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.

 heartserenade wrote:
My problem with Warmachine is that i love to get into Warmachine: I like the setting and the fluff and the fact that the rules are tight and good for competitive play. It's just that the aesthetic of the models doesn't appeal to me.

I have the same issue I also dislike being forced to use special characters. I have a Cygnar army (all the infantry are proxied though) but I doubt it will ever see the table again.

I have been playing GW games since the early 90's although I never really was exclusively a GW gamer. Warhammer 8th completely killed any interest I had in WHFB and 7th killed my residual interest in 40k. I will happily play any of the specialist games although I haven't managed a game in years. I still like 40k's fluff but these days I get mine exclusively from FFG.

My reasons for walking away from the current core games are mostly rules based. Terrible rules+terrible balance=bad game.

My main game at the moment is FoW but my current project is a couple of Warzone:Resurrection armies which are currently being badly painted.

 Yonan wrote:
I'll be honest Deadnight, you came across as very condescending there - the only person in the thread to do so, you should probably check that. Not a conversation that I think will progress well so I'll leave it there.
.

If I came across as condasdcending yonan, then I will apologise wholeheartedly, and honestly, it certainly was not my intention. Nor was it meant as anything personal. Internet, and tone and all that. Can we call it something that was lost in translation? It's just that what you said (without meaning to,I'm certain) was a commonly stated, and commonly repeated falsehood that I've seen crop up repeatedly. Think along the lines of someone saying 'balanced games are rubbish. All you get is homogenisation and boring similar lists' etc despite all the evidence. It'll grind your gears as much as mine. I'd dearly like to end that cycle, and put the truth out there, which is why I listed a lot of the areas describing the large amount if fluff fir for pp's works. It anything, that was why I might have come across harsher than intended.

*offers internet beer as peace offering*

With respect though, i don't see why a further conversation wouldn't end well. Refresh? I would whole heartedly recommend checking out the iron kingdoms fluff though. You will be amazed. if you're genuinely interested, pm me or open up a thread in the pp boards - I can give you a lot if headers in where to look.

It's not that I'm opposed to having to field special characters. It's more of I don't like the look of those said characters. I'm all for the fluff and the theme and the rules... just not the actual look of the models. I can see why people would like the look of them, but it's not for me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


That's the core difference between BTech and 40K. 40K is a setting. It has specific story lines, and a time line that spans thousands of years, but it's so open that you can pretty much do anything anywhere and justify it. BattleTech is a history. Everything from every single planet name, the required jumps to go from one to another and even the names of CEO's of major companies is defined within the BTech world. You can't just do anything like you can in 40K because BTech is very rigid. That's not necessarily a bad thing mind you, but it is a major structural difference between the two.

Shush white knight , I am trying to enjoy hearing how people like gaming. I do not need you trumpeting the virtues of GW everywhere.

*offers no internet beer*

Calling HBMC a white knight is fairly ridiculous.

 -Loki- wrote:
Calling HBMC a white knight is fairly ridiculous.

I think Bullockist was joking a bit there.

 -Loki- wrote:
Calling HBMC a white knight is fairly ridiculous.

Humour score=0

Anyways, back OT:

I started in the hobby with WHFB. I first read the book Loathsome Ratmen and all their Vile Kin and fell in love with the evil conniving rat people at once. Over the years I amassed a large army before starting on an IG army for 40K when WHFB started becoming less popular.

What got me out was a combination of massive price hikes (A single decent sized Clanrat unit was going to cost me around £44.00 and the Stormvemin unit I desired was going to be over £50.00), issues and discrepancies within the rules to the point where I was lost, the new rulebooks massive amount of special rules, non of which where in an appendix, but where somewhere in the middle of the book, the general clunkiness and finally the fact that the books where so totally unbalanced that it pretty much removed any fun. I last fought against Chaos Dwarfs, and lost owing to the massive gunline. Hell, the last two rule books have both favoured armies other than Skaven, 7th loving Cavalry (Which Skaven have non of) and 8th loving gunlines and magic (of which Skaven can only do the latter). Finally the sheer number of minis that I had to purchase and assemble, not to mention paint, caused me to back down.

