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.

 pretre wrote:

guru wrote:
from warseer

Hardcover book of 264 pages in full color where we find the background of everything the happened from the events in "The End of times" to Warhammer : Age of Sigmar. 8 new scenarios , 24 Warscrolls ( thumbnail profiles ) for Stormcast eternals , Khorne Bloodbound and Sylvaneth . In Spanish. This article becomes part of the module.

From google translate.

This would fit the rumors of it being fluff, scenarios, and warscrolls.

 Shadowclaimer wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I suppose it could just fill some field with the warscrolls you want to play with only so you can go through them instead of an entire army's worth..

I guess the term "list building function" is deeper to me than "grouped warscrolls." it implies a bit of customization and designation of how many models, what equipment, and some sort of value designation. Shouldnt it just be a "army selection tool" rather than an "army building tool?" building implies that the player has to do something more than select.

Does everyone actually think going forward with this release, that gw will actually never implement balance and use it as part of this app?

At the Forge World Open they said there would never be point values, but there would be a tournament structure system they were starting to write for future events.

I'm sure this core rulebook will have all of those specific systems and campaign games. Because there are supposed to be campaign games that limit your model selection

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Wait, so the book has no rules? at all? Just fluff and scenarios? For 90 CAD? Umm...

Seriously?

How likely is it that the blurb in spanish there doesnt accurately describe the book's contents?

Since this matches what my sales reps at GW are telling me, I'd say there is little to no chance the blurb is inaccurate.

And so GW learns the downside of free rules.......

Albino Squirrel wrote:

frankelee wrote:
I can understand the idea of counter trolling people who ask about Kairos Fateweaver combos. Just go, "Yup! Anyone who plays a Skaven wagon thing and Kairos Fateweaver automatically wins every game, see ya later!" I mean if you were playing a regular WFB-like game with Kairos Fateweaver and one of your models had "dragonstomping" which gave you D3 extra attacks every turn, and you went, "I'm using his special ability on this D3 roll and I choose a billion!" it's not like people wouldn't look at you like you had horns growing out of your head. And then hand you a ball and note that you could bounce it.

I personally think if you really want Age of Sigmar to look dumb the best way is to actually review the game and find legitimate things that suck about it. Like, it doesn't scale up very well. Or, battles sometimes devolve into big, messy scrimmages which become boring. When you complain that female gamers can't grow moustaches to suit these unfair rules, or find game hacks that only work if you can't understand basic dice mechanics that anyone over 5 is expected to understand, 99.9% of human beings who hear your argument go, "That's nice," and then never listen to you again.

This is probably the most sensible thing I've seen in this thread.

You do not belong here.

Indeed its sad what people will do try and win a game of toy soldiers including willfully misinterpreting or indeed downright ingoring the rules. The Fatewaver thing has been debunked os many times its not funny.

 Icculus wrote:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Core-Rules-Book-Cheap-Overseas-Ship-PRESALE-/391193828209?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5b14f81b71

Core rulebook pre-sale

1) This isn't what GW sales reps are telling us about the book.

2) This guy does not have the book yet. It hasn't been ordered yet. It hasn't been shipped to retailers.

3) GW has said over and over that the 4 page rules are the only rules, thus they are the Core Rules. They put those 4 pages online, in WD, in the starter box. No surprising they'd put 4 pages of rules in this HC.

4) When GW has done large rulebooks in the last few editions, the starter box had an A4 sized rulebook. So why is there some assumption that this product will have rules not in the aos box?

So I'm guessing that the rumoured Warhammer 30K game will use AoS rules, which would make sense on so many levels. New skirmish 40K-ish game that's expandable. Dual stats for 30K models to be used in 40K. 30K rules for some armies from 40K. Lets them test out new rules without jeopardizing Space Marine (read; 40K) sales. If it bombs or doesn't live up to expectation it can be retired without long term consequences.

Now show me the Aelfs... and I hope they are more Moorcock than Tolkien.

