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.

I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.

 Talys wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Buy GW, We Are IP Bullies That Write Crappy Rules!
But, Hey! At Least We Are Really Expensive!

It never ceases to amaze me that some people don't understand that there are people exist who don't feel the same way about a hobby as them.

There are those who buy GW products because they genuinely like them, and like playing their games, because they think those games are the most fun of what's out there. I really don't care about what GW, Microsoft, Google, or Coca-Cola do to protect their IP. I so don't care if Coca-Cola goes and sues every soft drink manufacturer on the planet; I'll still buy flats of Coke. As to "Really Expensive?"

Age of Sigmar costs $125 for 47 models, or $2.66 per model, less 25%, will be $2 a shot. I'll spend an average of 10 hours painting it (some much longer, others perhaps a little less), so even without the game, that's $0.20 per hour for entertainment. And I have a model afterwards that I get to keep forever!

In contrast, when I buy a video game, the most I get out of it is about 100 hours for $60, about $0.60 per hour. If I buy a Blu-Ray disc, that's $20 a 120 minute flick, or $10 an hour. Or if I got to a movie, I'll spend $25 between ticket and food for 2 hours, or $12.50 per hour (really, twice that because I have to pay for my wife!). If I go out with my wife or friends, I'll probably spend at least $25 per hour (potentially much, much more).

As far as cost of fun stuff I do in my spare time goes, other than the things that are free or virtually free, like hiking or television, hobby, and wargaming are just about the cheapest thing that I do. Even for models that cost TEN TIMES Sigmar's fantastic deal -- say, $20 a pop -- it's still cheaper than most things I do. So no, it's not "Really Expensive".

Shouting at the wall there a bit old chap.

Not only does what your write have no real relevance to what Grump posted, what he posted is rooted in indisputable fact.

You can 'feel' however you like about GW, but if you're going to gain any traction in this argument you're going to have to start using some of those pesky, inconvenient, facts of your own.

 Talys wrote:
The core question seems to be that GW is making a scenario-based miniature game that can be played as a very casual (but likely poorly balanced) pick-up skirmishes. It is NOT a miniature war game, at least not by any traditional definition -- so... is there a market for this?

Is there a market? Who cares. The more important question is how much of a market GW is throwing away by refusing to spend even a token amount of time and effort on making a proper game. A better version of AoS would be just as good for scenario-based games but would also be appropriate for random skirmishes. And that better version of AoS would have sold to the scenario-based market and to everyone else. I don't see how this can be considered anything but a spectacularly incompetent business decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
Given the constraint of "we want to make this really simple and easy to pick up", I don't know what all the animosity towards them is.

The animosity is that you can have a simple and easy to pick up game without the massive problems that AoS has. Other games have done it (X-Wing, for example) and the only reason AoS fails to do better is that GW simply doesn't give a . There is absolutely no way to defend the AoS rules or the incompetent morons who wrote them.

I certainly look forward to playing the same scenarios over and over again.

 Talys wrote:
There are those who buy GW products because they genuinely like them, and like playing their games, because they think those games are the most fun of what's out there.

A business having super fans doesn't mean criticism directed towards it is unwarranted, nor is it necessarily indicate the business is in robust health.

There are / were super fans of all sorts of by-gone, obsolete and irrelevant things including:

Boeing 747's. These guys are being phased out due to fuel savings and flexibility offered by smaller wide bodies. These old queens of the sky have their own devoted following. It'll be sad when they are all retired.
A-10... Being replaced by F-35s. I can't say for certain, but from what I can tell, the operators, and those they provide air support for are pretty big fans of this plane. It's demise has been pushed back, but it's still on the chopping block.
Blackberrys
Amiga computers. These things never took off even though they were pretty good and had industry and enthusiast support.
Betamax. These things died a horrible death despite heavy use by the media industry and the format had its own super fan following.

 keezus wrote:

 Talys wrote:
There are those who buy GW products because they genuinely like them, and like playing their games, because they think those games are the most fun of what's out there.

A business having super fans doesn't mean criticism directed towards it is unwarranted, nor is it necessarily indicate the business is in robust health.