I turned to Warmachine just over one and a half years ago and I have just about stopped looking back. In Warmachine I found a game with clear and concise rules that favours tactical and strategic thinking to win. Now I have a 35PT army, with two Casters (P,Deneghra and The Witch Coven of Garlghast) and all for about £10 more than the cost of a GW starter box. With the reduced model count I can now afford to lavish the attention that each mini deserves on my army and assemble a beautifully painted army. Whats more I can actually win. In WHFB I was usually massacred with Cavalry or RoFLed with arrows/muskets/whatever whilst in 40K my inability to have sufficient funds to purchase the meta units left me being chewed up by richer players. And the dice. Never mention the dice. Ever. Rolling that many for one units attacks was heinous.
In Warmachine I can pull off amazing strategies and bold attacks. And if all else fails, smashing a Seether into my opponents caster usually works.
I have also been getting into Battletech and soon hope to won the intro box.

I havnt quit GW fully as I still wish to play WHFB, but I am moving away and until the prices drop drastically my dreams for a HE army, Empire army and to finnish off my older Brothers Brettonians will have to be shelved.
I just cannot excuse or afford £20+ for a basic unit box that I will need at least two of.

Why I left GW: Because playing Sisters of Battle is like playing chess with pawns only : the codex and rule books sold by GW are inferior to many fan-made creations. My minis may be worthless on the field, but they're worth more on the second-hand market than what I paid for them a few years ago. Most of them aren't even OOP, and that says a lot about the insane price increases of the last few years.

Most of my wargaming friends are moving on anyway. Even if some of my non-wargaming friends can afford a GW army at the standard size, none will pay that much for plastic minis, and I can understand them. I just can't justify buying another army to make a matching pair.

I got rid of all of my 40k stuff and most WHFB. Just kept the minis (stored at my parent's), they can always be useful for other gaming systems like KoW. Most of them are from the fifth edition, they're classic now.

What I have been playing: Mostly board games and historicals.
I will probably start Bolt Action soon. Ticks all the right boxes : not too many minis, interesting rules, dirt cheap minis (1/72 scale)

Why I choose the regular games I play:
I'm done with games that cost something into the four digits if you want to field two average forces.
I'm done with games that require you to have a wheelbarrow to carry your minis.
I'm done with games that need endless hordes of minis that take forever to paint.
I'm done with games that take one entire afternoon to finish ONE game.
I'm done with games that have crappy, inefficient and wildly unbalanced rules.

If it has good value, works smoothly and doesn't need too much involvement (I have a life too) because of the sheer complexity of the rules, the game length or the time needed to paint minis, I'm interested.

When I first discovered GW I was tickled pink about the idea of building up model armies and model terrain and then directing the former over the latter with machiavellian strategies and canny tactics, though even back then I thought the prices were a bit steep and my army purchases were a steady, slow trickle rather than great big splurges. I tootled along for a while like this.

Three main things stopped that. In general order...

Epic

I was there for Epic's last official hurrah as Epic: Armageddon. Some of us vets got into it, but when I looked through the book I was horrified by the fact that space marine characters didn't get a gazillion different options and things! But when I played it, I saw how that didn't matter. The game flowed like a dream. It actually delivered those ideals I was attracted to back at the start of my hobby. It opened my eyes to what a real wargame was like. Warmaster and BFG did pretty much the same, but Epic was the first inkling of it

Banishment

GW Belfast's clearing out of veterans on Thursday nights (the first I experienced) coincided rather neatly with their inclusion into the 'Northern Europe' area, or catchment, or whatever, and that latter's ban on SG in stores.

Ironfists

I liked Ogre Kingdoms when they appeared. I'm a dinosaur nut, but I even dumped my lizardmen in favour of ogres. I didn't really like the mooby mongol look, though, so I set myself to convert them to the more tradional, european-styled ogres. It's a project that's still puttering on to this day, with a lot of delays and shelvings, but a big reason for that is...
I'm a kind of indecisive person. When I'm faced with two or more choices offering generally similar outcomes, I tend to get a bit flustered. So it was when I perused the 6th ed ogre book, faced with all the usual weapon and magic item and special trait choices of all army books, and in particular the choice between additional hand weapons and ironfists, which my ogres would be permanently fastened to. Which is better? Which is better? +1 attack, or sometimes +1 attack and sometimes +1 Sv? Which is better?
Then I had the sudden realisation. It doesn't matter. It really shouldn't matter. Not when you're supposed to field dozens of ogres or even hundreds of thinlings. All this fussing and picking over tiny, pointless things meant two things: GW's two core games are clunky, tedious, and overgranular skirmish games, disguised as battle games by having too many minis; and the two core games are much more concerned with listbuilding and 'mathammering' the numbers to take advantage of unbalanced units and combos, than they ever were with any kind of tactics on the tabletop.
I gave up on 40K and WHFB there and then.