Iain.

frankelee wrote:
I can understand the idea of counter trolling people who ask about Kairos Fateweaver combos. Just go, "Yup! Anyone who plays a Skaven wagon thing and Kairos Fateweaver automatically wins every game, see ya later!" I mean if you were playing a regular WFB-like game with Kairos Fateweaver and one of your models had "dragonstomping" which gave you D3 extra attacks every turn, and you went, "I'm using his special ability on this D3 roll and I choose a billion!" it's not like people wouldn't look at you like you had horns growing out of your head. And then hand you a ball and note that you could bounce it.

I personally think if you really want Age of Sigmar to look dumb the best way is to actually review the game and find legitimate things that suck about it. Like, it doesn't scale up very well. Or, battles sometimes devolve into big, messy scrimmages which become boring. When you complain that female gamers can't grow moustaches to suit these unfair rules, or find game hacks that only work if you can't understand basic dice mechanics that anyone over 5 is expected to understand, 99.9% of human beings who hear your argument go, "That's nice," and then never listen to you again.

This is probably the most sensible thing I've seen in this thread.

You do not belong here.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Things having more vulnerable sides and rear and is a basis for proper tactical play in wargames imo... Any dumbing down of a movement phase hurts tactical play and improving one thing only to worsen another, more important, is bad as well.

agnosto wrote:All of this could have been accomplished without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" the same mechanics that you just listed could have been inserted into the old rules and still retained some tactical depth.

What they said. Sorry Mikhaila, what you described doesn't sound too tactical. Rather than having in-game tactics arising out of interwoven basic rules and a handful if special ones, it sounds like the same old GW overly-strategic listbuilding thing but doubled down: pants-on-head simple, bare rules where what matters is which and how many magic gewgaws and special rules you can cram on top for beating someone in the face. Including things that let you get in quicker to beat someone in the face.

I liked WHFB because Romans couldn't throw magic around or send a Giant crashing through someone's lines and yet still maintain some semblance of tactics

Wot, no elephants?

now I'll have to look elsewhere I suppose.

What Harry said.

Platuan4th wrote:What about those of us that want to play mass fantasy battles and find KOW's rules to be lacking?

What Harry said. Also, not entirely sure of your intent, but if you mean KoW is lacking in individual scuffles, wounds, weapons, and other micromanagement: other mass battle games mix it up a bit, but that's how mass battle wargames generally work. Warhammer was the outlier, the skirmish game that swelled too big, with only a few nods to the necessary abstraction along the way.

Sigvatr wrote:
You can't satisfy everyone. You currently have 3 options with differing depth / complexity:

What Harry said.

Harry wrote:
If you can't find SOMETHING in this lot that rings your bell you need shootin'.

Some of these you can use any armies and some even have systems for working out their points!
and many of these sets can be dropped right into the Olde World as a setting if its the back ground you are missing.

Armies of Arcana
Fantacide (Written by Rick P)
Mayhem
Bear yourselves valiantly
Sword and spear
Legion of battle
Mighty Armies.
Hordes of the Things
Fantasy Warlord.
Warhammer 1st-8th

This! What Harry said! I've mentioned some of these many times before, and here's a wee bit of description of some of them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:FWIW, I actually find 15mm models easier to paint than 28mm. 15mm is my sweet spot, there's a lot of tricks you can get away with to make painting easier that don't work on larger models because it'd look too messy, but the models are still large enough to make out the smaller features of a mansized model (unlike 10mm and 6mm where models start to not look human any more).

Yup. IMO painting gets easier the smaller you go, because the the smaller scales become much more forgiving of quick, basic wash, drybrush and other techniques.

The only thing I prefer about 28mm models is you can't really convert 15mm models very easily, but that's not a problem if you just want to fill out ranks of tons of troops.

The more I look around the hobby, the more I think this is the way it should be. Keep character conversions and heaps of special rules for small 28mm skirmishes, and let mass battles be mass battles, about whole 15mm- units and regiments wheeling about on the table.

 agnosto wrote:
And so GW learns the downside of free rules.......

