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.

 RivenSkull wrote:
So WHFB/AoS vs KoW.

I actually kind of the like the newer Mantic models...o well...

A little from column a and little from column b

Great rules, bad minis. I can always sub the minis from my collection.

Noir wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
If there was no inbetween for this question, then I would just stop playing miniature games and enjoy video/computer games.

Because the reality is that neither game could become popular enough to matter or exist for long.

We have proof that your statement is false.

If you mean games that have existed for decades now and became one way or another? It applies, but also doesn't since they often start somewhere on the spectrum and mature in direction not on this binary list, except maybe GW.

Which also highlights how silly this poll is overall. Rules and miniatures do mature over time, including consumer's tastes for those. In some cases, like GW, you can get overly nostalgic consumers.

Stealth GW vs Privateer Press/Mantic thread?

Guys, listen, please.

I am just trying to figure out what people would do in this exact hypothetical situation. Imagine that someone's holding a gun to your head and forces you to make a choice between these two.

It's just to quench my curiosity, that's all. No hidden "GW vs %company_name%" meaning.

False dichotomy - it truly is not too much to ask for both....

But if I had to choose - awesome minis, since I paint more than I play. For example - I have painted 10+ Relic Knight models over the last year. Not one game yet.

Mez

Miniatures all the way. I am more sensitive to price or fluff quality than to rules quality. I probably won't even get to play 90% of the rulesets I already own.

Awesome rules. I could just use other miniatures from my collection in that case. It's what I do for KoW.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Awesome rules. I could just use other miniatures from my collection in that case. It's what I do for KoW.

Pretty much this. There's enough 3rd-party stuff that's usable for almost any system if you don't like the base models. My only caveat is that I want a compelling universe to go with my good rules.

For example, imagine a world where 40k and WMH are both equal in terms of clean, concise, balanced rules (shocking, I know, but stay with me). Now to me, 40k has an interesting narrative and aesthetic that WMH's steampunk+magic doesn't really achieve. So using 40k models with the WMH ruleset wouldn't be as great for me as using WMH models (assuming I liked them) with 40k's ruleset, even though for the purposes of this thought experiment they should theoretically be the same. In other words, even if Ruleset A = Ruleset B in terms of how good they are, using models from B in Ruleset A might not be as good as using models from A in Ruleset B, due to what those rules represent. Hope that long rambling made some sense.

TL;DR: I want good rules, which effectively represent an interesting and diverse background universe. After that, I don't care where I get my pretty models as long as I can make them work for the game I want to play.

shyzo wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Spoiler:

Hmmm tough one.
I actually loathe the Malifaux and Infinity aesthetics but have heard they have pretty cool rulesets.
WMH falls kinda in the middle with some cracking minitaures and a decent enough ruleset.
Something like 40k whilst not as tight does have terrific miniatures imo and is still fairly playable.
Poll probably needs an inbetween option for me so.

The whole purpose of this poll is to give two mutually exclusive options - it's either one or another. No in-betweens.

Ha!


I'd play the game with the better rules with 3rd party miniatures!

I picked miniatures because I buy models.just to paint much of the time. Hut to be honest.I wouldn't.play a game.I don't like the rules for. In either siutstion I proxy to combine good models.and.rules.

 Mezmaron wrote:
False dichotomy - it truly is not too much to ask for both....

Yep. There have never been more games than now that fulfil both criteria, it's seriously a good time for wargamers. So you shouldn't have to accept either bad rules or bad minis, there is probably something out there that you'll enjoy in both counts.

shyzo wrote:
Guys, listen, please.

I am just trying to figure out what people would do in this exact hypothetical situation. Imagine that someone's holding a gun to your head and forces you to make a choice between these two.

It's just to quench my curiosity, that's all. No hidden "GW vs %company_name%" meaning.

In that case I'd go with great rules, bad minis.

shyzo wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Hmmm tough one.
I actually loathe the Malifaux and Infinity aesthetics but have heard they have pretty cool rulesets.
WMH falls kinda in the middle with some cracking minitaures and a decent enough ruleset.
Something like 40k whilst not as tight does have terrific miniatures imo and is still fairly playable.
Poll probably needs an inbetween option for me so.

The whole purpose of this poll is to give two mutually exclusive options - it's either one or another. No in-betweens.

It's really not that binary, though - is it? I use Warhammer Minis as the mainstay of my Kings of War armies. Good minis, good ruleset. No problemo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xca|iber wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Awesome rules. I could just use other miniatures from my collection in that case. It's what I do for KoW.

Pretty much this. There's enough 3rd-party stuff that's usable for almost any system if you don't like the base models. My only caveat is that I want a compelling universe to go with my good rules.

Of course, the background can be from anywhere as well - it doesn't have to be married to the rules, either.. When I use the KoW rules for a punch-up with my GW Ogres on one side and my GW Undead on the other, why would I not "use" the (former) WHFB universe for it? I know people who play a Rogue Trader-style campaign set in the 40k universe using 40k models as well as all kinds of other weird and wonderful things and the Pulp Alley rules.

 warboss wrote:
Is this going to turn into another GW vs Mantic thread?

Fortunately you can play Mantic Games with GW minis.

