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.

Something I thought about for a while but now can discuss...
here goes

the basic idea is that GW as a company is having a 30 year old existential crisis in terms of what they do, they try to make a functional gaming system and at the same time a rich and exiting world with fantastic miniatures and well IMO they succeed at one of those.

GW make amazing miniatures and have great lore and writers in general (and from what I here, pay their writers and sculptors pretty well) but their games are all in all "average" even their original "games" (first edition that is, rogue trader etc) was very basic in nature and not exactly free from flaws and over the years they have tried to balance both aspects but only successfully worked on one.. the Warhammer universe grew and it grew well but their games have always had "flaws" (some take those flaws very seriously, some do not and that is ok)

I fell in love with GW and warhammer/40k because of the lore and miniatures (even if my painting is that of a 5 year old, good thing a basic coat and shade works wonders) but I have never been that much of a gamer even though I have spent plenty of wasted nights dancing ye old dice dance with me chums (maybe why I like AoS, very simple and not cumbersome)

here are a few questions to the other users.. and maybe have a lovely discussion (if you want)

Is GW in the business of making a game or miniatures/lore (as apparently someone at GW has stated.. which got me to think "maybe they are right")
Do you think GW makes/has good lore and miniatures and an average game system (or vice versa)
Should GW focus only on making miniatures/lore instead of the average "gaming" aspect and let the users be it through forums or GW stores, make their own games/rules.. managers acting as adeptus arbrites
do you think GW should just sell their IP to other companies (and maybe that is their plan with all the name changing in fantasy) to design and make other things for them, it seems to work for 40k, let others use their setting and world and miniatures... maybe they could do the same for rules and the gaming aspect.


those question are not set in stone and if you wish to discuss anything I have said please, its something that popped in my head that I thought is interesting to think about and discuss.

I will be honest that up to the complete destruction of the Old World I thought that GW created some fantastic lore. GW is in the business of making money, and they will do whatever they feel will turn them a profit within reason. The only rule set that GW has made that I haven't been a fan of is the current AoS one. I am reserving judgement until I see more, but I think their self destruction of their history-fantasy lore will turn me off despite the game. GW needs to be more than just a license holder because if they went down that route there would come a time when even the Ultramarines wouldn't spark interest in potential customers as there is no basis for value.

Even for collectors or modelers, a game is important to give context as to what to build. Do you build 5 tactical marines or 15? Do you put on a heavy bolter or grav cannon? Or one of each? Do you give them all plasma pistols? How many jets and tanks do you build?

For me, I rank the minis most important by far, because frankly, without cool minis I'd rather play computer games.

After that, I rank fluff next: I want to know why these factions are at war, and I want to model my forces after the fluff, where possible. 9

Finally, rules: as long as they're serviceable, they're easy to adjust. I get that people say, "but I shouldn't have to tweak rules!" But the truth is, we want close games so if for whatever reason a matchup is lopsided (including an unskilled player), we will make adjustments, because at the end of the day, for is, the game is just a social interaction that's an excuse to march miniatures, and the most important thing is just for everyone to have a good time.

 Coldhatred wrote:
I will be honest that up to the complete destruction of the Old World I thought that GW created some fantastic lore. GW is in the business of making money, and they will do whatever they feel will turn them a profit within reason. The only rule set that GW has made that I haven't been a fan of is the current AoS one. I am reserving judgement until I see more, but I think their self destruction of their history-fantasy lore will turn me off despite the game. GW needs to be more than just a license holder because if they went down that route there would come a time when even the Ultramarines wouldn't spark interest in potential customers as there is no basis for value.

but they are more, they make amazing miniatures... and I love that you are waiting for AoS to take shape, regarding the lore, I sorta agree but after reading a bit about the new world and its potential I kinda like the new AoS lore... yes I still love the old world and its map and stories (great maw, come on that is awesome) but sometimes *change* is not bad, AoS lore may surprise you and as you said, I will wait and see for their lore to grow and shape itself further

I used to think they did good fluff. Then Murderfang murdered someone with his Murderclaws because of his Murderlust on the planet Omicide.

I feel like they had good fluff 10 years ago, but much more recently everything feels so bloody immature, to the point of the game rules now encouraging you to talk to your minis.

I think for a long time they had no competition and so set the standard, but they grew lazy, lost the talent driving the company and now have nothing, not even models, worth boasting about.