What I went to instead. What can't I go to instead? Some fellow gamers expressed an interest in Warmachine, but I wasn't really into the 'page 5' headbutting style, or the GW-style ferreting out of combos. Ditto with Malifaux a few years later, a game that is probably even more broken and beardy than 40K (with the ridiculous pro that it's less random because you draw cards rather than roll dice ) which is a pity 'cos our main game host quickly became a Wyrd henchman, devoted to the cause.

I joined a historicals club, primarily to play something other than GW games. They played WAB, and I joined in a small tourney they held. (My last few games of anything called Warhammer, and proof to me that Warhammer doesn't need wizards and goblins to be clunky and tedious) They gave it up pretty soon in favour of Warlord Games' historical trio, particularly Pike & Shotte as a replacement for WAB ECW. These games, IMO, are great; which is a little unsurprising given they're bred from Warmaster stock. I've had more fun losing with these than getting good dice rolls with GW's core 2.
Other historical games at the club, or on my bookshelf, include Battlegroup Kursk (more historical than FoW's tank parks, tho I haven't noticed the stifling simulation that people dislike in 'more historical' games), Valhalla, Dux Bellorum, Ronin, Warmaster Ancients, and Gutshot.

S/F-wise... I was a bit tardy in selling or chucking most of my 40K/WHFB minis, which wasn't a bad thing, because I figured that if I don't stick with GW's look for their ogres, why should I stick with their rules for their minis, too? It took me a while to peruse different 28mm fantasy battle options out there...
I downloaded HOTT, and it looks like a decent tactical game, but I thought the level of abstraction was just a wee bit too much in places. In particular, I'd have trouble handwaving 28mm archers as shooting only two inches.
I thought Kings of War looked pretty good, nice tactical abstractions, the book was shiny, and there were plenty of fanlists for Warhammer factions pouring out. But there were a few subtle little things that put me off, that gave the vague impression of a stopgap for bored GW fans before they went back to Warhammer. The basing footprints, and the justifications for copying GW's 25mm basing for orcs (they need room to swing, see?); the role of characters as skirmishing combat monsters rather than leaders; and a bit I heard from game designer extraordinaire Jake Thornton about he who has the fastest cav, wins.
Speaking of Jake Thornton: God of Battles. Also looks quite tactical, and actually lets you field ogres and halflings in the same force without proxy (part of my OK theme) but by the time I read it I'd gone well off the idea of farting around, picking out casualties in a battle game. Though it fits with the game, which seems more about warband battles than larger army battles. (Loads of skirmish units, little cav, and no moving your arty) Although I've seen a couple of clever proxy armies, it also seems a bit too wed to Foundry's fantasy range, the different parts of which are either unavailable or execrable.
Fantasy Hail Caesar or Basic Impetus Fantasticus... doable, but the yahoogroup for the former is dead as a doornail with nothing to show for it. (and now I wouldn't go to yahoogroups for love nor money) I'm not entirely sure why I didn't look harder at fantasy impetus ATM...

I wouldn't say no if I was offered a game of any of the above, but at the mo the fantasy mass battle game I've settled on is Mayhem. It looks to have a scoop of Warmaster, a glug of HOTT, but it's also it's own, distinctive game. Flexible in terms of scale, and very flexible in terms of minis or units. Rather than too generic or too rigid, it's got balanced unit creation rules to go with any minis or background you like. It's mechanics are based round the typical RPG polydice (D6s, D8s, D10s, and the rest of the bunch), and I can see how that might put people off, but having read the rules I can also see the enormous tactical depth, risk and reward they bring to the game. And there's always EM4.

