW help you put it in your mind that you can. In the rules there are parts that say to name your guys, you look at Space Marines, are not just one army its 19 armys most useing the Space Marines codex. Most of the games make it look like there is only one way to paint and play them.

 solidcroft wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 solidcroft wrote:
I like that the lore of 40k is not overbearing as you can make your own chapter with a backstory.

You can do that in every single game in existence. No one can actually "forbid" you from imagining your own stories in any given fantasy universe...

True, however GW help you put it in your mind that you can. In the rules there are parts that say to name your guys, you look at Space Marines, are not just one army its 19 armys most useing the Space Marines codex. Most of the games make it look like there is only one way to paint and play them.

Only if you are talking historicals... I have several sets of sci-fi rules which allow force building or even figure building to use any figures and the games encourage players to make their own backgrounds and paint the forces how they like. I'm honestly not sure where you get your idea from. If anything, GW is stricter on staying within background than most systems.

CptJake wrote:

 solidcroft wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 solidcroft wrote:
I like that the lore of 40k is not overbearing as you can make your own chapter with a backstory.

You can do that in every single game in existence. No one can actually "forbid" you from imagining your own stories in any given fantasy universe...

True, however GW help you put it in your mind that you can. In the rules there are parts that say to name your guys, you look at Space Marines, are not just one army its 19 armys most useing the Space Marines codex. Most of the games make it look like there is only one way to paint and play them.

Only if you are talking historicals... I have several sets of sci-fi rules which allow force building or even figure building to use any figures and the games encourage players to make their own backgrounds and paint the forces how they like. I'm honestly not sure where you get your idea from. If anything, GW is stricter on staying within background than most systems.

Mostly agree, but I'd take it one step further. Even most current historical games give you freedom in the composition of your forces. Games like Hail Caesar, Bolt Action and others may tell you exactly what a figure represents, but in most cases you have many variant ways to paint the figures in terms of camo scheme, unit composition, etc depending on what unit and what theater of operations they are from.

GW has more flexibility than games from PP, but that's not saying much, since you are stuck with GW-specific units and you can only change their loadout within certain limits. Sci-Fi games like Tomorrow's War and Future War Commander and fantasy games like Song of Blades and Heroes and Fantacide allow you to create every aspect of the stats, equipment and abilities of a given unit.

I do appreciate the range of options that GW provides, but to infer that most games give you less freedom than GW isn't true.

CptJake wrote:

 solidcroft wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 solidcroft wrote:
I like that the lore of 40k is not overbearing as you can make your own chapter with a backstory.

You can do that in every single game in existence. No one can actually "forbid" you from imagining your own stories in any given fantasy universe...

True, however GW help you put it in your mind that you can. In the rules there are parts that say to name your guys, you look at Space Marines, are not just one army its 19 armys most useing the Space Marines codex. Most of the games make it look like there is only one way to paint and play them.

Only if you are talking historicals... I have several sets of sci-fi rules which allow force building or even figure building to use any figures and the games encourage players to make their own backgrounds and paint the forces how they like. I'm honestly not sure where you get your idea from. If anything, GW is stricter on staying within background than most systems.

Even with historicals, before the well documented part (pre-medieval) there's very little evidence as to how units were formed, what uniforms were like etc, so still a pretty huge scope. It's also worth noting that even well documented armies (Napoleonic Guards) were unidentifiable after a campaign, because they deviated so far from dress uniform, so there's plenty of scope for modification.

Beyond re-playing specific battles, historicals still lets you do more or less whatever you want, if you're not too bothered about historical accuracy. You may still get people trying to field more Tiger tanks than the German army ever had, but then in 40K you get games which feature the entire fleets of some chapters, but that's not unique to historics.

I meant that painting up your WW2 Germans with shiney red tanks and bright yellow uniforms doesn't really cut it. Painting up your Old Guard Napoleonics in modern MARPAT cammo would be frowned upon....

I meant that painting up your WW2 Germans with shiney red tanks and bright yellow uniforms doesn't really cut it. Painting up your Old Guard Napoleonics in modern MARPAT cammo would be frowned upon....

what about pink robot Germans?

PhantomViper wrote:GW has more flexibility than games from PP, but that's not saying much, since you are stuck with GW-specific units and you can only change their loadout within certain limits. Sci-Fi games like Tomorrow's War and Future War Commander and fantasy games like Song of Blades and Heroes and Fantacide allow you to create every aspect of the stats, equipment and abilities of a given unit.