I find the modern lore awful and nigh unreadable. Written too thickly and purple prose striving to seem epic, but just too forced for its own good. Changing the older background to fit it to this style was a big nono for me as well. (Nagash/Alcadizzar in 8th edition book was changed for the worse)

Why do I see that "Then Murderfang murdered someone with his Murderclaws because of his Murderlust on the planet Omicide" so often?

Is that a real thing, or is it just a take on their current fiction connected to the game (i.e. "fluff")?

Because it certainly sounds like a real thing (Like "Otiose") that they would say.

But, yes, GW has to many "Murder-things" among their fictional universe where the grimdark seeps into murder-stuff.

It reminds me of a paper I once wrote about the development of the Goth scene as it became Pop-Culture instead of a sub/counter-culture. The kids, they try too hard.

MB

 jonolikespie wrote:
I used to think they did good fluff. Then Murderfang murdered someone with his Murderclaws because of his Murderlust on the planet Omicide.

I feel like they had good fluff 10 years ago, but much more recently everything feels so bloody immature, to the point of the game rules now encouraging you to talk to your minis.

I think for a long time they had no competition and so set the standard, but they grew lazy, lost the talent driving the company and now have nothing, not even models, worth boasting about.

I would have to disagree, a lot of their lore is great and still great and their models are superior to most others (seriosuly which company produces anything better) heck I even read the lore of Warmachine and others and that feels bland...

heck I have been reading GW lore since 1996 and the only difference is that its more grimdark and epic, which sells....

bitethythumb wrote:


I would have to disagree, a lot of their lore is great and still great and their models are superior to most others (seriosuly which company produces anything better) ....

Perry Miniatures. Better quality, better priced, better everything.

I am really into the 40k fluff, not so much as before but still more so than any others, most other sci-fi settings just dont do it for me, The 40k game is not that important to me now either, but I still prefer it to most other systems.

Was never that keen on fantasy or the fluff there mind.

GW miniatures are the best around imo and I will continue to buy them even if there was no game to play with them in.

Its not just a GW thing though, look at X-wing for example, sells so many ships because of star wars, yet hardly anyone I talk to that collects them actually plays the game.

 Rayvon wrote:


GW miniatures are the best around imo and I will continue to buy them even if there was no game to play with them in.

Best space marines maybe.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:


GW miniatures are the best around imo and I will continue to buy them even if there was no game to play with them in.

Best space marines maybe.

Same as perry make the best historics ?

BeAfraid wrote:
Why do I see that "Then Murderfang murdered someone with his Murderclaws because of his Murderlust on the planet Omicide" so often?

Is that a real thing, or is it just a take on their current fiction connected to the game (i.e. "fluff")?

Because it certainly sounds like a real thing (Like "Otiose") that they would say.

But, yes, GW has to many "Murder-things" among their fictional universe where the grimdark seeps into murder-stuff.

It reminds me of a paper I once wrote about the development of the Goth scene as it became Pop-Culture instead of a sub/counter-culture. The kids, they try too hard.

MB

It is very much real and in Murderfang's entry in the space wolf codex.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Murderfang

 Rayvon wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:


GW miniatures are the best around imo and I will continue to buy them even if there was no game to play with them in.

Best space marines maybe.

Same as perry make the best historics ?

They make some of the best, but other companies also do very good work there as well. Victrix Imperial Guard are a mainstay of my purchasing.

As far as gw are concerned, the hobby is collecting miniatures. What you do with your collection is up to you. Be it gaming, painting, converting, building, buying and never opening, reading the fluff etc, the models are their primary business, everything else (rules, books, paints) etc are all secondary. It might not be a philosophy that everyone appreciates, but as a business that requires sales, it is an understandable one.

bitethythumb wrote:

GW make amazing miniatures and have great lore and writers in general (and from what I here, pay their writers and sculptors pretty well) but their games are all in all "average" even their original "games" (first edition that is, rogue trader etc) was very basic in nature and not exactly free from flaws and over the years they have tried to balance both aspects but only successfully worked on one.. the Warhammer universe grew and it grew well but their games have always had "flaws" (some take those flaws very seriously, some do not and that is ok)

The lore is over rated and given far more credit than it really deserves - most of it is ripped from Lovecraft, 2000ad and dune. It's a lot less 'gw have written great lore for thirty years' and more 'gw wrote some good lore thirty years ago'. For every second battle of Armageddon, or gothic war, there is a Kaldor drago or murderfang. As to great writers - some of the stuff is fun to read, but a lot more is juvenile bolter porn with one dimensional characters (whose motivations rarely stretch beyond 'glory for the x' and 'death to the z').

bitethythumb wrote:

Is GW in the business of making a game or miniatures/lore (as apparently someone at GW has stated.. which got me to think "maybe they are right")

Thryre in the business of selling toy soldiers.

bitethythumb wrote:

Do you think GW makes/has good lore and miniatures and an average game system (or vice versa).

