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.

Trasvi wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:

He wants to play Casualy.. And, what you are talking about now is, going into the fine lines and bending every word and trying to Mini Max the potential of a Unit. But I said the "Basics" of warhammer 40k . And what i mean by that is Moving the models, you dont have to care about facing.. You can measure everything before you shoot in 6th ed. Glancing hit you take away a hull point... You roll X six sided dices to hit you roll to wound you roll for armour saves... I can play 40k casualy in Zombie mode, it requires zero thought.. just move mesure.. shoot.. run Charge etc... pile in models.

All the Extra rules are "BROKEN Exploits".. The best way to play 40k is casualy... Because if you give it any serious effort you soon find out that it has Zero balance and is the most "luck based" game on the market...

Just an example.. vanilla marines 5 for 100 points.. basic bolter, power armour and close combat weapon.. Gray knights get Storm bolter and Power weapon for the same price LOL... were is the Balance??? I cant see it help me... Why do you keep playing this crap... I dont understand please help me....

And to the OP.. if you can find a few friends that want to learn a more straight forward game.. There are alot of them out there.. But they often have More basic rules then 40k... But you dident state if it was the basics of the game you found difficult or the fact that the rules are spread all over and you have to look through diffrent books... a basic game of 40k if you dont try and cheese and exploit and find loopholes to sabotage and win the game with.. 40k is the easiest Basic system I have played...

Warmachine is a good system but it has alot more, strategic elements to it and you have to think alot more about how you move and what you do on the Tabe-top when playing.. If you are happy with playing it smale scale though its cheaper to do so with then 40k...

I don't think we're really talking about balance or min-maxing or competitive play. We're just saying that a lot of 40k rules are quite complex, and its very difficult if not impossible to separate the 'special rules' from the 'rules that you need to play a basic game'. Look at anything other than a standard infantry model - a light skimmer or a walker or a jump-infantry - and the laundry list of special rules that they come with.
You bring up vehicles and hull points and say it is simple. Sure its ok and its better than it used to be; but its still a completely different set of rules for vehicles than infantry in nearly every way; you don't even roll to wound the same. Its personal taste whether that is legitimate abstraction (vehicles are different to infantry) or needless complexity (see other games where vehicles and infantry have much more overlap of rules). There are bonuses for or against all of those rolls which are added by special rules or gained by how fast you moved or whatever.
You say 'just roll X dice, to hit and to wound and take saves', yet the wounding process is pretty complicated even in the most typical situation. Very very few units these days consist of uniform models (have at least a sergeant) and very few units shoot uniform weapons (one special weapon per squad is very common), so you run in to the whole shenanigans with model placement and often end up rolling one die at a time to take saves. That's not min-maxing or being competitive - its just a very typical occurrence.
Play any game and have a look at the actual leadership rules you use, not just the basic ones. How many rolls do you make that stand their intended course? Half the armies I fight against these days are stubborn or fearless or get-back-in-the-fight or ATSKNF or 3-dice-and-pick-the-lowest/highest. Common occurrences of additional rules, make it more complicated than it needs to be.

It's called flawed game design

It's called experience.

All of the examples of troubles I'm hearing with 40k rules, as presented on this thread, I had once upon a time, but I've played hundreds if not thousands of games and all of the rules, and the special rules are all second nature now.

An example... American football is hard to understand to most foreigners, sometimes to the point they don't care to learn. To almost all Americans the rules are second nature...

 MisterMoon wrote:
It's called experience.

All of the examples of troubles I'm hearing with 40k rules, as presented on this thread, I had once upon a time, but I've played hundreds if not thousands of games and all of the rules, and the special rules are all second nature now.

An example... American football is hard to understand to most foreigners, sometimes to the point they don't care to learn. To almost all Americans the rules are second nature...

Dude trolling on the internet much? Warhammer Fantasy and WH40k have the most broken game system I have ever Played.. You can have 200 years of experince that wont change those facts. Games workshop got so much gak from the competative scene here in Europe, because of the Flawed game design. They pulled out of suporting offical Torunaments. And started saying that they are a miniature company. Also they say that the ruels suport "Cinimatic Battles".

Its bs like this that just set me off like Crazy.. The game is BROKEN please don't insult my intelligence trying to claim that it is not. Instead Own UP TO IT. But stop these lies about how the game is even playabal on a competative level.. because it is not.. I would not come down on the game so hard as I do on these boards if the WH40k/fantasy community could just once and for all acknowledge the fact that their preferd gaming system is not that good....

