You PAY for wargames rules???

I don't get it, even minis all in the same scale are not the same dimensions. some are crouching some are laying down, some have their arms spread out and some are waving around huge weapons, some even have wings.. how could all of these be expected to get through the same doorway

sell the door with an expansion and shrink spell they just need to read the elvish phrase above it and it will let them through, and roofs without stairs or ladders? meh, paint an orange spot on ground and roof and call it an interdemensional molecular transportation device. Some people just have no imaginations...

then again isn't that what warhammer is about? stripping the imaginations of todays youth, replacing it with official GW sanctioned rules and whatnot. I could start up now about my hatred of graphical rpgs as opposed to text based roleplay muds but it's not really relevant to a thread about the price of wargames rules.. I just wonder if we're slowly destroying any kind of independant thought with all these games that are designed to appeal to the masses

WARNING: Controversial comments follow!


"it's all text and turn based it's about nothing more than the numbers and how you choose to use your turns. Isn't that what table top wargaming is about?"



Short answer… no. its not.

Sure that’s the mechanics of it, it doesn’t matter what you use to represent the units but table top gaming is about more than just the games mechanics. In the past I have used pieces of paper to represent units and I absolutely guarantee (plus steak knives) that it is more fun to use models. Hey they don’t have to be the right models (ie not GW) just accurately armed but they MUST be the same scale. Non gamers might not realize the importance of base size. If I go into battle with 20mm vs 25mm bases that means more of my models will be able to fight than theirs, giving me the advantage.

But think about this. Some people collect model Railways, now there is no real difference between setting it up on kitchen floor, running it around the cats bowl and the rubbish bin and setting it up in a dedicated room with scenery, tunnels little cars etc. they both do the same thing, they follow the same track at the same speed in the same way… but its not the same. One is a fun holistic approach to the hobby, where it’s about more than running a little motor around some track. That’s what war gaming is like, sure when you start rolling dice its about making sure you flank that unit and slow that one down in the difficult terrain, it doesn’t matter what your units are but when you stop for a tea break and relax and have a look, you feel a huge feeling of pride when you look at your modeled table with accurate fully painted armies facing each other. For a normal person it’s a huge accomplishment for a war games geek it’s the Holy Grail!
(and Im a bit surprised @ PitYak cause you are making your living out of it being about appearance as well as function!)

The other side of it I think your missing is that you have to be able to look at the table and know what is going on. If that door fits a human ok, but then it won’t fit a giant. If the door doesn’t fit a human you have to know that too. Things HAVE to be accurate otherwise you spend all you time making up crazy rules and then explaining them to your opponent. We always give allowance for tucking in your arms, folding in the wings… basically if the body, legs head and fixed protuberances will fit the model will fit. Maybe some people play you actually have to move the model through the door? Also it’s about the table looking authentic (in a crazy in the future where we are always at war kind of way), if you’ve got 28mm models and a 15mm door… it just looks silly

Its not about it being totally realistic its about it being an accurate representation. Makes sense to me if your body is behind a barricade it will either be harder to hit you and/or you’ll get hit in the head… (ever ducked behind a wall when someone threw a ball at you?) Most games don’t take that body location account they just say harder to hit because body locations add too much detail to a game but you cant just ignore it… well you could but then you could shoot through buildings… Im not sure anyone would want to play that game.

NOTE in war games inches count! The placement of a ladder leading to a roof can be the difference between a successful charge and a failed charge… ie winning and losing. If I lost because someone had dodgy scenery with funky rules I would be very very put out.

Perhaps what you are really getting at is the ridiculousness of having to have the “RIGHT” model rather than an accurate model. Well that we all lay squarely at the feet of GW. The best run tournaments in the world are all GW and they ONLY allow you to use their models (or your own conversions) if they haven’t produced them. SO people who want to compete at the top of the game must collect GW models… so why would you put lots of time and money into anything else?

Now I play almost exclusively at home with my friends so we are very relaxed on what we are using for what (mainly to keep the costs down for others) but I still enjoy my full accurate army facing off against anther.



“then again isn't that what warhammer is about? stripping the imaginations of todays youth, replacing it with official GW sanctioned rules and whatnot.”<br>


As long as… anything exists in the world there will be a dominant player and some independents doing it tough. Some people fall in love with the independents some go with the flow cause its easier. Neither one is right, neither one is wrong its just a different approach to the same thing. Sure GW has a formula they use and my pet peeve is the dumbing down of their war games to appeal to younger people. BUT you cant argue with the fact (well argue away but you are wrong) that they produce the BEST
Games
Miniatures
Books.

Btw I definitely don’t work for GW…

I will play any war-game people lay at me feet but for some reason its always a GW based game (excluding FOW) why? Well they are the dominate player, you can actually get their stuff in NZ quite easily but also because they are the best games, not just the rules but everything that goes with it…

Ok Im repeating myself now so I’ll stop.

Oh if anyone wants to raise the challenge of another game for me to play, I promise I will play it until I fully understand it and then I will reassess what I have said.

Just a quickie, i'm a bit busy:

I seperate the attractiveness of a well painted army and terrain from the mechanics of playing a game - the two don't necessarily depend on one another in my book.

Like you say, you can play with a bit of card with "bush" written on it, but I and anyone else would rather look at something, no doubt about that. Hence more fun, but not necessary. Kind of like an athlete in training - he'd probably prefer a state of the art training regime, but if not available will happily go for a run along the beach (strange analogy I know, don't were I plucked that one from).

"(and Im a bit surprised @ PitYak cause you are making your living out of it being about appearance as well as function!)" - I was actually making the opposite point, opinions were my stuff did look good but wasn't functional.