There are / were super fans of all sorts of by-gone, obsolete and irrelevant things including:

Boeing 747's. These guys are being phased out due to fuel savings and flexibility offered by smaller wide bodies. These old queens of the sky have their own devoted following. It'll be sad when they are all retired.
A-10... Being replaced by F-35s. I can't say for certain, but from what I can tell, the operators, and those they provide air support for are pretty big fans of this plane. It's demise has been pushed back, but it's still on the chopping block.
Blackberrys
Amiga computers. These things never took off even though they were pretty good and had industry and enthusiast support.
Betamax. These things died a horrible death despite heavy use by the media industry and the format had its own super fan following.

I love the movie "Pathfinder." It's a terrible, silly movie, but I like it. Doesn't mean I can't see its flaws. If something's crap, someone can still like it.

i'll try a few fun facts...
GW products being really expensive is a completely relative thing, which depends on what you want out of the product...
GW being an IP bully is also relative, depending upon which side of the fence you are on...
GW writers' making crappy rules is also relative, depending upon what you want out of the game...

what is a fact to one person in a case like this (ie enjoyment of a product, and perspective on a corporation) can be false to someone else...
do i think GW's products are really expensive??? no, i don't...
does Kirby think he is an IP bully??? i doubt it...
does Phil Kelly feel like he writes crappy rules??? not from my experience in talking with him at various Games Days...

even the temperature that water boils at changes depending on altitude...
facts are not always so concrete and immutable as people would like them to be...
sometimes it is a matter or perspective, or altitude...

ironic to see that even Mihikala (i'm sure i missed a letter or two in their somewhere) had a complete revelation in his first playtest of AoS, and had his mind changed about the inherent playability of the game...
people stated for a 100 pages that GW released a completely unplayable game, hands down...
turns out the game actually is playable, as the first run-through revealed, just not in a way that some people would like it to be...
kinda like life...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
GW writers' making crappy rules is also relative, depending upon what you want out of the game...

No, it really isn't relative. GW's rules are terrible no matter what you want out of the game, unless what you want is "a masochistic contest of who can endure playing the worst possible game" but aren't quite ready for FATAL.

Water temperature comparisons?! Jah, at this point you're starting to sound like Bill O'Reily and his famous "You can't explain that" phrase



Particularly with the IP bully comments. Can you seriously look through the things GW...
- Was trying to claim ownership of (ie. Roman numerals and fur on shoulder pads)
- Mark Wells commenting about GW's designers coming up with all of their concepts "completely out of their own minds without any outside inspiration"
- Attempting to trick old artists into signing over rights to their art while simultaneously telling the courts they (GW) already owned these things?
- Drug the court case out as long as possible, freezing all of CHS's assets so that the owner was forced to eventually concede when he ran out of money

There are a TON more things that were gleamed from this case. How you can sit there and say "GW are not IP bullies" seems either uninformed or willfully ignoring their previous actions.



Additionally, the problems with the AOS are still there. There are no points, so there is no balancing the game. Things didn't turn around, opinions are still pretty much the same. Are we going to just say "everything is relative" if or when this game fails to make more profit than its predecessor?

EDIT: and to be clear, this post was said in a state of zen

my point is that those conclusions, no matter much anyone wants them to be facts, really are just opinions...

i never said anything about my personal feelings about GW's execs and lawyers being IP bullies...
i said i doubt that they feel they are...
maybe i am wrong, and all the people involved where giving high-fives over cocktails every night after court...
it is a fact that some people perceive them to be bullies, sure, but that doesn't make the conclusion any less of an opinion...

as to the rules, some people will like them, and some people won't...
just because someone feels they are crappy, doesn't mean there aren't others out there who enjoy them...
as was demonstrated in the News thread, the game is actually playable through the use of the rules, scrolls, and scenarios...
wether it is a well designed game or not is a different matter for each person to form an opinion on...

again, my point is, to me, most things are relative, and i like to keep an open mind, which is why i don't post in a manner telling people that their opinions are wrong...
i just present things as i see them...

how can "at least we are really expensive" be a universal fact, when many people have said that they don't think GW products are really expensive???
it can be a very valid opinion, but nothing more...

cheers
jah

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:


Wow, GW set fire to all your stuff... those minis and rulebooks musta been like one of those Mission Impossible messages -- self destructing when you've read it

You've heard of metaphors, right?