Definitely a gamble on their part. If you don't want the AoS minis from the box, why would you buy the box? blue whippy sticks, dice, and the fluffbook are the only other things in there.
That said, i think a lot of people will buy this box. Models are awesome.

 Shadowclaimer wrote:

 pretre wrote:

guru wrote:
from warseer

Hardcover book of 264 pages in full color where we find the background of everything occurrido from the events in "The End of times" to Warhammer : Age of Sigmar. 8 new scenarios , 24 Warscrolls ( thumbnail profiles ) for Stormcast eternals , Khorne Bloodbound and Sylvaneth . In Spanish. This article becomes part of the module.

From google translate.

Oo Sylvaneth are the Dryads/Treekin/Wood Elves.

Sylvaneth are strictly Dryads/Trees.

Wood Elves are "Wanderers".

I'm laughing so hard at people trying to wring something out of the Screaming Bell joke rule. It's brilliant.

Being totally fair, if you believe anyone can score 13 on a 2D6 roll that you can't modify... well... I mean... frankly, you deserve to lose.

Then again, it's not called Warhammer: Age of Common Sense.

Well this is unfortunate, because i really like the game mechanics (what exists so far) and really want an excuse to give gw my money for this game. The model range looks promising and the game is fun..

But i cant possibly spend this much money on something that hasnt told me and my buddies how to use it. The purchase wouldnt be justified as i would have hardly any opponents. My group is going to be difficult to win over to this side when i say "there's no balancing mechanic, but we can just throw down what looks balanced and hash it out." It's so much easier to just drop 2000 pts of 40k we already have. Sure, i can probably convince them all to do a game or two of AOS but it just cant have lasting appeal without some form of balance.

I was excited for this book, i thought it was going to make this confusing mess structured and playable for everyone. But outside of the prescribed scenarios i feel like this game at this point has an investment value too high for its replayability. Why suffer through pregame talks and decisions and house rule creation when we can all just play 40k?

I wanted something new that would give me endless hours of high fantasy enjoyment, not endless hours of high fantasy "work" to play the game.

For one thing, the fact that only two universal spells exist had me very convinced this book was going to be a full fledged BRB. Many things in the game could do with clarification. I want to play it but it seems like theyre making it hard for me to give them my money.

I'm also getting impatient sitting here and waiting for gw to do something about it. If rules are coming like that gwrep said at fwopen, why wait so bloody long? I want to know if i should invest NOW, not in two months when the excitement of the new system and setting have withered away.
Gotta admit, pretty disappointed. Balance mechanic,more spells, heavy clarification, and this would be a great game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadowclaimer wrote:

 pretre wrote:

guru wrote:
from warseer

Hardcover book of 264 pages in full color where we find the background of everything occurrido from the events in "The End of times" to Warhammer : Age of Sigmar. 8 new scenarios , 24 Warscrolls ( thumbnail profiles ) for Stormcast eternals , Khorne Bloodbound and Sylvaneth . In Spanish. This article becomes part of the module.

From google translate.

Oo Sylvaneth are the Dryads/Treekin/Wood Elves.

Sylvaneth are strictly Dryads/Trees.

Wood Elves are "Wanderers".

Oops yea. That.

I hope they get fleshed into the third major faction. I'd love to play a Treekin army.

I'd prolly be interested in the book, still can't decide on the AOS box. I will probably impulse buy it when I see it in front of me as usual.

I'd like to see them do a nice hardback book full of scrolls and scenarios, like 1 book for each different plane/bubble/faction or whatever. Like an army book, but cooler

 Vermis wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:FWIW, I actually find 15mm models easier to paint than 28mm. 15mm is my sweet spot, there's a lot of tricks you can get away with to make painting easier that don't work on larger models because it'd look too messy, but the models are still large enough to make out the smaller features of a mansized model (unlike 10mm and 6mm where models start to not look human any more).