I do appreciate the range of options that GW provides, but to infer that most games give you less freedom than GW isn't true.

Yep. And if you like the 40k or WFB fiction, there's nothing stopping you from using the alternate rules to play in that playground. its strange, but I'm actually happier about my citadel miniatures collection now that I've expanded the range of rules I use them with. They actually feel more valuable than when they were just for 40k/WFB where they only made a tiny portion that was largely irrelevant inside of a larger army (or worse yet, a 30+ miniature block of infantry in base to base). Rules that actively devalue miniatures so you need to purchase more are not my favorite at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
I meant that painting up your WW2 Germans with shiney red tanks and bright yellow uniforms doesn't really cut it. Painting up your Old Guard Napoleonics in modern MARPAT cammo would be frowned upon....

Well, they do if you are doing alt-history stuff. And wierd-WW2 and alt-history black powder era stuff is becoming more and more popular.

The real reason GW is my primary game-source: their universe. I love the GW universe with its incredible endless possibilities. There are very few restraints as to what you can put into that universe and the rules (so long as your fellow gamers agree) are adaptable to whatever you want. Simply put, you have a whole lot of blank space to fill in with whatever you want because the story arc is so vast that it allows for it. If you want to build a 40k army that's made up of sentient spiders with jetpacks, well you can write up a backstory and grab some rules for some Tyranid units and voila! You have a new army that is completely within the realm of possibility for the 40k universe. No other wargame system really has a storyline as good with as much possibility for growth.

CptJake wrote:
I meant that painting up your WW2 Germans with shiney red tanks and bright yellow uniforms doesn't really cut it. Painting up your Old Guard Napoleonics in modern MARPAT cammo would be frowned upon....

Yeah, but that would be so cool. I'd love to see the look on some old grognard's face when you pulled them out of your foam!

I'd kill for a squad level combat game with 40k minis. I really have enjoyed the rounds of infinity I've gotten in and adore the minis, doing that same type of game play with 40k would be cool too.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'd kill for a squad level combat game with 40k minis. I really have enjoyed the rounds of infinity I've gotten in and adore the minis, doing that same type of game play with 40k would be cool too.

Tomorrow's War.

PhantomViper wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'd kill for a squad level combat game with 40k minis. I really have enjoyed the rounds of infinity I've gotten in and adore the minis, doing that same type of game play with 40k would be cool too.

Tomorrow's War.

...or In The Emperor's Name.
http://thegamesshed.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/in-the-emperors-name/
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if by "Squad Level" and like "Infinity" you mean Skirmish where each miniature moves independently, ITEN is a great system with "retinues" for every 40k faction already stated out and a good campaign system. Also it's free. My wargames club has played it a few times and enjoyed it.

Tomorrow's war is a good system, but it's not going to play like infinity (TW is "squad-based", not "squad-level") and it won't feel like the 40k universe. However, if you want a platoon level combat game with really realistic mechanics, then TW is definitely a good choice. I do recommend it, I just have my doubts whether it's what you're looking for.

Just curious, I've read the Infinity quick start rules and have the full rule book (came this week in the mail). What prevents you from assigning gear and traits from Infinity to your 40k models and using them in the game? Not trying to be a wise ass, honestly curious. I'm not very familiar with Infinity at this point.

It's called proxying and how a lot of people learn the rules before they own the miniatures.

Infinity has three main armour types (on infantry). HI, MI and LI. HI is by definition, powered armour (except for Ariadna, who have gerbils powering it on little wheels or something).

Using an SM figure to represent a HI figure, is not unreasonable.
SM with heavy bolter? Hi with HMG, etc.

MI is the medium armour type and in 40k terms, the equivalent of all those "Carapace" armoured units.

LI is lightly armoured troops like your disposable guard.

I've used this method, and as long as the players could keep what was what straight, it worked.

I mostly play GW (and by that i mean 40K) because most of the poeple in our weekly gaming group only have 40K armies, there are a few now with warmahordes, but mostly GW because thats what most everyone else brings to play.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'd kill for a squad level combat game with 40k minis. I really have enjoyed the rounds of infinity I've gotten in and adore the minis, doing that same type of game play with 40k would be cool too.

Necromunda (or Inquisimunda?)