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.

Grimtuff wrote:

soviet13 wrote:
So there is literally no barrier to these people playing the other game, they just don't want to? How is that the result of GW having a monopoly?

You've not tried to get many people to try other game have you? Been there, done that and it's like pissing into the wind...

I dunno. If the game's good enough and has a convincing enough selling point, it's totally possible. Titanicus doesn't use GW models - it's an entirely different system and scale, and does quite well over here. Things like SW: Legion, similarly, are popular on a collecting standpoint. And if/when the Modiphius Fallout stuff starts doing west coast appropriate models, we'll be grabbing some of that too.

Don't blame GW for other people's lack of interest. Blame their lack of interest and motivation to start something else.

I appreciate my point is coming from personal experience, but then, so is yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
That's not so strange.

If I'm satisfied with the current product, I don't look for another one.

Exactly. If people are happy with what they have, why bother looking elsewhere? If you can demonstrate how *insert other game* will make them more satisfied, there's no reason they shouldn't play it, but if they're not satisfied with the other game, clearly that game just isn't good enough to appeal.

A lot is the difference between being a "wargamer" and a "Warhammer player". Wargamers usually want to broaden their perspectives in other games.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think more than the defacto monopoly the attitude of "official models only" is the culprit with regard to overpriced HQs in particular.

Like, it is easy to convert a lot of the pricey HQs from basic troop models with a bit of creativity.
Just looking at Blades of Khorne as an example, the various Deathbringers and Skullgrinders and Slaughterpriests would be easy to kitbash out of the Blood Warriors kits. I've kitbashed the Astrolith Bearer out of a spare saurus and some other bits, it was easy.

But you see an attitude that is against this, because people somehow feel it devalues their own minis or something. That was clever of GW and that is the attitude they are trying to fix in peoples minds - that it should be limited only to products you buy, not stuff you create yourself.

The only times I’ve really seen a negative attitude towards this tends to be when someone use an insanely cheap alternative (that shows)
I’ve never had issues with conversions and I love converting.
For the most part, most of my hero’s/HQs are converted.
The only time I usually buy one is if I really like the model or if I can’t think of a conversion for it.

GW also seem to endorse it quite a bit as you always see conversions on the community page, store and promoted all over social media.
Things like golden daemon just push this even more.


As I said at the start, the issues I’ve seen tend to stem from things like coke can drop pods or “this 5 plasma marines are meltas, those 5 have missiles” etc.

Wayniac wrote:
A lot is the difference between being a "wargamer" and a "Warhammer player". Wargamers usually want to broaden their perspectives in other games.

Absolutely, I'm not ashamed saying that I'm a 40k player, since 20 years and not a wargamer.

I've never had time or money to invest in multiple miniature games but I do have other hobbies so if I get tired of playing an edition of 40k I can easily quit and do something else in my spare time. I already did it 3 times so far, due to lack of interest or having other priorities in life. I'm mostly in the hobby for the miniatures so selling models to get funds for a different game if 40k doesn't satisfy me anymore is also not an option, I love my minis!!

Yeah, I'm well aware of the rest of the wargaming hobby, I'm simply not interested. GW and particularly 40k is what I like. (I don't play, I just make the models, although I do play RPGs and MtG)

 Blackie wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
A lot is the difference between being a "wargamer" and a "Warhammer player". Wargamers usually want to broaden their perspectives in other games.

Absolutely, I'm not ashamed saying that I'm a 40k player, since 20 years and not a wargamer.

I've never had time or money to invest in multiple miniature games but I do have other hobbies so if I get tired of playing an edition of 40k I can easily quit and do something else in my spare time. I already did it 3 times so far, due to lack of interest or having other priorities in life. I'm mostly in the hobby for the miniatures so selling models to get funds for a different game if 40k doesn't satisfy me anymore is also not an option, I love my minis!!

This pretty much sums up how I view 40k. I play 40k & am not a wargamer. I also play Titanicus & Aeronautica so I'm not sure if that counts as "not" 40k.

It is the least expensive hobby I have and the one that actually doesn't require spending $ to play a game of it.
If I want to go to the track I need; tires, fuel, fluids, gas to tow the car there.
Shooting, need ammo & pay for range time.
If I want to play 40k all I need to do I clear off the dining room table or drive the 10min to FLGS(when available).

As for characters being significantly more expensive than a comparable infantry model, it is a bit excessive. I try to stay away from them unless I like the posing.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
GW's fan base is kind of like politics: people rabidly support them because they've always supported them and therefore anything outside the box can't possibly be good because it's not GW, no matter what it might do better it's always flawed because it's not GW.