MERCS, too many reasons to say

 MisterMoon wrote:
It's called experience.

All of the examples of troubles I'm hearing with 40k rules, as presented on this thread, I had once upon a time, but I've played hundreds if not thousands of games and all of the rules, and the special rules are all second nature now.

An example... American football is hard to understand to most foreigners, sometimes to the point they don't care to learn. To almost all Americans the rules are second nature...

No the guy you quoted as it right? Even GW knows this, that is why the play up "we are a model company" side so much.

 Nucflash wrote:

Dude trolling on the internet much?

Yes. Yes you are.

The following is nothing but trolling and flame baiting.

 Nucflash wrote:

Warhammer Fantasy and WH40k have the most broken game system I have ever Played.. You can have 200 years of experince that wont change those facts. Games workshop got so much gak from the competative scene here in Europe, because of the Flawed game design. They pulled out of suporting offical Torunaments. And started saying that they are a miniature company. Also they say that the ruels suport "Cinimatic Battles".

Its bs like this that just set me off like Crazy.. The game is BROKEN please don't insult my intelligence trying to claim that it is not. Instead Own UP TO IT. But stop these lies about how the game is even playabal on a competative level.. because it is not.. I would not come down on the game so hard as I do on these boards if the WH40k/fantasy community could just once and for all acknowledge the fact that their preferd gaming system is not that good....

And in this post:

Sounds like crap.. who would want to be a part of that? If the offical rules are broken and suck.. How many house rules do these Tournaments have to have? do they even have the same rules if you go to diffrent types?and How can you even feel any sence of accomplishment taken part in something that you know is not the REAL thing.. to compare it to other types of sports its like you are playing land Hockey in your back yard with your own "special rules", when Magic and Warmachine/hordes player are going away to the offical olympics and playing it for REAL..

And then in this post:

With alot of diffrent house rules and unsurported Tournaments you dont get this. If I see that you have won X number of tournaments in the US it gives you zero cred in my book. Becuase I have nothing to compare it to. There is no Offical Rules that you all use..

To me you are just a laughing stock if you run competative Unsoported tournaments for any other reason then having some fun and killing time... All other games be they Computer games or Real sports events accross the globe, take great care to have offical rules for their game, that is Universaly used by ALL. everyone accept Games Workshop that is, because lets face it the game is so dam broken that It cant be done...

And then in this post.

HAHA.. I see that I'm getting nowhere with you. So you are telling me that all your Unoffical Tournaments in the US. USE the Core rules with no "house rules". You read all the rules as written by games workshop? all list building is exacly the same with no acceptions? I can come and use the chessiest broken gak I can find in the Offical rules and everyone is okey with it? as long as i stay on Points.. Man I really would not like to play WH40k/fantasy Tournament in a setting like that. The system has so many "rules Lawyer" loopholes that it would make for a really nice mess...

You do understand that other gaming system has an official, set of Scenarios, and sets limitations on list buildings etc. For warmachine/hordes its called steamroller 2013 and can be downloaded seperatly from the main rules... This is done in many other games also like poker, chess and Magic. This is to add a level of professionalism to competative gaming... But hey whatever floats your boat my friend haha

Seriously. We get it. You don't like 40k. But knock off the trolling.

>_<

Figures I was being trolled...

Hey guys, lets stay on target okay?

This OP is looking for alternatives. Give him some pointers and a few reasons why and let him make up his own mind.

Get off the GW bashwagon and give the guy some help out. ( Not that im some kool-aid drinker, just want to stay on track.)

 Nucflash wrote:
Dude trolling on the internet much?

All of your posts are the utter epitome of trolling, as others have pointed out to you.

 Nucflash wrote:
Warhammer Fantasy and WH40k have the most broken game system I have ever Played.

Your opinion. My suggestion; don't play them. Further suggestion, don't lose your load on a message board because others don't agree with you. You are slamming on the table your OPINION as some kind of fact to give evidence to your OPINION being right. See the problem there? I simply gave my experience, but gave plenty of room for YMMV. You on the other hand... well...

 Nucflash wrote:
You can have 200 years of experince that wont change those facts.

For you I guess not. For me, that's not the case. I don't find 40k broken in a full intrinsic sense like yourself, and I find a competitive scene for it where I live.

 Nucflash wrote:
Games workshop got so much gak from the competative scene here in Europe, because of the Flawed game design.