The stuff they set fire to, in this case, is a game setting that people are quite find of. Yes, they still have their existing books... But the setting is now officially dead and buried, and won't be developed any further in any recognisable way.

And yet people raged at me when I made an IDENTICAL analogy to what Peter Jackson did to JRR Tolkien's works.

And the IP was not even a creation of Peter Jackson's.

He did the same disrespectful destruction of Tolkien's Middle-earth that people are accusing GW of doing to their own properties (as a sort of spite to their customers).

The irony here. . . . It is deep, and powerful.

MB

 jah-joshua wrote:
my point is that those conclusions, no matter much anyone wants them to be facts, really are just opinions...

i never said anything about my personal feelings about GW's execs and lawyers being IP bullies...
i said i doubt that they feel they are...
maybe i am wrong, and all the people involved where giving high-fives over cocktails every night after court...
it is a fact that some people perceive them to be bullies, sure, but that doesn't make the conclusion any less of an opinion...

as to the rules, some people will like them, and some people won't...
just because someone feels they are crappy, doesn't mean there aren't others out there who enjoy them...
as was demonstrated in the News thread, the game is actually playable through the use of the rules, scrolls, and scenarios...
wether it is a well designed game or not is a different matter for each person to form an opinion on...

again, my point is, to me, most things are relative, and i like to keep an open mind, which is why i don't post in a manner telling people that their opinions are wrong...
i just present things as i see them...

how can "at least we are really expensive" be a universal fact, when many people have said that they don't think GW products are really expensive???
it can be a very valid opinion, but nothing more...

cheers
jah

how they feel about themselves is irrelevant. They are IP bullies and for you to argilue that they're not is disingenuous at best. Trying to claim that they own the right to roman numerals and halberds is wrong.
devils advocate is annoying when there's no real argument.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I certainly look forward to playing the same scenarios over and over again.

You're going back to 7th ed WHFB?

 jah-joshua wrote:
my point is that those conclusions, no matter much anyone wants them to be facts, really are just opinions...

i never said anything about my personal feelings about GW's execs and lawyers being IP bullies...
i said i doubt that they feel they are...
maybe i am wrong, and all the people involved where giving high-fives over cocktails every night after court...
it is a fact that some people perceive them to be bullies, sure, but that doesn't make the conclusion any less of an opinion...

as to the rules, some people will like them, and some people won't...
just because someone feels they are crappy, doesn't mean there aren't others out there who enjoy them...
as was demonstrated in the News thread, the game is actually playable through the use of the rules, scrolls, and scenarios...
wether it is a well designed game or not is a different matter for each person to form an opinion on...

again, my point is, to me, most things are relative, and i like to keep an open mind, which is why i don't post in a manner telling people that their opinions are wrong...
i just present things as i see them...

how can "at least we are really expensive" be a universal fact, when many people have said that they don't think GW products are really expensive???
it can be a very valid opinion, but nothing more...

cheers
jah

You keep using that word, "Facts." I do not think it means what you think it means.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also... If GW's job is to sell miniatures, they are certainly going about it wrong.

Historical miniatures... Now those companies sell miniatures.

Their problem, though, is that History doesn't change, so you can only sell a person an Austrian Napoleonic, Early Imperial Roman, or Viking army once. And many Historical Players don't tend to wander outside of their genres too far.

But for selling miniatures, the games they sell them for demands hundreds and hundreds of miniatures (some Napoleonic Armies up to 500 minis - and some of the really Archaic Ancients Armies can wind up with close to 1,000 miniatures in tournament play).

Currently, though, Historicals are going through a bit of a slump. The WRG writers who dominated the field since the 1970s are fading, and no one has yet risen to claim their titles. There are some contenders, but they have yet to demonstrate their bona fides to the historical miniatures market. No single standard, as existed from 1970 - early-00s exists. And having a standard does an awful lot more to move the ENTIRE hobby forward than the litany of competing standards and scales, often from rules writers who are not sufficiently versed in the genres to completely understand what they are aiming for.