Yup. IMO painting gets easier the smaller you go, because the the smaller scales become much more forgiving of quick, basic wash, drybrush and other techniques.

The only thing I prefer about 28mm models is you can't really convert 15mm models very easily, but that's not a problem if you just want to fill out ranks of tons of troops.

The more I look around the hobby, the more I think this is the way it should be. Keep character conversions and heaps of special rules for small 28mm skirmishes, and let mass battles be mass battles, about whole 15mm- units and regiments wheeling about on the table.

This in diametric opposition to Games Workshop's philosophy.

Games Workshop is about making really cool models with which to build a model collection, and then giving some context to play them. For 30 years, they have not been about writing a wargaming system, and then building models for that system. It's all about making awesome 28mm miniatures, spending thousands of hours painting them, and playing with them -- or sometimes not, and just displaying them or building dioramas. The problem with 15mm is that it's impossible to make your infantry awesome, with the sort of detail you can get into 28mm. They're miniatures sized for gaming, not sized for painting.

The last thing in the world I want is miniatures that require just a quick drybrush to paint. I probably spend 5+ hours on every single model, even the most repetitive infantryman (and I'm pretty quick); an army represents, literally, thousands of hours of work that was all highly enjoyable.

If "the best" wargaming system is what you're interested in, look elsewhere. You'll *never* find it in GW, because they're more concerned with the models, and you can't heap on more cool models with more cool powers all the time, and keep a game balanced.

If you think GW models are awesome, and want an context in which enjoy them in games, GW games are perfect.

For me, I am definitely in the second category. I can and do have fun with almost any wargame rules. I have tried dozens, and frankly, it doesn't matter to me how good or bad they are. What's most important is a table that looks awesome, and an opponent who is someone I enjoy playing with. I have no desire to compete with strangers to show my tactical superiority, and the last thing I want to do is humiliate my friends. I see this hobby as a miniature hobby with a wargame that's as much social as strategic; I don't see the hobby as an export of a computer game.

Talys wrote:

... it's not like people wouldn't look at you like you had horns growing out of your head. And then hand you a ball and note that you could bounce it.

When you complain that female gamers can't grow moustaches to suit these unfair rules, or find game hacks that only work if you can't understand basic dice mechanics that anyone over 5 is expected to understand, 99.9% of human beings who hear your argument go, "That's nice," and then never listen to you again.

Yes, AoS is clearly designed for reasonable players, rather than people who are just determined to break it.

The thing is, all this self-policing, reasonable player stuff was the excuse trundled out for 40K and WHFB's glaring imbalances - as if only unreasonable players cared about balance - and it didn't help matters. What's different this time?

Also, women who complain about the rules for their dwarfs should just be ignored. That's a special kind of lack of self-awareness, right there. About on par with the assertions that this is a perfectly sensible post.

mikhaila wrote:Models are awesome.

Again, an excuse for 40K and WFB, that didn't do much to slow the revenue slide the last few years.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Well this is unfortunate, because i really like the game mechanics (what exists so far) and really want an excuse to give gw my money for this game. The model range looks promising and the game is fun..

But i cant possibly spend this much money on something that hasnt told me and my buddies how to use it. The purchase wouldnt be justified as i would have hardly any opponents. My group is going to be difficult to win over to this side when i say "there's no balancing mechanic, but we can just throw down what looks balanced and hash it out." It's so much easier to just drop 2000 pts of 40k we already have. Sure, i can probably convince them all to do a game or two of AOS but it just cant have lasting appeal without some form of balance.

I was excited for this book, i thought it was going to make this confusing mess structured and playable for everyone. But outside of the prescribed scenarios i feel like this game at this point has an investment value too high for its replayability. Why suffer through pregame talks and decisions and house rule creation when we can all just play 40k?

I wanted something new that would give me endless hours of high fantasy enjoyment, not endless hours of high fantasy "work" to play the game.