Boy this argument never gets tired... It goes... "The GW scene sucks where I'm at therefore it sucks everywhere..." Well I'm not where you're at, and have no plans on going there. My GW scene is vibrant and supported. I take part in it, and enjoy what I consider a competitive scene. Sorry if that upsets you so bad.

 Nucflash wrote:
They started saying that they are a miniature company. Also they say that the ruels suport "Cinimatic Battles".

When did they say this? Link? Not that it matters. I just hear this quoted all the time, and no one has shown me a full quote, with context, supporting it. Again, it doesn't matter one bit to me... I'd just like to see someone prove this.

 Nucflash wrote:
Its bs like this that just set me off like Crazy.

Agreed, you're one crazy #$%^.

 Nucflash wrote:
The game is BROKEN please don't insult my intelligence trying to claim that it is not.

Uhhhh don't insult my intelligence that it IS broken? We can play this game all day dude.

 Nucflash wrote:
Instead Own up to it.

You my friend are a total troll.

 Nucflash wrote:
But stop these lies about how the game is even playabal on a competative level.

You stop lying... See where I'm going here?

 Nucflash wrote:
because it is not.

Disagree

 Nucflash wrote:
I would not come down on the game so hard as I do on these boards if the WH40k/fantasy community could just once and for all acknowledge the fact that their preferd gaming system is not that good....

And we are all better off for your insight...right... Dude, take your opinions somewhere else. There are other fun games out there, I play those too, but I don't flameboy-troll other gamers because their gaming interests differ from mine.

Christ, Nucflash, calm the feth down. I agree that Warhammer is not particularly balanced and probably not the greatest ruleset for a tightly run tournament setting, but not every game has to be. While I, too, enjoy a clear, concise, competitive ruleset, I also like silly weird off the wall "Beer 'n' Pretzels" rulesets too. Personally, I think the loose rule set is the least of GW's problems.

And I think that's all I can say without restoring to personal attacks that'll get me Mod'ed.

Infinity is wicked awesome looking scifi and its skirmishy. The models are pretty cool. Do you like apocalyptic type settings? Dark Age is pretty neat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Dark Apostle wrote:
MERCS, too many reasons to say

oooo I forgot about MERCS... yeah ... try MERCS, OP... the models look wicked awesome.

@ MisterMoon: The term cinematic battles was thrown in the 6th ed main rulebook and they mentioned it in WD and on their site during release of 6th IIRC.

I'm going to say this knowing i'm risking sounding stupid but, Infinity has cool looking models, and so does mercs. here's the part that'll make me look stupid, The websites are very hard to get around for me and I'm finding it hard to find out where fluff is and what the background story to both games are. Especially mercs.

On the Mercs site, click on "World of Mercs" and you can click on the years on the timeline at the top for a brief summary of important stuff that happened at that time in the game's history, and for background on each faction click twice on the relevant area of the map, though Northern Europe and Central Asia aren't in the game yet so there's nothing there.


for Infinity click "Beginning" under the column heading "Access Guide" and there's fluff videos there.

In regards to Infinity, you need to get hold of the books for the background, I fear, aside from the things you can pick up on the forums.

There is a faction intro video list here:
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/access/
Under beginnings-Fluff Videos

Expect atrocious english, but it is kind of charming.

 Surtur wrote:
@ MisterMoon: The term cinematic battles was thrown in the 6th ed main rulebook and they mentioned it in WD and on their site during release of 6th IIRC.

No, not that part, the part where they say, "we aren't a games company, we are a hobby or miniatures company," or words to that effect, and with proper context. People throw this out there a lot, but I've never read it anywhere official. The rules supporting cinematic battles seems to just be marketing fluff...

 djphranq wrote:

The Dark Apostle wrote:
MERCS, too many reasons to say

oooo I forgot about MERCS... yeah ... try MERCS, OP... the models look wicked awesome.

I can't get behind MERCS... the models, as you would say, look "wicked boss awesome" and I agree. I can't get around the movement of the game... I don't like the cards, and "snapping" to terrain. If I wanted to move into terrain, why can't I just move into it?

 MisterMoon wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
@ MisterMoon: The term cinematic battles was thrown in the 6th ed main rulebook and they mentioned it in WD and on their site during release of 6th IIRC.

No, not that part, the part where they say, "we aren't a games company, we are a hobby or miniatures company," or words to that effect, and with proper context. People throw this out there a lot, but I've never read it anywhere official. The rules supporting cinematic battles seems to just be marketing fluff...