GW is in exactly this situation. They are trying to compete with everyone, and set a course that excludes any and all others. Exclusionary genres are very tough by their very nature, and perhaps GW has pushed against the edge of the envelope too hard, and is now beginning to break-up as a result? Maybe the solution is to begin allowing for a standard to arise (It is not lost on me that almost concurrent with Mantic producing Kings of War which used the same game standards - basing, movement, etc. - as did WHFB that GW suddenly decides to vacate that standard lest it be shared by anyone else). The future will tell if that is indeed what is happening.

But. . . In the meantime: They certainly don't act like their job is to sell miniatures.

MB

@BeAfraid: feel free to refute me...
how is it a universal fact that GW products are "really expensive"???
if someone says, "it is a fact that GW products are really expensive to me", that is totally valid...
yet Talys said that he doesn't feel $2.66 per mini to be at all expensive, and Azrael13 responded with "you need to respond to irrefutable facts with facts rather than feeling"...
i am saying that something being "really expensive" is a personal value judgement, not a fact...

@MWH: if you find my posts annoying, you can always just put me on ignore...
i am not just playing Devil's Advocate to stir up argument...
i am saying that someone at GW obviously felt that they had a valid reason to go to court against Chapterhouse...

i have given my opinion on this subject before, but i will give it again...
the fact that i can't find the female Striking Scorpion Exarch for sale on the Chapterhouse site, shows me that GW's lawers had at least one valid claim in their case...
i do, however, think that they went about it in the wrong way, completely overstepped their bounds, and used some very dirty tactics...
in my opinion, GW should have bought the sculpt, and released it (or not released it, their choice)...
i don't think they made the right choice here, but i can see why some lawyer or exec felt that they should sue CH...
the fact that they got their butts handed to them by the judge shows that the GW folks involved in the case were wrong about their ridiculous claims...
if i recall the verdict correctly, they were right about a couple of claims, and wrong about a whole boatload of others...

for me, the most important thing about the topic of this thread is that my view of GW is that i enjoy the work the studio produces in terms of minis, art, and fiction...
those are the guys that i am supporting when i buy a GW product...
as insaniak pointed out in another thread, that means that i am also supporting the jackassery of the execs and legal department...
it sucks, but is true...
so, i guess i am guilty of being a GW supporter, even if i don't like the choices made by management, i like their product more than i dislike their execs...
judge me how you will...

cheers
jah

BeAfraid wrote:

Currently, though, Historicals are going through a bit of a slump.

Uhm, what?

We're seeing plenty of new historical rulesets and miniature lines hitting the market every month. And the release of DBA 3 shows that the WRG guys are still working on their games.

This thread seems to have outlived its useful life and turned into some kind of weird metaphor competition.

Given the explosion of plastic historical figures in the past few years, it's hard to say the genre is in a slump.

It is true that Corvus Belli have stopped making their 15mm Ancients, which is a real shame because they were great figures. But the reason is the company wants to concentrate on Infinity.

GW are just on a higher intellectual plane and are practicing an existential philosophy that the rest of us don't get yet.

Unfortunately, until I am similarly enlightened, they won't be getting any more £££ from me

 Peregrine wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
GW writers' making crappy rules is also relative, depending upon what you want out of the game...

No, it really isn't relative. GW's rules are terrible no matter what you want out of the game, unless what you want is "a masochistic contest of who can endure playing the worst possible game" but aren't quite ready for FATAL.

See? Relative.

The AOS rules are OK for what they are, a free set that is intended to be very simple to learn and play. If you want more complication, you will have to look elsewhere.

A lot of the sillier ideas can easily be house-ruled out, like the shouting rules, or to make things a bit more tactical, it will be fairly easy to add house rules, for example, a different unit activation sequence if that is interesting.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The AOS rules are OK for what they are, a free set that is intended to be very simple to learn and play. If you want more complication, you will have to look elsewhere.

A lot of the sillier ideas can easily be house-ruled out, like the shouting rules, or to make things a bit more tactical, it will be fairly easy to add house rules, for example, a different unit activation sequence if that is interesting.