Their "turnaround" is one of the biggest scams in gaming history and shows how devoted their fans are. A few smoke and mirrors "see we've changed!" abd doing social media like everyone else vwss enough to con everyone into thinking things are different (they are better but just barely) and make them more profitable than ever before for basically doing nothing.

It's exactly like the guy above said. Gw barely changed but conned everyone into thinking they did so tons of people came back, and gamers want to play what everyone else is playing so there's a large pool of opponents.

Which incidentally is also why it's so hard to get traction with other non-GW games. People are already playing Warhammer so they don't want to get invested in something that is untested, so those games stay untested and niche because everybody else is playing Warhammer and nobody wants to take the first steps to say this is a better game we should move to it. I have actually seen and even been verbally attacked for suggesting another game people should play simply because it wasn't Warhammer and nobody wanted to give anything else a consideration and this was years ago during the bad times

That's not true. Like many wargamers, I've been through a lot of alternatives over the years, from more well-known competitors like X-Wing, Infinity or Malifaux to outright obscure stuff like Bushido or Saga.

A fair number of companies employ far more predatory, unsavoury and unconscientious marketing methods than GW does (FFG and Corvus Belli being prime examples). Others simply offer inferior products, where the slight discount you might get over GW product in no way or form justifies the horrid quality issues you buy into in both miniatures and rules (e.g. Privateer).

GW offers a good product. They are not perfect and shouldn't be confused with a charitable organisation. But they aren't relying on cult-like brainwashing to sell 80s quality garbage like Corvus Belli or Privateer, nor do they quite stoop to ponzi-scheme deceptions and price-gauges like FFG and others. Overall, compared to a lot what's out there, GW has some reasonable stuff.

You are on another planet if you think Corvus Belli is 80s quality

If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.

40k is a board game, not a wargame. It used to be but now almost nothing about 40k depicts war.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.

I agree, I think the point being made is that those wargamers who ONLY like 40k aren't necessarily ignorant of other games, or trapped by a monopoly - they've just got a particular preference.

 Irkjoe wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.

40k is a board game, not a wargame. It used to be but now almost nothing about 40k depicts war.

It’s absolutely a wargame. A wargame does not have to be a simulation. It is not a historical wargame, but it is certainly depicting warfare in a fictional setting.

You can argue that it is a bad wargame. I would not agree with you, but you could make a valid argument.

soviet13 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
They're not remotely a monopoly. They're just the biggest fish in a small pond.

Of the global market as a whole, sure. But GW definitely have a monopoly on certain areas. Where I’m currently living there’s no “just play Warmachine instead”. It’s just “play Warhammer or don’t tabletop”. So they definitely have a meeting maybe monopoly as far as here is concerned

That's up to you to sort out. You want your group to play something else? Get that something else, introduce them too it and show them a fun time with it. I had too with a few different games. Can take time, but it depends entirely how much effort you're willing to put in.

It's really not that easy.
Even for game systems where I have 100% of the bits to play, all they need to do is leave their 40k army at home one week to try it out. But no one is interested.

So there is literally no barrier to these people playing the other game, they just don't want to? How is that the result of GW having a monopoly?

It doesn’t matter if there’s no barrier to playing it, if literally everyone else in the world wants to play basketball then you’re kinda gak outta luck if you’re looking for a cricket match. My preference has no impact on other people, if I was to have complaints that doesn’t mean anyone else shares them. I can’t just decide to play Legions or whatever, I need other players, and there isn’t any. Thus, GW have a monopoly here.


Regardless, who said there was no barriers? GW is stocked in a physical store here, and also (relatively) easily shipped, and found second hand online. Where I live in Australia, the same cannot be said for many other games. There’s actually a ton of barriers.




Not that I’m particularly concerned anyway, all I really want to play these days is GW anyway. But I’m just saying it’s not as straight forward as you say, quite often GW is the only option. Suits me just fine, but I feel for others.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.

40k is a board game, not a wargame. It used to be but now almost nothing about 40k depicts war.

It’s absolutely a wargame. A wargame does not have to be a simulation. It is not a historical wargame, but it is certainly depicting warfare in a fictional setting.

You can argue that it is a bad wargame. I would not agree with you, but you could make a valid argument.

What is the difference between the two then? The war part is just cosmetic, they have removed all of the mechanics that depict stuff like armor values, facings, moral, etc. There aren't even tactics, everything is just synergy on a stick bubbles and strats. It's a deck building board game.

If it is a wargame, it's only technically one.

 Irkjoe wrote:

Spoiler:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.

40k is a board game, not a wargame. It used to be but now almost nothing about 40k depicts war.