My Google-fu is weak, I can't find the exact quote. I know their company financial statements say something to this effect.

 MisterMoon wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
Dude trolling on the internet much?

All of your posts are the utter epitome of trolling, as others have pointed out to you.
.

welcome to the world of the anti GW brigade.

 MisterMoon wrote:

Your opinion. My suggestion; don't play them. Further suggestion, don't lose your load on a message board because others don't agree with you. You are slamming on the table your OPINION as some kind of fact to give evidence to your OPINION being right. See the problem there? I simply gave my experience, but gave plenty of room for YMMV. You on the other hand... well...

For you I guess not. For me, that's not the case. I don't find 40k broken in a full intrinsic sense like yourself, and I find a competitive scene for it where I live.

Boy this argument never gets tired... It goes... "The GW scene sucks where I'm at therefore it sucks everywhere..." Well I'm not where you're at, and have no plans on going there. My GW scene is vibrant and supported. I take part in it, and enjoy what I consider a competitive scene. Sorry if that upsets you so bad.

Well, to be fair, i can criticise the game mechanics regarding GW games as well, to no end. its a badly designed game, in technical terms. dodgy codex release cycle. bloated and excessive core rules. legitimate abstraction is required at times, but i feel GW does it really badly, and often merely for the sake of it. then there is the tacked on vehicle rules. the focus on the dude with the cool gun/sword, and everyone else basically being an ablative wound? and so on. Sound like a complaint? In a way, yes. And in a way, No. its more of an observation. for all its bad design, that doesnt mean it can't work. And it can certainly be competitive, but there are strings attached. i spend my first 6 odd years wargaming with an incredibly cut throat and competitve group of friends who played 40k, so yes, i know it can be competitve. My problem with it though is that only certain codices are really good, if you want to do well, and within that spectrum, each codex has only a handful of "builds" that are truly on that level. So when i turn up with my tau army that hasnt had a meaningful update in 10 years or thereabouts, and go up against the latest FOTM army, im not in for a fun time. this is compounded by GWs design ethos, where with each edition, they seek to change the game, rather than improve it, and much of the changes are to push a certain segment of their product line. Dont worry, im not having a go, this is me standing back and making what i see as an objective assertion.

But yes, you are right that 40k can be competitve. Its not specifically built for it though, like other games. And thats its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Its a sandbox for you and your friend to play in. its about pushing the idea of two mates with a few beers rolling dice in a basement and having a blast. 40K is, to all intents and purposes, whatever you want it to be. Mistermoon wants it to be a competitve game it seems, and he and his mates seem to be able to tweak it in such a way that it works out for them. others want a different experience, and due to the nature of the game, they can get just as much out of it. biggest thing involved is communication. find the right people with a similar attitude and have a blast. So as its strength, you can get so many playstyles out of it, but its weakness is its lack of direction, its lack of purpose and an overall lack of cohesion. in my mind at least.

As for me - i think 40k has its place. But after 3 years of warmachine, which is a properly designed-for-it competitve game (ie it has a definite focus, and clear direction/aim/intent in its design, rather than GWs sandbox). Warmachine is great for what i want it. 40k simply cannot compare to it. for me, 40k is a narrative, co-operative game, requiring a bit of restraint and self policing to get right, and it needs this because of its horrendous internal and external balance. and if it doesnt fit, we can change it.

 MisterMoon wrote:

There are other fun games out there, I play those too, but I don't flameboy-troll other gamers because their gaming interests differ from mine.

Indeed. but it is nice to be objective about things too I can enjoy watching my local team play, even though i know in my heart that they're terrible too! that said, i play multiple games as well. others i dont because of a lack of interest, but i'll hardly really have a go at folks for playing them.

 Nucflash wrote:

 MisterMoon wrote:
It's called experience.

All of the examples of troubles I'm hearing with 40k rules, as presented on this thread, I had once upon a time, but I've played hundreds if not thousands of games and all of the rules, and the special rules are all second nature now.

An example... American football is hard to understand to most foreigners, sometimes to the point they don't care to learn. To almost all Americans the rules are second nature...

Dude trolling on the internet much? Warhammer Fantasy and WH40k have the most broken game system I have ever Played.. You can have 200 years of experince that wont change those facts. Games workshop got so much gak from the competative scene here in Europe, because of the Flawed game design. They pulled out of suporting offical Torunaments. And started saying that they are a miniature company. Also they say that the ruels suport "Cinimatic Battles".