Its even easier to just play KoW instead.

 Orock wrote:
I kind of am. What they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them. However the IP's are too valuable to let languish, so I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.

Aside from those who don't deserve to losing their jobs I can't think of one downside to it. I truly believe almost anyone could run them better at this point.

Are you a stockholder? An owner?

If not, I just do not understand this sentiment at all. You are buying their product not their corporate performance.

There are plenty of product substitutes...buy them if their selection does not satisfy.

The IP bully castigation is missing the point. IPs are an insect world. Love, hate, rage, joy, fairness, compassion, honor, etc. do not exist. Survival is the only instinct and behavior. There are no IP bullies...only those who can and can't. BTW I do / did not like how GW behaved, but it is expected.

Sheck2 wrote:
If not, I just do not understand this sentiment at all. You are buying their product not their corporate performance.

And GW going bankrupt and losing the IP to WOTC/FFG/etc would produce a better product.

jamesk1973 wrote:
Okay, who broke nopoet?

The problem is GW was once the gak.

Now GW is gak.

I can accept a whole hell of a lot of poorly written rules and game imbalance if the price is right.

Kirby likens his products to Ferrari. At Ferrari prices I demand Ferrari performance.

What I am getting is Ferrari prices with Kia perfomance.

It did not used to be this way. They got greedy and lost their way.

Kia? You're being too conservative.....it's more like Ferrari prices at Yugo performance....guess where Yugo is at now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have to admit though, that I do not wish GW under. I do think this is the step in the right direction, but they need to get off their High Horse and do a HELL of a lot of public outreach if they want to stay on top of the hill. I still can't for the life of me wonder why they haven't made SOME SORT of public statement trying to explain what the Hell is going on. Some kind of direction as to the whys whats and hows of the current picture of things....and I don't mean some sort of corporate BS lines from shareholder statements.

I despise Games Workshop. They couldn't go out of business fast enough for me. They suck all the air out of the room: people are talking about this ridiculous game and some will be spending money on this mockery of miniature wargaming, when they could be putting money into REAL wargames.

All this anti-competitive crap makes me hate them so much. I don't want people to "have fun" when I play them. It's a f'in WAR game. WINNING is the ONLY thing that matters. feth casual fun-bunnies. If I want to have fun I will have them over for a BBQ. If I play a wargame I to DESTROY them in the game. I want to shock them with how pathetic and helpless they are on the battlefield. I want them to FEAR me on the tabletop! Extra points if they want them to go home crying to their mamma. People who like Age of Sigmar and "scenario" games, it's just code for "I suck at strategy games so I need a game to babysit me instead of learning to play properly."

I hate Games Workshop because they divide an already very small group of players. We could all be playing a GOOD, COMPETITIVE game, WHERE WINNING COUNTS. Instead of this crap where even if you win, maybe it's because their faction sucks. I don't want an excuse for WHY someone lost, except that they're a worse player than me, or at least that they're unluckier than me. Games Workshop makes it Casual vs Competitive, Scenario vs non-Scenario, Painted vs Unpainted, Rich vs Not Rich. It's insane.

The industry is growing IN SPITE OF Games Workshop. If they would only die, other games would flourish. All they accomplish right now is taking up space on the shelf of local stores and stealing players away from REAL wargames.

The really STUPID thing is that people WILL buy this dumb game that is just a jab in the eye of REAL wargamers. The people who do buy it should just go play Mass Effect or go watch a movie or do something, you know, non-competitive, if competition doesn't matter to them.

Marlov wrote:
I despise Games Workshop. They couldn't go out of business fast enough for me. They suck all the air out of the room: people are talking about this ridiculous game and some will be spending money on this mockery of miniature wargaming, when they could be putting money into REAL wargames.

All this anti-competitive crap makes me hate them so much. I don't want people to "have fun" when I play them. It's a f'in WAR game. WINNING is the ONLY thing that matters. feth casual fun-bunnies. If I want to have fun I will have them over for a BBQ. If I play a wargame I to DESTROY them in the game. I want to shock them with how pathetic and helpless they are on the battlefield. I want them to FEAR me on the tabletop! Extra points if they want them to go home crying to their mamma. People who like Age of Sigmar and "scenario" games, it's just code for "I suck at strategy games so I need a game to babysit me instead of learning to play properly."