An alternative sci-fi game was slightly easier to settle on. I saw a few reviews and reports of Victory Decision: Future Combat, bought the download, and that was that. It has some elements of (uncluttered, unbroken) 40K, as well as Epic: A (the author was an E:A playtester, IIRC), with some pretty simple-looking switches between platoon-level skirmish and company-level battles.
Otherwise, some of us got into Dystopian Wars, which is quite fun, and I even got the historicals club interested in it. I also had my first demo game of Infinity fairly recently. I'd thought the models were pretty but disregarded the game, foolishly assuming it was a far-future version of Malifaux. Nope! I was quite impressed with it, and I should get round to buying a starter set for it before too long.

I played for a bit in the late 90s (just before 3E came out), and stopped when I went to university. I came back to wargames in 2010, and got back into 40K, picking up an army for the faction that interested me....Sisters of Battle. Do I really need to say any more?

Well, the shoddy treatment of my army wasn't the only reason. There was also the scale bloat of 40K, where you were putting down twice as many models as in 2E and quite often scooping up a good number of them before they got to do anything. There were the once-or-twice per game rules arguments, where we would either both waste ten minutes flipping through rambling rulebooks which sometimes weren't designed for the edition in question, or invoke the "cheat on a 4+" rule. It was hard to ignore that some things I'd have liked to take for fluff reasons were obviously overpriced or purpose-less (Celestians get an ability that makes them better in CC, but can't take CC weapons?).

Mainly, I just got into other things. The start of 2010 was, as it turned out, a very good time to start wargaming. Warmachine 2E had just come out, and Malifaux was launched, and I got into both. And I simply liked them better--a scale that felt like more of a fit for my tastes (closer to 2E 40K, which was probably not a coincidence), rules where questions could be answered by checking what the rulebook actually said and there was no stigma for trying to win, companies that actually seemed to like their fans and wanted to talk to them. And so on.

I did stick with Blood Bowl & Necromunda for a bit, but then Specialist got capped in the back of the head gangland-style, so that was the end of my association. I do keep an eye on GW's progress, because I hope when the management pull their golden parachutes, the company won't be completely destroyed.

Vermis wrote:

Spoiler:

When I first discovered GW I was tickled pink about the idea of building up model armies and model terrain and then directing the former over the latter with machiavellian strategies and canny tactics, though even back then I thought the prices were a bit steep and my army purchases were a steady, slow trickle rather than great big splurges. I tootled along for a while like this.

Three main things stopped that. In general order...

Epic

I was there for Epic's last official hurrah as Epic: Armageddon. Some of us vets got into it, but when I looked through the book I was horrified by the fact that space marine characters didn't get a gazillion different options and things! But when I played it, I saw how that didn't matter. The game flowed like a dream. It actually delivered those ideals I was attracted to back at the start of my hobby. It opened my eyes to what a real wargame was like. Warmaster and BFG did pretty much the same, but Epic was the first inkling of it

Banishment

GW Belfast's clearing out of veterans on Thursday nights (the first I experienced) coincided rather neatly with their inclusion into the 'Northern Europe' area, or catchment, or whatever, and that latter's ban on SG in stores.

Ironfists

I liked Ogre Kingdoms when they appeared. I'm a dinosaur nut, but I even dumped my lizardmen in favour of ogres. I didn't really like the mooby mongol look, though, so I set myself to convert them to the more tradional, european-styled ogres. It's a project that's still puttering on to this day, with a lot of delays and shelvings, but a big reason for that is...
I'm a kind of indecisive person. When I'm faced with two or more choices offering generally similar outcomes, I tend to get a bit flustered. So it was when I perused the 6th ed ogre book, faced with all the usual weapon and magic item and special trait choices of all army books, and in particular the choice between additional hand weapons and ironfists, which my ogres would be permanently fastened to. Which is better? Which is better? +1 attack, or sometimes +1 attack and sometimes +1 Sv? Which is better?
Then I had the sudden realisation. It doesn't matter. It really shouldn't matter. Not when you're supposed to field dozens of ogres or even hundreds of thinlings. All this fussing and picking over tiny, pointless things meant two things: GW's two core games are clunky, tedious, and overgranular skirmish games, disguised as battle games by having too many minis; and the two core games are much more concerned with listbuilding and 'mathammering' the numbers to take advantage of unbalanced units and combos, than they ever were with any kind of tactics on the tabletop.
I gave up on 40K and WHFB there and then.