It’s absolutely a wargame. A wargame does not have to be a simulation. It is not a historical wargame, but it is certainly depicting warfare in a fictional setting.

You can argue that it is a bad wargame. I would not agree with you, but you could make a valid argument.

What is the difference between the two then? The war part is just cosmetic, they have removed all of the mechanics that depict stuff like armor values, facings, moral, etc. There aren't even tactics, everything is just synergy on a stick bubbles and strats. It's a deck building board game.

If it is a wargame, it's only technically one.

A deck-building board game with no deck? And dice? And models? The board game is certainly walking and quacking like a war game.

 Irkjoe wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.

40k is a board game, not a wargame. It used to be but now almost nothing about 40k depicts war.

It’s absolutely a wargame. A wargame does not have to be a simulation. It is not a historical wargame, but it is certainly depicting warfare in a fictional setting.

You can argue that it is a bad wargame. I would not agree with you, but you could make a valid argument.

What is the difference between the two then? The war part is just cosmetic, they have removed all of the mechanics that depict stuff like armor values, facings, moral, etc. There aren't even tactics, everything is just synergy on a stick bubbles and strats. It's a deck building board game.

If it is a wargame, it's only technically one.

Oh and apparently one army will move, shoot, cast psychic powers, and charge into melee while the other army sits there twiddling their thumbs. That's appropriate for a wargame compared to a board game!

Strats & CP are the most deckbuilding aspects of 40k. If GW wasn't so heavily invested in injection moulding machines I'm sure that's the direction they would want to go.

It's not a matter of its 40k a wargame, its that typically a "wargamer", for example historical, want to dabble in various games (and periods). But Warhammer players seem to only want to play/care about Warhammer and everything else might as well not exist. It's very insular compared to every other game.

Wayniac wrote:
But Warhammer players seem to only want to play/care about Warhammer and everything else might as well not exist.

So what? Why is this important? And how is it even on topic?

Wayniac wrote:
It's not a matter of its 40k a wargame, its that typically a "wargamer", for example historical, want to dabble in various games (and periods). But Warhammer players seem to only want to play/care about Warhammer and everything else might as well not exist. It's very insular compared to every other game.

But that's their choice to prefer Warhammer. Perhaps they're only interested in the IP. Perhaps other IPs don't grab them, or the model quality/aesthetic doesn't do it for them.
If someone sticks to Warhammer, in spite of all the other games out there, that doesn't mean they're brainwashed, or that they're shallow-minded, or that GW have a monopoly. It just means those players aren't interested in those other games.

Their choice of hobby isn't inferior to someone who has a broad range of wargaming preferences.

I'm sure you weren't implying that, but there do seem to be other comments ITT that imply that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Irkjoe wrote:What is the difference between the two then? The war part is just cosmetic, they have removed all of the mechanics that depict stuff like armor values, facings, moral, etc.

Why are those aspects that *need* to be in a wargame? Is Kill Team not a wargame because it has no facings? Are armies that were functionally Fearless in previous editions (ie, Daemons or Necrons) not part of being a wargame?

I'm not entirely sure on my own definitions of a wargame, but I'd feel confident pointing at 40k and calling it a wargame, as I'm sure most people would be.

Racerguy180 wrote:Strats & CP are the most deckbuilding aspects of 40k. If GW wasn't so heavily invested in injection moulding machines I'm sure that's the direction they would want to go.

The parts of 40k that are most commonly ignored for beginners and more casual experiences? Given how un-critical they are to the function of the game, I'd argue that this is proof 40k isn't a deckbuilder.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
[

Racerguy180 wrote:Strats & CP are the most deckbuilding aspects of 40k. If GW wasn't so heavily invested in injection moulding machines I'm sure that's the direction they would want to go.

The parts of 40k that are most commonly ignored for beginners and more casual experiences? Given how un-critical they are to the function of the game, I'd argue that this is proof 40k isn't a deckbuilder.

As of right now, no its not. But just a couple of years ago we didn't have strats or CP and they are one of the worst things to happen to 40k.
The thing is, they ARE critical to the unit rules that are designed around them. At this point I'm sure that if they could get away with Canticles/Summoning etc becoming strats, they would. I hope that strats that used to be abilities are re-incorporated , but unfortunately the ship named Damnationbeen done sailed.
I'm pretty sure I play about as casual as possible and would love to not use them(and I generally forget to/dont use them).

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
[

Racerguy180 wrote:Strats & CP are the most deckbuilding aspects of 40k. If GW wasn't so heavily invested in injection moulding machines I'm sure that's the direction they would want to go.