I hate Games Workshop because they divide an already very small group of players. We could all be playing a GOOD, COMPETITIVE game, WHERE WINNING COUNTS. Instead of this crap where even if you win, maybe it's because their faction sucks. I don't want an excuse for WHY someone lost, except that they're a worse player than me, or at least that they're unluckier than me. Games Workshop makes it Casual vs Competitive, Scenario vs non-Scenario, Painted vs Unpainted, Rich vs Not Rich. It's insane.

The industry is growing IN SPITE OF Games Workshop. If they would only die, other games would flourish. All they accomplish right now is taking up space on the shelf of local stores and stealing players away from REAL wargames.

The really STUPID thing is that people WILL buy this dumb game that is just a jab in the eye of REAL wargamers. The people who do buy it should just go play Mass Effect or go watch a movie or do something, you know, non-competitive, if competition doesn't matter to them.

Not sure if serious ?

If so, Id have a lie down mate, I really do feel sorry for the gamers that really do not like the idea of an unbalanced game, I think its a shame that GW are not going to even cater to that crowd unless they are prepared to balance the game themselves. That really is the only bad side I can see against this new game, but it was clear they needed to do something if they were to get fantasy popular again, its just a real shame that the competitive side to the game is almost none existent.

Don't for one minute think that games need to be balanced to be popular or fun either, that's just not true.

Had a butchers in WW and GW nottingham today and both were buzzing with talk of the new game, I think it could be a good move for them.

anyway, cheer up !

Marlov wrote:

All this anti-competitive crap makes me hate them so much. I don't want people to "have fun" when I play them. It's a f'in WAR game. WINNING is the ONLY thing that matters. feth casual fun-bunnies. If I want to have fun I will have them over for a BBQ. If I play a wargame I to DESTROY them in the game. I want to shock them with how pathetic and helpless they are on the battlefield. I want them to FEAR me on the tabletop! Extra points if they want them to go home crying to their mamma. People who like Age of Sigmar and "scenario" games, it's just code for "I suck at strategy games so I need a game to babysit me instead of learning to play properly."

Wow, want me to hold your high horse while you get down?

No, not really. Competitive games are fun, but they do not encompass all wargame are, nor should they. All you demonstrate is a shockingly skewed, short sighted, exclusionary and narrow minded view of our hobby. And a rather disgusting and toxic attitude towards people who have different interests thsn you. I play all types of wargames, from cut throat tournaments, to casual beer and pretzel games (with no points costs even) and thryre all different, but they're all valid ways of having fun.

And if that's your attitude on the tabletop, with 'destroying' your opponents, viewing them as 'pathetic and helpless' , wanting them to 'fear' you. Andgo home crying to momma, then frankly, your attitude stinks. You need to grow up, you need to play against grown ups, not kindergarteners.

Yours is the toxic attitude that ruins our community.

EDIT: WARgame or warGAME? if you want real war, go join the army mate. saying winning is all that matters says a lot less about you than it does about anything else. what happened to 'taking part', or 'spending a good evening with friends'? Winning is all that matters? Skewed, selfish and small minded priorities by you. plenty people play for far more varied reasons than that.

Marlov wrote:

I hate Games Workshop because they divide an already very small group of players. We could all be playing a GOOD, COMPETITIVE game, WHERE WINNING COUNTS.

So the 'one true game', eh? Not everyone wants tge same thing, and shockingly, thsts ok. Not everything has to be major league play - it's ok to kick the ball around in the park with your mates and have the dog running around after it too. For christs sakes, we play a game of plastic soldiers. Play with like minded individuals. Simples.

Good competitive games exist. Go play them. But leave that stinker of an attitude at the door please, before you clear the room.

Marlov wrote:

Instead of this crap where even if you win, maybe it's because their faction sucks. I don't want an excuse for WHY someone lost, except that they're a worse player than me, or at least that they're unluckier than me. Games Workshop makes it Casual vs Competitive, Scenario vs non-Scenario, Painted vs Unpainted, Rich vs Not Rich. It's insane.