What I went to instead. What can't I go to instead? Some fellow gamers expressed an interest in Warmachine, but I wasn't really into the 'page 5' headbutting style, or the GW-style ferreting out of combos. Ditto with Malifaux a few years later, a game that is probably even more broken and beardy than 40K (with the ridiculous pro that it's less random because you draw cards rather than roll dice ) which is a pity 'cos our main game host quickly became a Wyrd henchman, devoted to the cause.

I joined a historicals club, primarily to play something other than GW games. They played WAB, and I joined in a small tourney they held. (My last few games of anything called Warhammer, and proof to me that Warhammer doesn't need wizards and goblins to be clunky and tedious) They gave it up pretty soon in favour of Warlord Games' historical trio, particularly Pike & Shotte as a replacement for WAB ECW. These games, IMO, are great; which is a little unsurprising given they're bred from Warmaster stock. I've had more fun losing with these than getting good dice rolls with GW's core 2.
Other historical games at the club, or on my bookshelf, include Battlegroup Kursk (more historical than FoW's tank parks, tho I haven't noticed the stifling simulation that people dislike in 'more historical' games), Valhalla, Dux Bellorum, Ronin, Warmaster Ancients, and Gutshot.

S/F-wise... I was a bit tardy in selling or chucking most of my 40K/WHFB minis, which wasn't a bad thing, because I figured that if I don't stick with GW's look for their ogres, why should I stick with their rules for their minis, too? It took me a while to peruse different 28mm fantasy battle options out there...
I downloaded HOTT, and it looks like a decent tactical game, but I thought the level of abstraction was just a wee bit too much in places. In particular, I'd have trouble handwaving 28mm archers as shooting only two inches.
I thought Kings of War looked pretty good, nice tactical abstractions, the book was shiny, and there were plenty of fanlists for Warhammer factions pouring out. But there were a few subtle little things that put me off, that gave the vague impression of a stopgap for bored GW fans before they went back to Warhammer. The basing footprints, and the justifications for copying GW's 25mm basing for orcs (they need room to swing, see?); the role of characters as skirmishing combat monsters rather than leaders; and a bit I heard from game designer extraordinaire Jake Thornton about he who has the fastest cav, wins.
Speaking of Jake Thornton: God of Battles. Also looks quite tactical, and actually lets you field ogres and halflings in the same force without proxy (part of my OK theme) but by the time I read it I'd gone well off the idea of farting around, picking out casualties in a battle game. Though it fits with the game, which seems more about warband battles than larger army battles. (Loads of skirmish units, little cav, and no moving your arty) Although I've seen a couple of clever proxy armies, it also seems a bit too wed to Foundry's fantasy range, the different parts of which are either unavailable or execrable.
Fantasy Hail Caesar or Basic Impetus Fantasticus... doable, but the yahoogroup for the former is dead as a doornail with nothing to show for it. (and now I wouldn't go to yahoogroups for love nor money) I'm not entirely sure why I didn't look harder at fantasy impetus ATM...

I wouldn't say no if I was offered a game of any of the above, but at the mo the fantasy mass battle game I've settled on is Mayhem. It looks to have a scoop of Warmaster, a glug of HOTT, but it's also it's own, distinctive game. Flexible in terms of scale, and very flexible in terms of minis or units. Rather than too generic or too rigid, it's got balanced unit creation rules to go with any minis or background you like. It's mechanics are based round the typical RPG polydice (D6s, D8s, D10s, and the rest of the bunch), and I can see how that might put people off, but having read the rules I can also see the enormous tactical depth, risk and reward they bring to the game. And there's always EM4.

An alternative sci-fi game was slightly easier to settle on. I saw a few reviews and reports of Victory Decision: Future Combat, bought the download, and that was that. It has some elements of (uncluttered, unbroken) 40K, as well as Epic: A (the author was an E:A playtester, IIRC), with some pretty simple-looking switches between platoon-level skirmish and company-level battles.
Otherwise, some of us got into Dystopian Wars, which is quite fun, and I even got the historicals club interested in it. I also had my first demo game of Infinity fairly recently. I'd thought the models were pretty but disregarded the game, foolishly assuming it was a far-future version of Malifaux. Nope! I was quite impressed with it, and I should get round to buying a starter set for it before too long.

Wow, it's been a very long time since a post told me about two rulesets I wasn't familiar with. I'll check them out.