For one thing, the fact that only two universal spells exist had me very convinced this book was going to be a full fledged BRB. Many things in the game could do with clarification. I want to play it but it seems like theyre making it hard for me to give them my money.

I'm also getting impatient sitting here and waiting for gw to do something about it. If rules are coming like that gwrep said at fwopen, why wait so bloody long? I want to know if i should invest NOW, not in two months when the excitement of the new system and setting have withered away.

Gotta admit, pretty disappointed. Balance mechanic, more lore, heavy clarification, and this would be a great game.

Thing is, it has balancing mechanics, it's just that people don't rate them as much as the established points-based systems. You're over-egging the pudding saying that you and your friends would have no way to play it, etc. Fundamentally untrue.

Talys wrote:This in diametric opposition to Games Workshop's philosophy.

GOOD.

 Vermis wrote:


The thing is, all this self-policing, reasonable player stuff was the excuse trundled out for 40K and WHFB's glaring imbalances - as if only unreasonable players cared about balance - and it didn't help matters. What's different this time?

Also, women who complain about the rules for their dwarfs should just be ignored. That's a special kind of lack of self-awareness, right there. About on par with the assertions that this is a perfectly sensible post.

It just boils down to the folks who just want to play a game and having a good time -- rather than folks who are actively looking for a way to break the game. GW games are generally fantastic for the former crowd and lousy for the latter.

 Bull0 wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Well this is unfortunate, because i really like the game mechanics (what exists so far) and really want an excuse to give gw my money for this game. The model range looks promising and the game is fun..

But i cant possibly spend this much money on something that hasnt told me and my buddies how to use it. The purchase wouldnt be justified as i would have hardly any opponents. My group is going to be difficult to win over to this side when i say "there's no balancing mechanic, but we can just throw down what looks balanced and hash it out." It's so much easier to just drop 2000 pts of 40k we already have. Sure, i can probably convince them all to do a game or two of AOS but it just cant have lasting appeal without some form of balance.

I was excited for this book, i thought it was going to make this confusing mess structured and playable for everyone. But outside of the prescribed scenarios i feel like this game at this point has an investment value too high for its replayability. Why suffer through pregame talks and decisions and house rule creation when we can all just play 40k?

I wanted something new that would give me endless hours of high fantasy enjoyment, not endless hours of high fantasy "work" to play the game.

For one thing, the fact that only two universal spells exist had me very convinced this book was going to be a full fledged BRB. Many things in the game could do with clarification. I want to play it but it seems like theyre making it hard for me to give them my money.

I'm also getting impatient sitting here and waiting for gw to do something about it. If rules are coming like that gwrep said at fwopen, why wait so bloody long? I want to know if i should invest NOW, not in two months when the excitement of the new system and setting have withered away.

Gotta admit, pretty disappointed. Balance mechanic, more lore, heavy clarification, and this would be a great game.

Thing is, it has balancing mechanics, it's just that people don't rate them as much as the established points-based systems. You're over-egging the pudding saying that you and your friends would have no way to play it, etc. Fundamentally untrue.

As I said above, the amount of times we've tabled whatever we had with us and played it for fun just for the hell of playing is pretty high. I look forward to doing the same again, but this time with some objectives for the underdog.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
Regardless of any individual standpoint on AoS, it cannot work as a replacement for WHFB. Lacking any kind of balancing means that there can never be a 'community' for it in the same way as any other game, because every group and every individual is likely to have their own interpretations of what is 'reasonable' and 'fair' to bring to a game. One of the few advantages GW games had left was ubiquity; take that away and you fracture the community into isolated splinter groups each playing a different game.

You young kids...GET OFF MY LAWN!

But seriously, let me tell you of a little game called AD&D. It existed in a pre-Internet era where the only "communities" were magazines (I use this term vaguely), stores and gaming clubs. And while there was some difference in house rules, there were almost universally accepted groupings of interpretation of rules. This was actually a feature not a bug because it allowed you to assess new groups by their house rules. (Rogue Trader also existed pre-Internet with lots of interpretations and it seems to have done fine.)