Its bs like this that just set me off like Crazy.. The game is BROKEN please don't insult my intelligence trying to claim that it is not. Instead Own UP TO IT. But stop these lies about how the game is even playabal on a competative level.. because it is not.. I would not come down on the game so hard as I do on these boards if the WH40k/fantasy community could just once and for all acknowledge the fact that their preferd gaming system is not that good....

Your post comes across as offensive and trolling. I really don't understand why you are bothering to post if you can't contribute constructively to the thread, which is 'Looking for an alternative game to Warhammer40k' and not lets belittle 40K and it's fans.

Well, he's just trolling. Especially in Europe, WHFB is still played. Not a lot because of 8th bringing the game down, but with ETC restrictions, you can still play at a comp. level. 8th absolutely needs these restrictions though, vanilla 8th is horrible.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 djphranq wrote:

The Dark Apostle wrote:
MERCS, too many reasons to say

oooo I forgot about MERCS... yeah ... try MERCS, OP... the models look wicked awesome.

I can't get behind MERCS... the models, as you would say, look "wicked boss awesome" and I agree. I can't get around the movement of the game... I don't like the cards, and "snapping" to terrain. If I wanted to move into terrain, why can't I just move into it?

its snap to cover, and i dont know what models you use but the USCR behemoth or a heavy support setting down, snapping to COVER is a very handy thing, and in the military they run to a spot, then hop/jump/barrel roll to cover. mercs is a spec ops game

The Dark Apostle wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 djphranq wrote:

The Dark Apostle wrote:
MERCS, too many reasons to say

oooo I forgot about MERCS... yeah ... try MERCS, OP... the models look wicked awesome.

I can't get behind MERCS... the models, as you would say, look "wicked boss awesome" and I agree. I can't get around the movement of the game... I don't like the cards, and "snapping" to terrain. If I wanted to move into terrain, why can't I just move into it?

its snap to cover, and i dont know what models you use but the USCR behemoth or a heavy support setting down, snapping to COVER is a very handy thing, and in the military they run to a spot, then hop/jump/barrel roll to cover. mercs is a spec ops game

I get the premise of the game and a lot of their reasoning behind things, but the cards for movement seem weird. I said the models look awesome, but the game mechanics just bug me. It's not a bad game, just not to my tastes.

 MisterMoon wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
@ MisterMoon: The term cinematic battles was thrown in the 6th ed main rulebook and they mentioned it in WD and on their site during release of 6th IIRC.

No, not that part, the part where they say, "we aren't a games company, we are a hobby or miniatures company," or words to that effect, and with proper context. People throw this out there a lot, but I've never read it anywhere official. The rules supporting cinematic battles seems to just be marketing fluff...

Chapter House lawsuit. Do you need more, then that?

 Alfndrate wrote:

The Dark Apostle wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 djphranq wrote:

The Dark Apostle wrote:
MERCS, too many reasons to say

oooo I forgot about MERCS... yeah ... try MERCS, OP... the models look wicked awesome.

I can't get behind MERCS... the models, as you would say, look "wicked boss awesome" and I agree. I can't get around the movement of the game... I don't like the cards, and "snapping" to terrain. If I wanted to move into terrain, why can't I just move into it?

its snap to cover, and i dont know what models you use but the USCR behemoth or a heavy support setting down, snapping to COVER is a very handy thing, and in the military they run to a spot, then hop/jump/barrel roll to cover. mercs is a spec ops game

I get the premise of the game and a lot of their reasoning behind things, but the cards for movement seem weird. I said the models look awesome, but the game mechanics just bug me. It's not a bad game, just not to my tastes.

i can see why you wouldnt like it, it has its quarks. but once youve played a few games you get the hang of the cards and find out how to kind of, use them in ways, to get to certain positions. its quite complicated to explain but theres a certain gusto to moving in mercs.

Deadnight wrote:
Well, to be fair, i can criticize the game mechanics regarding GW games as well, to no end. its a badly designed game, in technical terms. dodgy codex release cycle. bloated and excessive core rules. legitimate abstraction is required at times, but i feel GW does it really badly, and often merely for the sake of it. then there is the tacked on vehicle rules. the focus on the dude with the cool gun/sword, and everyone else basically being an ablative wound? and so on. Sound like a complaint? In a way, yes. And in a way, No. its more of an observation. for all its bad design, that doesnt mean it can't work. And it can certainly be competitive, but there are strings attached. i spend my first 6 odd years war-gaming with an incredibly cut throat and competitive group of friends who played 40k, so yes, i know it can be competitive. My problem with it though is that only certain codices are really good, if you want to do well, and within that spectrum, each codex has only a handful of "builds" that are truly on that level. So when i turn up with my tau army that hasn't had a meaningful update in 10 years or thereabouts, and go up against the latest FOTM army, im not in for a fun time. this is compounded by GWs design ethos, where with each edition, they seek to change the game, rather than improve it, and much of the changes are to push a certain segment of their product line. Don't worry, im not having a go, this is me standing back and making what i see as an objective assertion.