Our ending points may be different (I love KoW, and SBH and "Of Gods and Mortals" are my other fantasy favorites), but your journey sounds alot like mine. Alot of trying different rulesets until you find ones that fits you best. It's really the way to go if you can find opponents.

Has anyone either toned down their wargaming overall after leaving GW and/or moved more to video gaming? I'm wondering how much overlap there is and if PC strategy games are considered much of a replacement for tabletop wargaming for people. I got into tabletop wargaming about the same time I cut down on RTS games (ie. starcraft) and played more TBS games (ie. Europa Universalis, Civilization) and this continues after no more 40k gaming. So many good turn based strategy games, some are even good multiplayer so scratch that social itch.

 Yonan wrote:
I'm wondering how much overlap there is and if PC strategy games are considered much of a replacement for tabletop wargaming for people.

I genuinely don't know. I don't spend as much time and money on wargaming as I used to when I still actively played GW games but that was about a decade ago and my personal circumstances have changed significantly in that time, not least because I have a family now.

Yeah it was mentioned in another thread that it's more a time than price thing in relation to tabletop vs video games especially for us older bastards (I'm 31, I'm not old!) with work, family etc. You only have so many hours for fun, do you use that time for tabletop, video games or other stuff. The accessibility of video gaming is one of the huge pros for it I find so that makes it pretty attractive compared to tabletop. When you can launch a great looking 3d strategy game each from your own homes and be in voice chat with your mates, save the game if someones kids act up and so on... it's very appealing compared to the time investment required for a 2k game of 40k.

The time required is a big part of why I love Dreadball, you can smash out games in 15 mins. I really can't call 40k a "beer and pretzels" game as some people seem to.

 Yonan wrote:
Has anyone either toned down their wargaming overall after leaving GW and/or moved more to video gaming?

I got a super-stupid crazy gaming rig last year and have played more video games than wargames since then. Does that count?

 Yonan wrote:
Has anyone either toned down their wargaming overall after leaving GW and/or moved more to video gaming? I'm wondering how much overlap there is and if PC strategy games are considered much of a replacement for tabletop wargaming for people.

It's funny - I'm the opposite.

When I was a teenager, I was hugely into video games. University happened and my whole interest there died. I guess aside from my mega drive emulator, a few old strategy games on the PC (Starcraft brood war) which I play once in a blue moon - I don't play computer games, nor do I have any interest in playing computer games. Heck even the games I play are over ten or fifteen years old!

Old school gaming all the way!

 Yonan wrote:
Has anyone either toned down their wargaming overall after leaving GW and/or moved more to video gaming?

I see playing more games and getting more painted in other games. I always had a dread of chugging through 50+ guys just to be the core of my army, not counting for tanks, heavy support choices, etc. Then bigger models like aircraft or super heavies. I just don't enjoy painting them than models of characters. I still fully intend to do GW dioramas that fit (or don't...) within the context of Grimdark.

Playing bare metal in Warmachine doesn't draw stink eye much either.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I got a super-stupid crazy gaming rig last year and have played more video games than wargames since then. Does that count?

PC Master Race represent! *fistbump*

Out of interest, does it include many strategy games? Also any 40k games like DoW 1/2 and Space Marine?

Deadnight wrote:
When I was a teenager, I was hugely into video games. University happened and my whole interest there died. I guess aside from my mega drive emulator, a few old strategy games on the PC (Starcraft brood war) which I play once in a blue moon - I don't play computer games, nor do I have any interest in playing computer games. Heck even the games I play are over ten or fifteen years old!
Old school gaming all the way!

I may be slowly joining you as I was a PC gamer and have now got the tabletop bug, but I can't seem to kick the video games yet. WoW is a harsh mistress too ; p

 TheKbob wrote:
I see playing more games and getting more painted in other games. I always had a dread of chugging through 50+ guys just to be the core of my army, not counting for tanks, heavy support choices, etc. Then bigger models like aircraft or super heavies. I just don't enjoy painting them than models of characters. I still fully intend to do GW dioramas that fit (or don't...) within the context of Grimdark.

Playing bare metal in Warmachine doesn't draw stink eye much either.