And even Warhammer using Mantic's Undead or Ogres isn't an uncommon or poor choice. Mantic's new Ogre Berserkers are some of the best models I've seen from them, if you can handle Metal (I can!)

Game with awesome rules and awesome miniatures.
Has to be invented yet. Maybe X-Wing.

I would buy the great figures from game one and the great rules from game two.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Game with awesome rules and awesome miniatures.
Has to be invented yet. Maybe X-Wing.

Obviously it's all a matter of taste, but I'd say

Malifaux
LotR (mostly, there are a few duds but in a line with several hundred minis that's to be expected)
Infinity
Batman Miniatures Game

all fall into that category, the latter possibly being (in my opinion) the best combination of rules and mini range ever published.

I sometimes think that the greatest trick GW ever pulled was instilling the concept of "must use our minis to use our rules".

That's true.

A concept that Flames Of War tried to follow but failed, because anyone can make WW2 figures.

However when you see the number of alternative SMs and IG that people use, maybe GW failed too.

Hmmm, I started wargaming around 1974 - Avalon Hill board games had cracking rules, but no miniatures at all.

Miniatures wise... we had Minifigs and Heritage....

So, I have played good games with bad, few, or no miniatures - and greatly prefer that extreme to having wonderful looking miniatures and no game worth the time spent playing.

To fill in the obvious poke - I play Mantic games, and buy Mantic miniatures to support the company.

Some Mantic figures are great (Undead), some are... awful (Basilean Men at Arms, some of the other Basileans).

On the plus side, Mantic has been getting better over time.

The Auld Grump

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's true.

A concept that Flames Of War tried to follow but failed, because anyone can make WW2 figures.

However when you see the number of alternative SMs and IG that people use, maybe GW failed too.

Don't forget Soda Can Drop Pod

It has to be Awesome rules and ugly miniatures, since I can use any miniatures I want in the ruleset. Win-Win.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I sometimes think that the greatest trick GW ever pulled was instilling the concept of "must use our minis to use our rules".

I'd gladly use GW minis in a GW sanctioned Tournament, since that would imply they actually give a damn about rules. But so long as they keep branding themselves a model company, I'll use their miniatures with whatever rules I want. (And vice versa)

 sing your life wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
So WHFB/AoS vs KoW.

I actually kind of the like the newer Mantic models...o well...

Oh yeah they have been getting better. I play Undead so I'm not really complaining about the models.

But the goblins and some of the Basileans......

-

I play Warhammer 40,000. I'm already playing the "awesome minis and bad rules" game!

 RivenSkull wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
So WHFB/AoS vs KoW.

I actually kind of the like the newer Mantic models...o well...

Oh yeah they have been getting better. I play Undead so I'm not really complaining about the models.

But the goblins and some of the Basileans......

I love the KOW Goblins. They have such a wicked look to them.

This is such an arbitrary argument. Different people will make a different value judgment about what is good, so it's impossible to talk about specific gaming systems.

To me, KoW is incredibly dull and boring. Yes, the system is tight, but lacks anything to grab my attention. The models are also smaller than what is more or less an industry standard heroic scale (based on market share), with hard to work with mold lines and a general lack of sharp detail. As such, KoW has bad rules and bad models... for ME.

AoS on the other hand is not dull and boring. Sure, the battles can be a little clustered if you're not playing scenarios, but that's easy to get around. Use scenarios! The rules are actually pretty tight, too. The AoS rules forum is a ghost town. There are a few very isolated issues that people like to bicker about, but that common sense and a dash of sportsmanship solve immediately in the real world. The models are also far, far more detailed and of a higher quality. As such, AoS has good rules and good models... for ME.

Others might feel differently. I know some people can't handle AoS because it's not a points driven, regimental style game with pre-made army lists. Instead, it's a sportsmanship driven, skirmish style game with army lists made on the fly during the start of the game. If you want points based, pre-made lists, you should probably look elsewhere. There are tons of games out there. I think it speaks to the quality of GW's models that so many people are willing to spend so much time and effort trying to hammer the AoS rules into a WFB shaped hole.

I also think you need to look at what people want out of their hobby. As much as people like to judge GW, their outlook on "The Hobby" makes sense. The Hobby is made up of collecting, assembling, painting and playing. GW clearly focuses on catering to the first three elements. If you're a player, first and foremost, you're probably never going to be totally happy with the way GW does things. If you only buy, build and paint models, you're likely to be happy with GW. Even their pricing is reasonable when you consider how many hours it takes to assemble, convert and paint a model to a very high standard. Even a $150 Tau Stormsurge is cheaper than going to see a movie. Movies are generally about an hour and a half and cost $13 where I live. I only need to spend ~18 or so hours with my Stormsurge to come out on top in the dollar per entertainment hour calculation.

Ultimately, my answer is that I'll pick models over games any day of the week. Having said that, the hierarchy is more like this...

1. Good models/Good fluff/Good game
2. Good models/Good fluff/Bad or no game
3. Good models/Bad fluff/Good game
4. Good models/Bad fluff/Bad or no game
5. Bad models/Good fluff/Good game
6. Bad models/Good fluff/Bad or no game
7. Bad models/Bad fluff/Good game
8. Bad models/Bad fluff/Bad or no game

I tend to prioritize good models THEN good fluff THEN good games.