The parts of 40k that are most commonly ignored for beginners and more casual experiences? Given how un-critical they are to the function of the game, I'd argue that this is proof 40k isn't a deckbuilder.

As of right now, no its not. But just a couple of years ago we didn't have strats or CP and they are one of the worst things to happen to 40k.
The thing is, they ARE critical to the unit rules that are designed around them. At this point I'm sure that if they could get away with Canticles/Summoning etc becoming strats, they would. I hope that strats that used to be abilities are re-incorporated , but unfortunately the ship named Damnationbeen done sailed.
I'm pretty sure I play about as casual as possible and would love to not use them(and I generally forget to/dont use them).

If I can play the game without them, they're not critical. I can play the game just fine without strats and CP using just the core datasheets. Is it a shallower experience? Possibly. Might it not be as fine-tuned? Possibly. But is it a functional game without them? Absolutely.

Ergo, they're not critical to the game as core mechanics like movement and shooting are.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
[

Racerguy180 wrote:Strats & CP are the most deckbuilding aspects of 40k. If GW wasn't so heavily invested in injection moulding machines I'm sure that's the direction they would want to go.

The parts of 40k that are most commonly ignored for beginners and more casual experiences? Given how un-critical they are to the function of the game, I'd argue that this is proof 40k isn't a deckbuilder.

As of right now, no its not. But just a couple of years ago we didn't have strats or CP and they are one of the worst things to happen to 40k.
The thing is, they ARE critical to the unit rules that are designed around them. At this point I'm sure that if they could get away with Canticles/Summoning etc becoming strats, they would. I hope that strats that used to be abilities are re-incorporated , but unfortunately the ship named Damnationbeen done sailed.
I'm pretty sure I play about as casual as possible and would love to not use them(and I generally forget to/dont use them).

Nah, Strats aren't the worst thing to happen. It's mostly the strict defensive or offensive ones that are a problem as they require zero thought to use. Also the fact they're wildly inconsistent. Like, why did just one Primaris squad remember they can ignore more damage? Why did one Chaos Marine squad remember they were better at wounding stuff just out of nowhere? It's...so stupid.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
But Warhammer players seem to only want to play/care about Warhammer and everything else might as well not exist.

So what? Why is this important? And how is it even on topic?

Because some of them delude themselves into believing that 1) GW is a monopoly, 2) 40k/GW stuff is the only option play-wise.
And then they think if the repeat this mantra loud/often enough that the rest of us will believe them.

Meh. I know they charge a premium. When they look as amazing as abaddon, tor garadon, or belisarius cawl, I’ll pay it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Irkjoe wrote:What is the difference between the two then? The war part is just cosmetic, they have removed all of the mechanics that depict stuff like armor values, facings, moral, etc.

Why are those aspects that *need* to be in a wargame? Is Kill Team not a wargame because it has no facings? Are armies that were functionally Fearless in previous editions (ie, Daemons or Necrons) not part of being a wargame?

I'm not entirely sure on my own definitions of a wargame, but I'd feel confident pointing at 40k and calling it a wargame, as I'm sure most people would be.

They are just examples from 40k, blast templates are another good one. Any mechanics that depict actual fighting are what separates a wargame from a game. Otherwise any game with miniatures on a table would be a wargame right? The idea that your soldiers won't always do what you want or that vehicles have limitations with how they move and shoot. The "war" part of wargame.

And demons being fearless is a representation of their character and has nothing to do with the core mechanics having a moral system.

I think this thread gets the award for most odd thread derailments, ever. Now we are discussing what is or is NOT a wargame? Ok,since this is entirely subjective and not in the least bit important or relevant to the thread, I would say 40k is DND for Scifi nerds. It's rolling stupid ammount of dice while playing with models and someone with glasses checks a book for an iterpretation of a rule. Wargamming is a military drill designed to test the effectiveness of a strategy., Cobra Gold is one that the US does every year in Asia. There is one with Austraila that I was part of, a giant combined arms exercise. That is not 40k.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
But Warhammer players seem to only want to play/care about Warhammer and everything else might as well not exist.

So what? Why is this important? And how is it even on topic?

Because when there's close to no competition it means GW can do as they please and there's no incentive to actually offer a better product. Even if it was otherwise largely smoke and mirrors, the failings of 7th gave them a kick up the backside needed to at least 'try' and write an improved ruleset, whilst the failure of AoS 1.0 had them produce the GHB, produce a half-way playable game and reduce Sigmarine spank.

Competition is healthy and god knows GW needs some now they're falling back into old habits.