Once I'm good enough I'd love to do some dioramas too, you see some amazing work there. I'm still working on my Blood Ravens purely for "I fething love Blood Ravens", and I have IG Tanith First, IG renegade Guard and CSM to work on still too -_-. And 300 Deadzone minis -_-

Warmachine draws a lot more "gamers" due to the better rules so yeah I've seen that too. I've also seen more beautifully painted warmachine armies, having less models helps you devote more time to each one I guess, and they are very stylised. The biggest powergamer (not waac/douche) I know who fielded grey hordes in 40k is paying to get his Circle and Khador professionally painted, he's really into warmahordes which is a big seal of approval for me, he knows his games be they tabletop or video.

I haven't quit GW, but I am on a purchasing hiatus from them. My wargame funds will go towards Dropzone Commander in the meantime. Everything about DZC impresses me immensely.

 Yonan wrote:
PC Master Race represent! *fistbump*

Damn straight!

 Yonan wrote:
Out of interest, does it include many strategy games? Also any 40k games like DoW 1/2 and Space Marine?

Umm... not so much. I mean, I bought World in Conflict, Dawn of War II (plus its expansions) and Company of Heroes (the first one), but aside from the first couple of levels in DoWII I haven't played them yet. Looking over what I have played since I got my new PC we have... Spec Ops: The Line, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 2, X-Com Enemy Unknown/Within, FarCry 3, Torchlight 2, and things like that. I'm currently playing through Skyrim, but got distracted by Assassin's Creed Black Flag (got that in the recent Steam sale). So it's not really a strategy game "replacement", more just something I do instead of wargaming stuff (though, I am currently doing another 40K RPG book for FFG, so that probably counts towards my war gaming 'head space' at the moment).

The first game I played on my new PC when I got it was Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion, a cross between real time space combat and an a 4X, so maybe that means something? Or it just means I like watching ships explode.

Why I (mostly) left GW: the rules for 40k suck. I won't bother writing a full essay about why, but the simple version is that every single aspect of the game is broken. Balance sucks, design consistency is nonexistent, not even YMDC knows how the rules actually work, and the whole thing is just a giant bloated mess of special rules and exceptions to special rules and exceptions to the exceptions. And attempting to play even semi-competitively is a nightmare, as the outcome of the game is almost entirely based on which player's chosen balance exploits win the rock-paper-scissors match. I'm honestly surprised that anyone writing GW's rules is still employed when they display such staggering levels of incompetence. But the end result is that the game just isn't fun anymore.

What I replaced GW with: X-Wing. It's fun, there aren't any rule arguments, and it's balanced well enough that I can play random pickup games with whatever list I feel like using and feel like I have a fair chance of winning as long as I've made a reasonable attempt to put together a functioning strategy. And it's just so much cheaper, despite buying 3-4 copies of every ship. I'm also still looking for a few OOP FW models on ebay, which is a lot easier now that I can save all of my gaming budget for them instead of having to waste money on $50-100 rulebooks or buying the latest overpowered tournament list.

The thing that finished it for me in a final and complete way was when GW sent their lawyers after the Talk BloodBowl community. You don't send your most ardent fans legal threats and you don't demand to take over the domain name of a fan community for your product.

I will never, ever be a customer of a company that sees me as it's legal enemy.

I largely do historicals now. And sci-fi and fantasy games using other rules from the internet. Song of Blades and Heroes, FUBAR, Chain Reaction, Tomorrow's War, Fantasy Rules!, SuperSystem, Goal System: Delves, etc.,. I also occasionally play Warmachine/Hordes.

 Yonan wrote:
Has anyone either toned down their wargaming overall after leaving GW and/or moved more to video gaming?

I'm sure some for some folks it works this way, but not for me. I've taken various breaks from wargaming over the years, but I don't recall ever filling that time with much-increased video gaming. For me, nothing about Video gaming has the same tactile experience, or the same creative outlet of actually building something.

As to the "social" itch, it may be an old fashioned opinion, but I don't consider playing video games with someone in front of the TV or talking to somone online to have the same quality of interaction as actually having someone across the table, face to face with a boardgame or tabletop wargame. While no doubt enjoyable and having some social value, it just doesn't have the same quality of interaction for me, and most social scientists agree.

 Peregrine wrote:
What I replaced GW with: X-Wing.

