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.

Neither. I'd buy the awesome miniatures, and use them to play the game with the awesome rules.

In fact I'm doing this for Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, running a campaign at my club using my LOTR/Hobbit SBG miniatures. Not that I think the SBG is a bad game, far from it - I think the SBG is by far the best quality ruleset of GW's current 3 games. Its just hard to find local opponents, and its more that I dislike the official D&D miniatures.

Neither.

But really, this question presupposes that one uses the manufacturer's models to play the game. I have been known to sub in alt models to play a game I enjoy, and vice versa.

In my humble opinion, interest in a table top wargame most often starts with art and then progresses to rules. And a game with great art but only mediocre rules will get better traction than a game with great rules and mediocre art.

People do not play table top miniatures games just for the rules. There are easier ways to enjoy a good set of game rules. People play table top miniatures games partly because of the artistry of the game pieces, perhaps largely because of it. This includes people who 'don't treat their models well'. Most likely they purchased the models partly due to their aesthetic value, even if they don't clean them well and never paint them.

Of course, you can say this about almost any game genre, but in table top miniatures, the models are a primary interest when it comes to the quality of artistic assets. A game can survive on decent rules if the models are high quality, but bad models can tank a fantastic rule set.

I wouldn't play any game that wasn't fun.

I wouldn't buy any models that were terrible.

So, frankly, it's not a good poll question, because there are better things to do in life than play bad games with good models or good games with bad models.

I really only want to play GREAT games with AWESOME models though sometimes I will male small compromises, recognizing that I probably wont love every single model made for an army.

In addition, I think both measures are highly subjective.

I'll add that models give a quick first impression of a table top miniatures game. Bad art can often reflect badly on the game/manufacturer. It takes lots more time to evaluate a rule set, and potential players may not even look at a rule set because the models are uninspiring.

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

Bollocks.

 Mezmaron wrote:
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

To be fair, I do not think it is that much of a false dichotomy, at least in practice.

The reality is that lots of us, dare I say most of us, do not commonly mix rule sets and models, with an exception for models without associated rules and rules without associated models. It takes more time and effort, generally, to proxy models, and there is some degree of social stigma attached to mixing the products of multiple companies. There really shouldn't be, but there is.

If you want to proxy, you've got to at least spend time matching models and representative rules. If you are playing in an environment where most players do not proxy, most folks will wonder what other players will think, and how to navigate that space. Again, that's extra effort. That's a barrier, a barrier that does not exist if you like the models. It is much easier to buy the 'proper' models.

How many of us have taken a pass on a game because the models don't excite us? I do it all of the time. How often does it happen that really exciting models make us take a second look at a game?

I don't know the intention of this poll, but I am certain the results will be horribly misused as part of some kind of vendetta.

I withhold my vote.

 Azazelx wrote:

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.

To me, KoW is a special case as it has been designed with other minis in mind... That is to say that the KoW rules are generic enough that they can represent a wide variety of fantasy miniatures (this is sometimes why people feel it's boring, I think). What I was getting at though was that some rulesets, despite being good and/or elegant, are so closely tied to the fluff behind them that you cannot just sub in models you like. Basically, there's a difference between playing Game A with Game B's models representing Game A's units, and playing Game A with Game B's models as themselves.

Maybe a better example of what I'm talking about would be trying to use some CoD/Modern Warfare style ruleset to represent 40k. Even if the rules were really awesome and functionally perfect, it wouldn't be a good system for playing Tyranids because there is no analogous force in that style of game. At that point, you'd be better off creating your own ruleset from scratch.

Hope that makes more sense.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


Some Mantic figures are great (Undead)
The Auld Grump

Their undead are superb -I just ordered some of their ghouls and zombies. Better than the GW ones by a good bit.

 theHandofGork wrote:
False choice- I can play good rulesets with any minis I want.

Yep. I don't have any friends who would object to me playing a game we enjoyed with different miniatures, so long as it fit within the rules regarding size/base.

I'd prefer a set of good rules and good models.

They don't have to come from the same source. I'm old school, the company that did both was a rare thing - still is.

Buy the minis you want and use them with the games you want.

That's the only sensible answer IMO.

Come for the minis, stay for the minis

I'd take good rules & bad minis.

If you think about it, pretty much every boardgame out there has very rudimentary and sometimes even ugly miniatures. Games like Decent, Pirates, Axis & Allies (board and miniatures), etc... don't feature the most beatuful or detailed minis, but the games themselves have had me hooked.