Right now Warhammer in all its incarnations is tournament focussed. I don't play tournaments and exacting total balance for me is not important. I generally don't like the people who play in tournaments. I wouldn't play with them socially now that I've seen their black hearts. But now I am free to find players who interpret the rules like I do and to play fun rather than competitive games. It happened with Rogue Trader, a game that was less balanced than AoS in spite of having points, and it will soon enough happen with AoS.

The thing you liked is gone and I understand that upsets you. But give this new thing its own chance. It's not here to replace your old thing, only it's retail space. You can still play your old thing, there are no shortage of stand in WHFB proxy minis.

Iain.

 Talys wrote:

It just boils down to the folks who just want to play a game and having a good time -- rather than folks who are actively looking for a way to break the game. GW games are generally fantastic for the former crowd and lousy for the latter.

Who said anything about breaking the game?

I want to play a force I like against a force my opponent likes, knowing that we're roughly evenly matched by some sort of tested system and that the game's outcome will be decided in most part by our decisions in game and some varying amount of luck.

At no point do I desire to break the game.

I didnt say we have no way. But i did exaggerate. What i meant is that my group will always pick something with described balance over something that requires negotiation beforehand.

I also am no giant defender of the points based system. I dont need points, just something. Allow me to somehow put a balanced force out there against my opponents without having to have him there with his models. I recognize the points system also has balancing problems especially the more variables there are.

But Bull0, are you saying the way theyve told us to play this game is actually balanced inherently? You really dont ache for more advanced rules and game setup than this?

 Talys wrote:

Games Workshop is about making really cool models with which to build a model collection, and then giving some context to play them. For 30 years, they have not been about writing a wargaming system, and then building models for that system. It's all about making awesome 28mm miniatures, spending thousands of hours painting them, and playing with them -- or sometimes not, and just displaying them or building dioramas. The problem with 15mm is that it's impossible to make your infantry awesome, with the sort of detail you can get into 28mm. They're miniatures sized for gaming, not sized for painting.

The last thing in the world I want is miniatures that require just a quick drybrush to paint. I probably spend 5+ hours on every single model, even the most repetitive infantryman (and I'm pretty quick); an army represents, literally, thousands of hours of work that was all highly enjoyable.

I hate this attitude so much, because it represents everything that wrecks wargaming. Players who come in with awesomely painted armies who can't play for ****, and "just want to have fun" then whine when a better player stomps them and call them TFG or WAAC -- it's a WAR game, go do something other than WAR if "fun" is all you want, and leave wargames to people who are tactically minded and who want to do battle. Of COURSE I want to win. What other possible reason could I be playing a WAR game?

Who cares if your plastic toy soldier took 5 hours to paint or 5 minutes to paint? It's just a plastic soldier. The game is in figuring out what to do with it once you play it. If you want to take a thousand hours to fill a display case, good for you, but it dont expect me to make a weak army to play you.

If it's just all about miniatures, GW should rename themselves to Miniatures Workshop and get rid of all their stupid rules, and I'd be happy. But better that they go out of business, so they stop stealing customers from companies that properly test an balance games!

 Bull0 wrote:


Thing is, it has balancing mechanics, it's just that people don't rate them as much as the established points-based systems. You're over-egging the pudding saying that you and your friends would have no way to play it, etc. Fundamentally untrue.

Aye, this,

Its balance that is the key for competitive play, not necessarily points.

I wonder if GW expected so many heads would be exploding at the thought of no points values though, It should be expected somewhat, they have been doing it since the start, stands to reason its one of the key things that people expect with a GW game.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Talys wrote:

It just boils down to the folks who just want to play a game and having a good time -- rather than folks who are actively looking for a way to break the game. GW games are generally fantastic for the former crowd and lousy for the latter.

Who said anything about breaking the game?

I want to play a force I like against a force my opponent likes, knowing that we're roughly evenly matched by some sort of tested system and that the game's outcome will be decided in most part by our decisions in game and some varying amount of luck.