No, those things exist everywhere, and in every game. It's ok to be a casual player, and it's ok to be competitive. The trick is to play with like minded people. Scenario and non scenarios. Again - scenario play is great for pugs and tournaments, but it can be soulless. The lack of assymetric missions is one of the areas WMH is lacking,for example. Narrative, off the wall games can be fun too. Again, communicate with your opponent. Painted vs unpainted a. You get this everywhere. Rich vs not Rich? Welcome to life. We play an expensive hobby...

Marlov wrote:

The industry is growing IN SPITE OF Games Workshop. If they would only die, other games would flourish. All they accomplish right now is taking up space on the shelf of local stores and stealing players away from REAL wargames.

Would they though?. Gw is a gateway for a lot of people. Chucking that arguably means less exposure and an eventual contraction in the plsyer base.i think it's a valid worry.

Marlov wrote:

The really STUPID thing is that people WILL buy this dumb game that is just a jab in the eye of REAL wargamers. The people who do buy it should just go play Mass Effect or go watch a movie or do something, you know, non-competitive, if competition doesn't matter to them.

Or play a game of age of sigmar. Table top wargames aren't just for the chosen few of you and your elitist ilk. Dumb game? Yeah, probably. At the same time it's different. It's a co-operative game - ss was said by a poster on the p&p boards:
'AoS clearly isn't meant to be co-op in the sense of "us vs. the game". It's co-op in the sense that you are writing a scenario, together, with both players' enjoyment in mind when writing. Everything prior to "ok, now we start playing" is co-op. Once you start, it is you vs. me. But we've written the scenario we are in together, thus, we are both responsible for our enjoyment.

So there is no fuzzy line about "trying too hard to win" - the line is very clear, in that the "trying to win" starts *after*the miniatures are placed on the table, not before. I think the reason it seems fuzzy is just that most people who are negative about it are really uncomfortable with the idea of taking responsibility for the other player's enjoyment, and want the game rules to have that responsibility.'

In other words - yes it's rubbish, especially from the perspective that you are used to. But there are other ways of playing wargames Yes it takes work. Maybe too much work, but Maybe the act of tinkering and co-operation is what you like, and if so, fair play. Give it a shot.

Deadnight wrote:
'AoS clearly isn't meant to be co-op in the sense of "us vs. the game". It's co-op in the sense that you are writing a scenario, together, with both players' enjoyment in mind when writing. Everything prior to "ok, now we start playing" is co-op. Once you start, it is you vs. me. But we've written the scenario we are in together, thus, we are both responsible for our enjoyment.

It's still garbage as a cooperative game. A good cooperative game starts from a position of consistent balance and rules that function as-written, so that you can devote all of your cooperative efforts to customizing the game experience instead of trying to repair broken rules and make the game even somewhat playable. AoS doesn't do that at all. It isn't an open-ended game with the freedom to build an experience together, it's a half-finished (and even that is being generous) mess and a stunning display of incompetence.

 Flashman wrote:
GW are just on a higher intellectual plane and are practicing an existential philosophy that the rest of us don't get yet.

Back in the '70s I used to know somebody that used pretty much the same words to describe himself.

Turns out that he was doing LSD....

The Auld Grump... actually... that may work for GW as well....

 Peregrine wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
'AoS clearly isn't meant to be co-op in the sense of "us vs. the game". It's co-op in the sense that you are writing a scenario, together, with both players' enjoyment in mind when writing. Everything prior to "ok, now we start playing" is co-op. Once you start, it is you vs. me. But we've written the scenario we are in together, thus, we are both responsible for our enjoyment.

It's still garbage as a cooperative game. A good cooperative game starts from a position of consistent balance and rules that function as-written, so that you can devote all of your cooperative efforts to customizing the game experience instead of trying to repair broken rules and make the game even somewhat playable. AoS doesn't do that at all. It isn't an open-ended game with the freedom to build an experience together, it's a half-finished (and even that is being generous) mess and a stunning display of incompetence.

Hey, No argument here...

It can work, but plenty other things work better and easier... Open ended and half finished sums it up nicely though...