No to both.

bitethythumb wrote:

Should GW focus only on making miniatures/lore instead of the average "gaming" aspect and let the users be it through forums or GW stores, make their own games/rules.. managers acting as adeptus arbrites

Both go hand in hand. Pretty models only go so far - you need a hook that gives them fictional 'life'. Gaming gives you something to do with them, and additional revenue streams (rulebooks, codices etc)

bitethythumb wrote:

do you think GW should just sell their IP to other companies (and maybe that is their plan with all the name changing in fantasy) to design and make other things for them, it seems to work for 40k, let others use their setting and world and miniatures... maybe they could do the same for rules and the gaming aspect.

What happens if the people they sell it to squat the IP, or change its direction to a kid friendly love and peace Saturday morning cartoon version of tge setting? Gw want creative control over their own IP. Rightly so.

NO.

Whoever buys the IP will be the saviour and put things right.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:


I would have to disagree, a lot of their lore is great and still great and their models are superior to most others (seriosuly which company produces anything better) ....

Perry Miniatures. Better quality, better priced, better everything.

its mostly historical in nature and I will not argue that they make amazing accurate miniatures but kinda boring, still not nagash... why don't perry miniatures release monsters and creatures? I would buy from them


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:


GW miniatures are the best around imo and I will continue to buy them even if there was no game to play with them in.

Best space marines maybe.

they make far more than space marines, maybe that is why you disagree, go into their store look around... I got myself a hellpit abomination and I am thinking of getting some nurgle unit (those flies look awesome)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

GW make amazing miniatures and have great lore and writers in general (and from what I here, pay their writers and sculptors pretty well) but their games are all in all "average" even their original "games" (first edition that is, rogue trader etc) was very basic in nature and not exactly free from flaws and over the years they have tried to balance both aspects but only successfully worked on one.. the Warhammer universe grew and it grew well but their games have always had "flaws" (some take those flaws very seriously, some do not and that is ok)

The lore is over rated and given far more credit than it really deserves - most of it is ripped from Lovecraft, 2000ad and dune. It's a lot less 'gw have written great lore for thirty years' and more 'gw wrote some good lore thirty years ago'. For every second battle of Armageddon, or gothic war, there is a Kaldor drago or murderfang. As to great writers - some of the stuff is fun to read, but a lot more is juvenile bolter porn with one dimensional characters (whose motivations rarely stretch beyond 'glory for the x' and 'death to the z').

bitethythumb wrote:

Is GW in the business of making a game or miniatures/lore (as apparently someone at GW has stated.. which got me to think "maybe they are right")

Thryre in the business of selling toy soldiers.

bitethythumb wrote:

Do you think GW makes/has good lore and miniatures and an average game system (or vice versa).

No to both.

bitethythumb wrote:

Should GW focus only on making miniatures/lore instead of the average "gaming" aspect and let the users be it through forums or GW stores, make their own games/rules.. managers acting as adeptus arbrites

Both go hand in hand. Pretty models only go so far - you need a hook that gives them fictional 'life'. Gaming gives you something to do with them, and additional revenue streams (rulebooks, codices etc)

bitethythumb wrote:

do you think GW should just sell their IP to other companies (and maybe that is their plan with all the name changing in fantasy) to design and make other things for them, it seems to work for 40k, let others use their setting and world and miniatures... maybe they could do the same for rules and the gaming aspect.

What happens if the people they sell it to squat the IP, or change its direction to a kid friendly love and peace Saturday morning cartoon version of tge setting? Gw want creative control over their own IP. Rightly so.

I hate the "they copied this and this" argument because in all honesty, everyone copies everyone... not a single unique "original" thing exists if you look hard enough.

In the beginning ...
Citadel Minatures were arguably the best around and people paid more because they were objectively better quality, in terms of sculpt and detail.

Then GW bought out Citadel and started making games to use the minatures in.

The background was light hearted and tongue in cheek and did not take itself too seriously.A lot of the characters and places were references to real world counter parts.
(EG Ghazghkull Thrakka with Adumantium skull plate = Margret thatcher the ''Iron Lady'' Tory PM. Both very scary to deal with close up... )

Everything was woven with a thread of subtle humor running through it.