If someone hands me some nice miniatures and a bad ruleset which doesn't hook me, I might as well not play at all and return to 1/48 scale modelling.

You forgot the BOTH choice in there.

You live in a false dichotomy, my friend.

A lot of people saying use the good models with the good rules... what if they aren't all that compatible?

Aside from historics where models are by nature highly interchangeable and a game like KoW which is basically designed to be generic, I don't usually like using models from one system in a different system because they often aren't all that interchangeable.

So often the options just aren't fully or properly represented in a different range, usually one range will have more more variants of the same troop as another range (game A has frogmen in 4 forms, basic, giant, elite, commander, game B also has frogmen but only basic and commander), or different equipment options (like game A gives 4 options for guns and 2 options for swords, game B only gives 2 options for guns and no options for swords).

I'd be interested to know how many people actually play one game with models from another game (outside of KoW and historics) because it's something I very rarely see and times I've thought about doing it usually it falls flat on it's face before it even gets started.

I would honestly prefer to have cool models, since I spend so much time in between games I would prefer to at least spend that time looking at some cool models.

 _Monolith_ wrote:
Come for the minis, stay for the minis

yes!!!
minis, every time...

cheers
jah

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A lot of people saying use the good models with the good rules... what if they aren't all that compatible?

Aside from historics where models are by nature highly interchangeable and a game like KoW which is basically designed to be generic, I don't usually like using models from one system in a different system because they often aren't all that interchangeable.

So often the options just aren't fully or properly represented in a different range, usually one range will have more more variants of the same troop as another range (game A has frogmen in 4 forms, basic, giant, elite, commander, game B also has frogmen but only basic and commander), or different equipment options (like game A gives 4 options for guns and 2 options for swords, game B only gives 2 options for guns and no options for swords).

I'd be interested to know how many people actually play one game with models from another game (outside of KoW and historics) because it's something I very rarely see and times I've thought about doing it usually it falls flat on it's face before it even gets started.

This is kinda the point I was trying to make as well. It's often difficult to play a game with a different game's models, assuming you are actually trying to represent those models as "themselves" rather than just proxies for the units in the game system you're playing. Usually, I find it works only when you use 3rd party models designed for the system - which still happens to some degree.

To answer your question, I play BFG using almost exclusively 3rd party, non-GW models (I find the BFG models to be great - don't get me wrong - but as they're mostly OOP, building a fleet is kinda hard nowadays). However, this works because the 3rd party models are being made specifically for BFG to represent BFG units.

On the other hand, this wouldn't work very well if I were trying to use Tyranid models as Tyranids in a game of Dust Tactics or some such thing, since they're not really compatible that way. Even so though, I still prefer good rules over minis. When there's a game with cool minis, I just collect them a bit but don't play.

Awesome minis, bad rules.

No one said I HAD to play, so I'll do what I've been doing for years and just collect/paint minis I never play with.

I can proxy miniatures, so rules first.

The poll more or less equates to "Are you a modeller first, and a gamer second OR a gamer first and a modeller second?"

I would easily go with awesome rules and poor minis. You likely could sub in better minis with the awesome ruleset. As someone else indicated, there are many games in the past that used cardboard counters but were really good games - the counters were fine for that. And some games that used minis gave the person cardboard counters to use with the option to buy minis to have a better look. For me it is about a better game first and then the minis. That is why 40K is so depressing. When I started in 4th ed I regularly heard stories of how bad their rules were in the past editions with either wonky core rules or OP units but I so often heard that GW was getting better (and we had errata to fix issues). Boy was that optimistic or just plain dreaming.

This kind of makes me think of the old 'graphics vs. gameplay' argument that used to do the rounds some years ago on computer game forums.

Less of it now as top-line releases tend to have a lot of money spent on them and very few have poor graphics per se.

But, in the same way that I think if you are really experiencing a good video game, and you start to look beyond the graphics, I think its the same with a wargaming system. One that's good, fun and enjoyable you will come back to time and time again. One that's not you could refer to as a 'polished turd', you start to look past the style and to the substance, and you're far less likely to

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A lot of people saying use the good models with the good rules... what if they aren't all that compatible?

Aside from historics where models are by nature highly interchangeable and a game like KoW which is basically designed to be generic, I don't usually like using models from one system in a different system because they often aren't all that interchangeable.