What model count range do you play x-wing at, when you own 3-4 of each model, and how long are the games do you find? I'm pretty keen on X-wing for a number of reasons. Do you think the game will scale well with the larger stuff that's (I think) coming out now?
---
I'll refrain from derailing on the relative social interaction despite it being a very interesting topic for me ; p

H.B.M.C - Sins is great! I've played a lot of stock Sins since it's release with friends, it's really good as a "4x-lite". I'd love a Battlefleet Gothic mod for it, but as is there are some other great ones such as Star Wars and Star Trek that are worth a look if you haven't already.

 Yonan wrote:
Has anyone either toned down their wargaming overall after leaving GW and/or moved more to video gaming? I'm wondering how much overlap there is and if PC strategy games are considered much of a replacement for tabletop wargaming for people. I got into tabletop wargaming about the same time I cut down on RTS games (ie. starcraft) and played more TBS games (ie. Europa Universalis, Civilization) and this continues after no more 40k gaming. So many good turn based strategy games, some are even good multiplayer so scratch that social itch.

Yes, but not strategy games. I've played WoW for the past couple of years when I had all but forgotten about wargaming as a hobby; I've only even come back to wargaming as a whole within the past year, if even that.

 Eilif wrote:

Wow, it's been a very long time since a post told me about two rulesets I wasn't familiar with. I'll check them out.

Happy to be of service.

Our ending points may be different (I love KoW,

Well, I don't despise KoW. As said, it does look good for the most part, and I will play it. Given the general state of fantasy battle gaming round here I can't afford to be inflexible, to the point that I'll probably magnetise my minis just to put them on different games' base sizes or unit footprints.

and SBH and "Of Gods and Mortals" are my other fantasy favorites), but your journey sounds alot like mine. Alot of trying different rulesets until you find ones that fits you best. It's really the way to go if you can find opponents.

Reminds me, I talked about my bookshelf but forgot most of my book folder. I've got a copy of SBH meself, and CROM, IIRC.

 Yonan wrote:
Has anyone either toned down their wargaming overall after leaving GW and/or moved more to video gaming?.

I've found the opposite. The less 40k I played, the more wargaming I did in total. Once I found rules and players who didn't fight me every step of the way , the whole experience just became so much more enjoyable and worthwhile.

I think GW left me not the other way around.

I was happy playing lots of GW games , the boxed games,Blood bowl,Space Hulk, Warhammer Quest, Dark Future.
And the big battle games BFG, and Epic.
And the big skirmish game of 40k.

When GW messed up 40k skirmish by changing the game size without changing the rules.
I just suck to Epic,BFG, and the other boxed games.

Then GW decided that all these other games were not a suited to milking money out of a shrinking customer base , as 40k and WHFB.
So they dropped the games I enjoyed.

Then other companies made these games I wanted to play , so I went where the games were developed .

GW stopped caring about games and gamers, and focused on collectors.

I am a gamer so moved to companies that write games for game play , not short term sales pitches.

Drop Zone Commander, X-wing.Dead Zone, Dread Ball.(FoW and looking at BA for my WWII fun.)

I would try Infinity and Warmachine if they were played locally.

 Yonan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
What I replaced GW with: X-Wing.

What model count range do you play x-wing at, when you own 3-4 of each model, and how long are the games do you find? I'm pretty keen on X-wing for a number of reasons. Do you think the game will scale well with the larger stuff that's (I think) coming out now?
---
I'll refrain from derailing on the relative social interaction despite it being a very interesting topic for me ; p

H.B.M.C - Sins is great! I've played a lot of stock Sins since it's release with friends, it's really good as a "4x-lite". I'd love a Battlefleet Gothic mod for it, but as is there are some other great ones such as Star Wars and Star Trek that are worth a look if you haven't already.

X-wing is usually played at 100 points, which is the standard tournament format. 100 points gets you between 3-8 ships per side, depending on if they are bare-bones rookie pilots, or tooled up characters. tournament rules are 60 minutes per game, and once you are up to speed with the rules, its pretty easy to finish the game within 60 minutes.

The new epic format allows for 300 points a side, or 200 per person in team battles. These take a good bit longer, and are more akin to a game of 40k in terms of set up and play time.

I've play a couple epic games now and they do take a couple hours, but they are great fun. I love the jamming that big transport ship with no weapons does.