The open two way communication between the studio and the customers , made it obvious GW studio were writing rules for fun narrative games.

The rules were over complicated back then, BUT most importantly the game play was complex enough to carry the over complication.
(The game was ''fat'' , over complicated, but ''strong'' ,with complex game play.)

Then all of a sudden the GW sales department wanted to push higher model counts into the games.And wanted to drive sales through tournament play.
Which was completely contrary to what the game devs wanted to do.

So from 1998 with 3rd ed 40k they tried to write rules for competitive play.They cut out all the game play complexity , along with some of the over complication.
And ended up with Blandhammer .Better balance but boring.

So rather than listen to the game devs , the corporate management forced them to keep the core rules that did not work that well at larger game sizes.
And try to patch up the game with special rules.

Which just added more complication and very little game complexity.Which made the rules practically useless for tournament play.
(Apart from massive amounts of restrictions in competitions , which the super competitive players are ok with sorting out.)

Then GW plc tried to pretend they were selling the game to 'narrative players'.While using PV and F.O.C. to try to drive sales in the direction of competitive players.

Rather than allow the game devs to re write the core rules to cover the new game sizes better.
GW plc corporate have just pushed the game development over the cliff of credibility IMO.

The ONLY GOOD reason to sell rule sets and army composition lists , is to provide GOOD GAME PLAY, with the publication as written.
As this adds value to minatures.

Selling or even giving away poor rule sets , is like selling the best minatures in a tatty box with a felt tip pen scribbled on to tell you what is in the box.
It takes value away from the minature,

In the same way a professionally printed box with clear text and inspiring art ADDS value to the minatures inside for the collectors.

Clearly defined rules that deliver good game play add value to the minatures for the players.

The game and lore may be 'secondary' to the minatures.But there is no need for them to rushed or given up on , so they detract value from the primary product.

bitethythumb wrote:

I hate the "they copied this and this" argument because in all honesty, everyone copies everyone... not a single unique "original" thing exists if you look hard enough.

But only GW try to deny they copied anything, claim it was created totally originally in a vacuum and then try to allege they own it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, congratulations on trying to be less obvious than Norsed.

Different companies focus on different things. Sometimes I'm a little overwhelmed at the sight of how many D&D rulebooks I see on the shelves and I don't even play the game. The Reaper Bones series is all about a high volume of good, cheap minis.

GW is more in line with PP and CB, approaching the hobby in a more encompassing manner, with a good volume of all of that and providing the modelling tools to boot. But even in their group, they're approaches will differ.

WHFB was a sinking ship for lots of reasons but rather than ditch the range altogether, they reinvented the lore to coincide with a rules rewrite. It's a great range and deserves to be preserved, but in order to help that it needed to be more accessible.

Bear in mind everyone, this is just the 1st edition. Who knows what will happen next, apparently the initial editions of 40k could be sorta crazy. It's too soon to tell where the game will go next in terms of rules, minis, and lore.

@pax macharia.
PP and CB actually write rules focused on game play , to generate long term interest in their war games and lore.
GW plc just rush out cool ideas they think will inspire collectors to buy the latest releases.

WHFB was a sinking ship simply because GW plc were insistent on pushing higher model count and higher retail prices to make up for falling sales volumes, due to WHFB players finding better and cheaper rule sets to use their minatures with..

If the corporate management had listened to the game devs years ago, they would not be in this current position IMO.

 pax macharia wrote:
Different companies focus on different things. Sometimes I'm a little overwhelmed at the sight of how many D&D rulebooks I see on the shelves and I don't even play the game. The Reaper Bones series is all about a high volume of good, cheap minis.

That was part of what killed D&D 4th edition - WotC managed to glut their own market with an accelerated release schedule.

Paizo, on the other hand, has a very fixed release schedule for Pathfinder- three hardcovers a year, and monthly releases in their other supporting lines.

And Paizo is using the plan that was originally intended for Dungeons & Dragons third edition releases....

The Auld Grump - and found that it worked.

Lanrak wrote:
In the beginning ...
Citadel Minatures were arguably the best around and people paid more because they were objectively better quality, in terms of sculpt and detail.

Then GW bought out Citadel and started making games to use the minatures in.

The background was light hearted and tongue in cheek and did not take itself too seriously.A lot of the characters and places were references to real world counter parts.
(EG Ghazghkull Thrakka with Adumantium skull plate = Margret thatcher the ''Iron Lady'' Tory PM. Both very scary to deal with close up... )

Everything was woven with a thread of subtle humor running through it.