So often the options just aren't fully or properly represented in a different range, usually one range will have more more variants of the same troop as another range (game A has frogmen in 4 forms, basic, giant, elite, commander, game B also has frogmen but only basic and commander), or different equipment options (like game A gives 4 options for guns and 2 options for swords, game B only gives 2 options for guns and no options for swords).

I'd be interested to know how many people actually play one game with models from another game (outside of KoW and historics) because it's something I very rarely see and times I've thought about doing it usually it falls flat on it's face before it even gets started.

My group plays Mordheim with miniatures from all over the place.

Necromunda - minis from all over the heck and gone - and by gummagy, we are looking forward to the Frostgrave Cultists for use as Cawdor. (The Jailbirds from Raging Heroes are better Escher than the original Escher minis.)

My RPG miniatures are likewise from all over - and some of those minis date back to the '70s.

A nearby group plays Battlesystem (the old TSR mass combat game for AD&D) using, you guessed it, minis from all over the place.

I don't think that all that many games are all that specific in what minis will work.

The Auld Grump

War Kitten wrote:
I would honestly prefer to have cool models, since I spend so much time in between games I would prefer to at least spend that time looking at some cool models.

Ah, but the question isn't "would you collect awesome minis from a game with bad rules" it asks "would you play a game with awesome minis and bad rules".

Some people make a point that many board games have basic minis despite have good rules (risk, etc), but I think it is worth considering the question doesn't ask if you will play awesome rules with basic minis, it asks if you would play awesome rules with ugly minis. While basic, I don't think the playing pieces (if we can call them minis) for monopoly, risk, etc are ugly, so these games are outside the scope of the question.

Honestly, the question seems so hypothetical and loaded it is unanswerable for me. At least it has provoked interesting discussion, which is sufficient end within itself, I suppose.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
A lot of people saying use the good models with the good rules... what if they aren't all that compatible?

Aside from historics where models are by nature highly interchangeable and a game like KoW which is basically designed to be generic, I don't usually like using models from one system in a different system because they often aren't all that interchangeable.

So often the options just aren't fully or properly represented in a different range, usually one range will have more more variants of the same troop as another range (game A has frogmen in 4 forms, basic, giant, elite, commander, game B also has frogmen but only basic and commander), or different equipment options (like game A gives 4 options for guns and 2 options for swords, game B only gives 2 options for guns and no options for swords).

I'd be interested to know how many people actually play one game with models from another game (outside of KoW and historics) because it's something I very rarely see and times I've thought about doing it usually it falls flat on it's face before it even gets started.

If you don't like it, don't do it?

I'll just give the one example - There are enough flavours of official Imperial Guard models (more if you include FW) that you could use some kind of IG model as your futuristic humans in a great many games. Conversely, the IG is so vast with so many incredibly different looking regiments you could easily use almost anything as IG. I'd include the MEdge, GoA, WarZone, AvP, Anvil's Afterlife, Mantic Corp, most WarMachine Infantry and any number of other models and ranges in that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xca|iber wrote:

On the other hand, this wouldn't work very well if I were trying to use Tyranid models as Tyranids in a game of Dust Tactics or some such thing, since they're not really compatible that way. Even so though, I still prefer good rules over minis. When there's a game with cool minis, I just collect them a bit but don't play.

It depends on what the things are that you're using the other things to represent. You might be able to use your Tyranids to represent the stat line of Nazi Zombies or Nazi Gorillas in DUST, but they're obviously still going to look like Tyranids.

I wouldn't play either. I'd use the good minis to play the good rules.

For example, there is no way whatsoever that I would spend my money on those crappy Epic rip-off miniatures, is it Dropzone? The models are utterly without imagination, artistry or apparent skill, they're the definition of blandness and cheapness, but they cost as much as GW miniatures despite being no match for them in any way whatsoever.

Well I play Warhammer 40k, and would like to start inquisition, but I refuse to do so cause the models are so godawful.

But I also play Heroscape. (not my models though)
And I plan on buying Arena of the Planeswalkers and expansions.

For me, I'll take the uglier models if they're pre=painted and cheap. If I have to do work and pay a feth-ton for it, those models better look like the badass artwork.

Every ugly model GW has is a stain on their product line and hurts them as a company. Make good models or make me pay less.

I started gaming when all minis sucked, and I'd never enjoy a game with bad rules, so rules over minis.

In the real world I'd use good mini's with good rules, and I actually like most of Mantics offerings.