 Irkjoe wrote:
They are just examples from 40k, blast templates are another good one. Any mechanics that depict actual fighting are what separates a wargame from a game. Otherwise any game with miniatures on a table would be a wargame right? The idea that your soldiers won't always do what you want or that vehicles have limitations with how they move and shoot. The "war" part of wargame.

And demons being fearless is a representation of their character and has nothing to do with the core mechanics having a moral system.

Congratulations, you are this week's winner of the Texas Sharpshooter competition.

You are aware there were wars without explosives right? You know the kind that wouldn't need blast templates because there weren't blasts. But I suppose we should inform those historical miniatures war gamers they ain't wargamers and are board gamers because the war they are simulating didn't make use of explosions.

Not every game containing miniatures is a war game either. Dungeon Crawlers often have miniatures (both board game and PnP RPGS). I wouldn't really consider them war games. Additionally, there are various crime/mystery/horror style games that could make use of miniatures to track the locations of the criminals/investigators/horror-victims.

Quite simply a war game is a game about war. A miniatures war game would be a game about war that uses miniatures. That's pretty much it. Certainly, there are games that come into question if should be called a war game or not as war might be more of a backdrop or setting for the game while game itself isn't about the war. However, Warhammer 40,000 mostly certain is far away from the war game category box walls.

More to the point, there are some very fine hex and counter wargames that ARE board games. They often to an excellent job of allowing players to simulate war at a strategic and logistic level. There is also nothing stopping a board game about war from having morale or command issues. I believe Memoir '44 actually does have something like (I haven't actually played it) that and is very much a board game. It certainly has limitations on vehicle movement, and I believe it even has facings for anti-tank guns and such.

But don't let me stop you from taking the elements from previous editions of 40k you liked and draw targets around them to say that's what makes a war game.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think this thread gets the award for most odd thread derailments, ever. Now we are discussing what is or is NOT a wargame? Ok,since this is entirely subjective and not in the least bit important or relevant to the thread, I would say 40k is DND for Scifi nerds. It's rolling stupid ammount of dice while playing with models and someone with glasses checks a book for an iterpretation of a rule. Wargamming is a military drill designed to test the effectiveness of a strategy., Cobra Gold is one that the US does every year in Asia. There is one with Austraila that I was part of, a giant combined arms exercise. That is not 40k.

I’ve been on my share of wargames over a 30 year career. Even within the military there is a broad range of what are called wargames. Tomorrow I will be in an abstracted COA wargame as part of a Brigade planning cycle within a Divisional exercise. That COA wargame will have turns. 40K is a wargame. It has two sides that are fighting out a battle over terrain.

Anyhoo - character sculpts are expensive these days.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:
They are just examples from 40k, blast templates are another good one. Any mechanics that depict actual fighting are what separates a wargame from a game. Otherwise any game with miniatures on a table would be a wargame right? The idea that your soldiers won't always do what you want or that vehicles have limitations with how they move and shoot. The "war" part of wargame.

And demons being fearless is a representation of their character and has nothing to do with the core mechanics having a moral system.

Congratulations, you are this week's winner of the Texas Sharpshooter competition.

You are aware there were wars without explosives right? You know the kind that wouldn't need blast templates because there weren't blasts. But I suppose we should inform those historical miniatures war gamers they ain't wargamers and are board gamers because the war they are simulating didn't make use of explosions.

Not every game containing miniatures is a war game either. Dungeon Crawlers often have miniatures (both board game and PnP RPGS). I wouldn't really consider them war games. Additionally, there are various crime/mystery/horror style games that could make use of miniatures to track the locations of the criminals/investigators/horror-victims.

Quite simply a war game is a game about war. A miniatures war game would be a game about war that uses miniatures. That's pretty much it. Certainly, there are games that come into question if should be called a war game or not as war might be more of a backdrop or setting for the game while game itself isn't about the war. However, Warhammer 40,000 mostly certain is far away from the war game category box walls.

But don't let me stop you from taking the elements from previous editions of 40k you liked and draw targets around them to say that's what makes a war game.

They are just some examples from 40k that I chose because they are rules that attempt to depict an element of what fighting in 40k would be like as a mechanic instead of a board game with war simply as a setting. Feel free to substitute any rules from any game, the point remains. The way you defined wargame is extremely broad and contradictory; is it simply about war or not? And you are grouping things together that are nothing alike based only on the fact that they are about war. I think there needs to be a simulation aspect to it.

And my point about the miniatures was that if the simulated warfare doesn't make a wargame then it has to be miniatures, a table, and I should also have listed terrain. The best definition of a wargame is simulated warfare with miniatures, terrain, and a table(surface or floor whatever). That's the minimum imo.