The open two way communication between the studio and the customers , made it obvious GW studio were writing rules for fun narrative games.

The rules were over complicated back then, BUT most importantly the game play was complex enough to carry the over complication.
(The game was ''fat'' , over complicated, but ''strong'' ,with complex game play.)

Then all of a sudden the GW sales department wanted to push higher model counts into the games.And wanted to drive sales through tournament play.
Which was completely contrary to what the game devs wanted to do.

So from 1998 with 3rd ed 40k they tried to write rules for competitive play.They cut out all the game play complexity , along with some of the over complication.
And ended up with Blandhammer .Better balance but boring.

So rather than listen to the game devs , the corporate management forced them to keep the core rules that did not work that well at larger game sizes.
And try to patch up the game with special rules.

Which just added more complication and very little game complexity.Which made the rules practically useless for tournament play.
(Apart from massive amounts of restrictions in competitions , which the super competitive players are ok with sorting out.)

Then GW plc tried to pretend they were selling the game to 'narrative players'.While using PV and F.O.C. to try to drive sales in the direction of competitive players.

Rather than allow the game devs to re write the core rules to cover the new game sizes better.
GW plc corporate have just pushed the game development over the cliff of credibility IMO.

The ONLY GOOD reason to sell rule sets and army composition lists , is to provide GOOD GAME PLAY, with the publication as written.
As this adds value to minatures.

Selling or even giving away poor rule sets , is like selling the best minatures in a tatty box with a felt tip pen scribbled on to tell you what is in the box.
It takes value away from the minature,

In the same way a professionally printed box with clear text and inspiring art ADDS value to the minatures inside for the collectors.

Clearly defined rules that deliver good game play add value to the minatures for the players.

The game and lore may be 'secondary' to the minatures.But there is no need for them to rushed or given up on , so they detract value from the primary product.

so business wise it would be good to sell their rules making team or license to someone else who can make great rules and focus specifically on the miniatures and lore, I am not saying GW should not have a "gaming" element, I am just saying they should stay away from it and focus on lore and minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

I hate the "they copied this and this" argument because in all honesty, everyone copies everyone... not a single unique "original" thing exists if you look hard enough.

But only GW try to deny they copied anything, claim it was created totally originally in a vacuum and then try to allege they own it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, congratulations on trying to be less obvious than Norsed.

do they though.. I have never heard of someone at GW saying "he was not inspired by such and such" if someone accuses him of say copying the god emperor from dune and he simply says "I was inspired by many things" he is neither denying or acknowledging it.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

I hate the "they copied this and this" argument because in all honesty, everyone copies everyone... not a single unique "original" thing exists if you look hard enough.

But only GW try to deny they copied anything, claim it was created totally originally in a vacuum and then try to allege they own it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, congratulations on trying to be less obvious than Norsed.

do they though.. I have never heard of someone at GW saying "he was not inspired by such and such" if someone accuses him of say copying the god emperor from dune and he simply says "I was inspired by many things" he is neither denying or acknowledging it.

Someone needs to read the transcript of the CHS court case....

 Grimtuff wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

I hate the "they copied this and this" argument because in all honesty, everyone copies everyone... not a single unique "original" thing exists if you look hard enough.

But only GW try to deny they copied anything, claim it was created totally originally in a vacuum and then try to allege they own it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, congratulations on trying to be less obvious than Norsed.

do they though.. I have never heard of someone at GW saying "he was not inspired by such and such" if someone accuses him of say copying the god emperor from dune and he simply says "I was inspired by many things" he is neither denying or acknowledging it.

Someone needs to read the transcript of the CHS court case....

Yes, under oath, the representatives from GW claimed that they had 'made it up out of their own heads'.

They were not real happy when they were questioned about similarities between the Landraider and the Mk I British tank from WWI....

They really deserved to be smacked on the head for that.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

They were not real happy when they were questioned about similarities between the Landraider and the Mk I British tank from WWI....

They really deserved to be smacked on the head for that.

The Auld Grump

What are you talking about? You mean to tell me this is not a Land Raider on the roundabout in my home city...

Lanrak wrote:


The background was light hearted and tongue in cheek and did not take itself too seriously.A lot of the characters and places were references to real world counter parts.
(EG Ghazghkull Thrakka with Adumantium skull plate = Margret thatcher the ''Iron Lady'' Tory PM. Both very scary to deal with close up... )

Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka ravaged an industrial planet/system and Margaret Thatcher ravaged the industrial production of a country.