But yes, you are right that 40k can be competitive. Its not specifically built for it though, like other games. And that its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Its a sandbox for you and your friend to play in. its about pushing the idea of two mates with a few beers rolling dice in a basement and having a blast. 40K is, to all intents and purposes, whatever you want it to be. Mistermoon wants it to be a competitive game it seems, and he and his mates seem to be able to tweak it in such a way that it works out for them. others want a different experience, and due to the nature of the game, they can get just as much out of it. biggest thing involved is communication. find the right people with a similar attitude and have a blast. So as its strength, you can get so many playstyles out of it, but its weakness is its lack of direction, its lack of purpose and an overall lack of cohesion. in my mind at least.

As for me - i think 40k has its place. But after 3 years of warmachine, which is a properly designed-for-it competitive game (ie it has a definite focus, and clear direction/aim/intent in its design, rather than GWs sandbox). Warmachine is great for what i want it. 40k simply cannot compare to it. for me, 40k is a narrative, co-operative game, requiring a bit of restraint and self policing to get right, and it needs this because of its horrendous internal and external balance. and if it doesn't fit, we can change it.

Well said. One observation is your first complaint was about GW's "book creep." I don't think it was a random accident that this was your first complaint, and everything else seemed more or less based off of it. I also think the same thing. GW would have a better overall system with releasing updates to all book within a few months of each other, if not all at once. But they aren't changing that... so I just make peace with it. I like your analogy that 40k is a sandbox vs WM/H built-from-the-ground-up competitive nature. Having played both, I agree, and I'm glad that 40k exits to satisfy the gamer who wants to enjoy a broader experience. What I really want to tie into this for the OP is that experience plays a long way in enjoying ANY system. Running away from 40k because of difficulty is going to lead you to playing Risk, or Axis and Allies. After playing 40k as much as I do, I know what not to get hung up on. I know the usual tricks, and I accept that I won't always win, but always have fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Noir wrote:

 MisterMoon wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
@ MisterMoon: The term cinematic battles was thrown in the 6th ed main rulebook and they mentioned it in WD and on their site during release of 6th IIRC.

No, not that part, the part where they say, "we aren't a games company, we are a hobby or miniatures company," or words to that effect, and with proper context. People throw this out there a lot, but I've never read it anywhere official. The rules supporting cinematic battles seems to just be marketing fluff...

Chapter House lawsuit. Do you need more, then that?

I'm familiar with that lawsuit, but I'd want some kind of transcript to read, so I can put it in appropriate context. With the regularity that I hear it from folks, especially in a negative context towards GW, you'd think it's in print somewhere. Perhaps as a mission statement chiseled on the front of the GW HQ.

That said, and this is pure speculation... If it was mentioned in that lawsuit, then it was said to win that law suit- and potentially, for no other reason. I can attest to my private business experience, that corporate moguls will say all kinds of craziness in a court of law to ensure that they win... and they get away with it all the time.

Mistermoon I hope your right and they are a game company . It will do wonders for aftermarket kits and models.

Noir wrote:
Mistermoon I hope your right and they are a game company . It will do wonders for aftermarket kits and models.

Not sure I got that... But I'll sum it up, in a court of law they are what ever they need to be to win the lawsuit. Since the chapterhouse suit is centered around minis, it's no wonder that they are saying making miniatures is their best jam ever.

In a business setting they are whatever makes their investors and stakeholders the most money.

Since they call themselves Games Workshop, ill call them what they call themselves, and assume that's where their focus is until I am convinced otherwise.

I think people are vastly underestimating the amount of time and effort it would take GW to redo all books as once. It too Privateer nearly 2 years to work through the 4 Warmachine armies for Mark II.

 cincydooley wrote:
I think people are vastly underestimating the amount of time and effort it would take GW to redo all books as once. It too Privateer nearly 2 years to work through the 4 Warmachine armies for Mark II.

Five factions and six months, actually. If you want to count the Hordes books as well, ten factions and 12 months.