At no point do I desire to break the game.

But this is really easy to do in AoS. If you would give it a try, you'd see that it is so. Pick an arbitrary value, like wounds, or just eyeball an army and take a rough guess. We played 3 games of AoS, barely knowing what we were doing, and the randomish armies we came up with versus the couple of cohesive armies of people who had proper collections were pretty close, and more importantly, quite fun.

Could someone pull up a combo to break that fun? Yes, I'm sure they could. But in the context of just playing and doing our best with 2 armies that visually looked equivalent -- the games were all really close and could have gone either way.

 Vermis wrote:


The thing is, all this self-policing, reasonable player stuff was the excuse trundled out for 40K and WHFB's glaring imbalances - as if only unreasonable players cared about balance - and it didn't help matters. What's different this time?

Ummm, except it's not an excuse. There were plenty of Jervis Johnson & Co. articles in White Dwarf & Co showing they really believe in this. It's worse than negligence or excuses. It's ideology.

Marlov wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Games Workshop is about making really cool models with which to build a model collection, and then giving some context to play them. For 30 years, they have not been about writing a wargaming system, and then building models for that system. It's all about making awesome 28mm miniatures, spending thousands of hours painting them, and playing with them -- or sometimes not, and just displaying them or building dioramas. The problem with 15mm is that it's impossible to make your infantry awesome, with the sort of detail you can get into 28mm. They're miniatures sized for gaming, not sized for painting.

The last thing in the world I want is miniatures that require just a quick drybrush to paint. I probably spend 5+ hours on every single model, even the most repetitive infantryman (and I'm pretty quick); an army represents, literally, thousands of hours of work that was all highly enjoyable.

I hate this attitude so much, because it represents everything that wrecks wargaming. Players who come in with awesomely painted armies who can't play for ****, and "just want to have fun" then whine when a better player stomps them and call them TFG or WAAC -- it's a WAR game, go do something other than WAR if "fun" is all you want, and leave wargames to people who are tactically minded and who want to do battle. Of COURSE I want to win. What other possible reason could I be playing a WAR game?

Who cares if your plastic toy soldier took 5 hours to paint or 5 minutes to paint? It's just a plastic soldier. The game is in figuring out what to do with it once you play it. If you want to take a thousand hours to fill a display case, good for you, but it dont expect me to make a weak army to play you.

If it's just all about miniatures, GW should rename themselves to Miniatures Workshop and get rid of all their stupid rules, and I'd be happy. But better that they go out of business, so they stop stealing customers from companies that properly test an balance games!

Are you for real? >.<

That sounds so... antisocial and narrow-minded. The hobby is different things to different people. Also, if you think that plastic soldiers are just plastic soldiers, save yourself money and just tape a piece of paper onto a base with an arrow on one side that indicates facing forward, and go play with a free gaming system with good competitive rules like KoW. Your whole 200 model army will take you 10 minutes to build and cost you $20 in bases off of eBay. Why buy models at all?

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Vermis wrote:


The thing is, all this self-policing, reasonable player stuff was the excuse trundled out for 40K and WHFB's glaring imbalances - as if only unreasonable players cared about balance - and it didn't help matters. What's different this time?

Ummm, except it's not an excuse. There were plenty of Jervis Johnson & Co. articles in White Dwarf & Co showing they really believe in this. It's worse than negligence or excuses. It's ideology.

Yes, I agree. As I've said before, this is philosophically what GW believes in, it's built into their company's DNA, and everything I've ever seen of them is that they are a company that loves awesome miniatures first, friendly/casual/social games second, fluff third. Competitions are like, an afterthought.

I'm sure they recognize that not everyone loves the same things as them. They just don't care, and do what they want to do, and cater to the people who are like-minded with them.

All this "Players will work it out!" talk reminds me of how well the allies thing in 40k worked out. Everyone used it to build fluffy armies and...wait.