Lanrak wrote:
The ONLY GOOD reason to sell rule sets and army composition lists , is to provide GOOD GAME PLAY, with the publication as written.
As this adds value to minatures.

Not quite. A good reason to sell rule sets and army composition lists is so that people who are interested in modelling the miniatures have a context in which to build the models. For instance, do I build 10 bolters, or 8 bolters, 1 meltagun, and 1 combi-melta, or 1 grav cannon and one plasma pistol? Do I build 1 tactical squad or 3 or 6? How many Land Raiders should I have in my army?

Of course, people can do whatever they like with their money, and build squads of 23 marines if they want. But a lot of modelers and collectors like to have stuff in the right context. Also, a lot of painters like to follow heraldry, and books are important for that.

In addition, army lists are linked to fluff, and fluff is important for both army composition (if you want your army to fight the way it "should"), as well as just entertainment value.

In addition, some people think, "keep a good ruleset forever", but others (like me) are happy to see the game fundamentally change every few years, because it keeps things fresh. If 40k were still running on 2e or 3e rules today, I'd be doing something else.

Lanrak wrote:

Selling or even giving away poor rule sets , is like selling the best minatures in a tatty box with a felt tip pen scribbled on to tell you what is in the box.
It takes value away from the minature,

In the same way a professionally printed box with clear text and inspiring art ADDS value to the minatures inside for the collectors.

Clearly defined rules that deliver good game play add value to the minatures for the players.

The game and lore may be 'secondary' to the minatures.But there is no need for them to rushed or given up on , so they detract value from the primary product.

On this, I certainly agree with you. Poor rules takes value away from the miniatures -- though in varying degrees, depending on whether you want to play the game a lot or not at all, and just use the rules for modelling context.

I don't, however, subscribe to the whole meme that "GW writes poor rules", even less so, that "GW writes worse rules now than it used to". There might be other companies that write tighter, more balanced rules, certainly, but for me the primary value of a ruleset is not to turn a tabletop into a computer game with crisp definitions of If X then Y.

For me, rules are a context in which two friendly competitors (hopefully both modelling hobbyists, too) play can have a socially engaging game in a sportsmanlike fashion.

I agree that, *tournament* rules might be different, but GW hasn't shown any interest in that scene for a very long time, and that's just fine with me, as I also have very little interest in the tournament (or hypercompetitive) scene where it comes to tabletop miniatures, because for me, the miniatures and social aspects are vastly more important than the competition.

On the subject of Age of Sigmar, I totally disagree that the rules are poor. After having actually *played* it, the rules are actually really well thought-out, easy to learn, and fun to play when you are looking at tables of 20 - 40 models. As other people have noted, units are quite mobile, and the experience is much better if it's a bigger table with fewer models than the reverse. RAW seems pretty good, with the sole exception of measuring from the base instead of the model, just because it's easier -- and I guess we're used to doing that.

The Age of Sigmar rules are deceptively deep, because just like WMH, in order to appreciate them, you need to read through the warscrolls. It's all in the special rules. The basic mechanics are simple, which is fine as a secondary game, or as a person's first wargame, because it takes minutes to learn and get into playing.

Also, Age of Sigmar might not have points, but for us, balance was far easier to achieve than, for instance, with 40k. Yes, it requires cooperation between the players rather than a combative attitude (before the game starts). Without further guidelines, it is a poor competition/tournament game. But again, I don't care about that; I just want to play and have fun with my nodels and not worry too much that I'm doing things totally wrong.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:
I will be honest that up to the complete destruction of the Old World I thought that GW created some fantastic lore. GW is in the business of making money, and they will do whatever they feel will turn them a profit within reason. The only rule set that GW has made that I haven't been a fan of is the current AoS one. I am reserving judgement until I see more, but I think their self destruction of their history-fantasy lore will turn me off despite the game. GW needs to be more than just a license holder because if they went down that route there would come a time when even the Ultramarines wouldn't spark interest in potential customers as there is no basis for value.

but they are more, they make amazing miniatures... and I love that you are waiting for AoS to take shape, regarding the lore, I sorta agree but after reading a bit about the new world and its potential I kinda like the new AoS lore... yes I still love the old world and its map and stories (great maw, come on that is awesome) but sometimes *change* is not bad, AoS lore may surprise you and as you said, I will wait and see for their lore to grow and shape itself further

I'm trying to be very open to it. I will be picking up a copy of the set and the novel and I will take it from there.