"things HAVE to be accurate otherwise you spend all you time making up crazy rules and then explaining them to your opponent" - you look over your table first, and agree on rules for anything that may be ambiguous. If you miss something, make a judgement call during the game, flip a coin if necessary, and make a better decision for next game. Or even better, have a referee ( a loveless job if ever there was one!)

"NOTE in war games inches count!" - you should try playing against some of the more pedantic historical gamers - milimetres count to them!

I would never deny base size is crucially important, far more than what is mounted on those bases. You could play a technical game with just bases (which obviously would look rather dull) but you'd have a hard time playing with unbased figures (even if you could stop them falling over). I remember watching a battle of waterloo game where the "units" were squares of card with one lonely looking 20mm stuck in the middle. But base size is not the same as scale; at least not figure scale. you could have half you units 28mm, half 20mm, and ok it would look a bit crap, but the base size is the important thing.

And I think that is probably an important point - the distinction between a techical game and a more visual, "fun game" if you like. I know of rule sets for ancients, where if for example a unit of legionaires go up against a phalanx, there is no roll of the dice, but you consult the rule book and one side takes X number of casualties, based on the research of a handful of "anoraks" (hope i don't offend any ancients fans with that one!) who found out that at such and such a battle, this side did this to that side, and base all there games on that. Yeah, not too much fun in my book, but appeals to some. I once played a game that was like rock-paper-scisors; you new the outcome of each individual combat before it ever happened. Probably the dullest afternoon I've aever spent, bu these guys would play nothing else "it's accurate they would say. Yeah, yeah, but how about a bit of randomness for excitement?

These sorts of games don't appeal to me personally, I definately prefer more of a "game", such as yes, warhammer. Now I won't deny at the upper levels of competition it gets very technical, but it's still a game-type-game, not a model simulation of real life combat.

I would have to dispute it's the "best" game, but would not argue it easy to learn or fun to play, or extremely popular. I guess my preference lies somewhere in the middle; I would prefer a game that was easy and fun to play, but didn't rely so heavily on what was physically on the table.

I think my first ever post on these board mentioned lively cutting debate - this is the stuff!

Phew... cause I thought I might have gone a bit far on this one... especially claiming its the BEST game... then I thought "aah, no one will be able to argue conclusively to the contrary but it will be fun to see them try"

One of my worst habits ever is to say "yes thats a valid opinion, its wrong of course but you can believe it if you want"
Some people call it arrogance, I call it self confidence! Devils advo-what? ;D

(more thoughts to follow)

I would never knock anyone for being arrogant or self confident, I mean, look at me! Actually that's not true; whenever I meet someone who makes me go "what a ******!" My wife will usually say "He is exactly like you!"

And I'm also a good one for saying "yes thats a valid opinion, its wrong of course" but to try and rate a qualitative subject quantitavely just doesn't make sense.

Ok I’ll start by defining what I mean by best. What I intended when I declared GW the best was the most complete. They provide the best(most complete) meld of Rules, background, colour, miniatures and support. Now perhaps that’s partly because of NZ not receiving very much variety when it comes to wargame resources but then doesn’t the very fact that GW has gone to the effort and risk (when the 1st shop opened in Auckland) of bringing their products to NZ mean they deserve our support? If you take GW out of the NZ wargames scene we have Flames of War, now I haven’t played this game as I’m not really into historical (I try and pretend WW2 didn’t happen cause I am so horrified by what actually took place) but what I have heard has been very good. But FOW doesn’t have the profile to have raised war-gaming to its proper position among the ranks of a genuine hobby.

When I started playing (probably midway between when you started PitYak and when say Abaddon or Sanctus started) there were about 5 of us in a school of 1500, and that was basically 1 person found out about it and introduced the other 4. The only place you could get models in my part of town was heros-for-hire and Pendragon but now someone else mentioned on this forum he lives with 30mins of 4 stockists (incl 2 GW) plus Toyworld (my main supplier) stocks GW models as well. Now this is all a bit off the topic but Im just illustrating that, first of all, the majority of the current popularity of wargaming in NZ was created/nurtured by GW.

Now I could start a whole new thread about all the things GW do/have done that piss me off but to be honest its something that every other company does too, price increases, down sizing products, releasing new products, improving and re-releasing old products, trying to maintain dominance in a competitive market.

So I re-iterate that GW produces the most complete wargames rules, most complete worlds for their games, the most complete range of miniatures and the most complete support for wargamers.

Agree or not?


Form vs Function.

Now you say you see it as 2 separate factors, well you are wrong . What it is is 2 sides of the same coin sure some people will focus most of their attention on one side (e.g Pirate Wench who seems to love the painting/modeling side and the fact it’s a wargame is simply the vehicle for her to get her hands on the models) but most people like to flip the coin over from time to time and some try and rest it on edge to get a perfect balance.

You’re right, you don’t NEED to have accurate models, you don’t NEED to have accurate scenery, you don’t NEED to have any miniatures or any scenery but most people like to try and find the balance that suits them. And in reference to your first pieces of scenery you were probably dead proud of them (as anyone would be) and to have some snot nosed little toe-rag tell you it was no good cause it wasn’t accurate probably pissed you off just wee bit but that doesn’t mean the message wasn’t correct. People do expect a piece of scenery to be a mini version of the real thing. That’s what kitset plastic models have taught us and that’s where most of us started.

Again, what you said about clarifying details of scenery is absolutely true but don’t you think there are enough rules already? If I’ve got a piece of terrain that is clear in its design it is more desirable than one that is not because it means 1 less rule to work with and more concentration on strategy.

Now from what I’ve picked up about you (the Countdown incident) you don’t seem to like to be told what to do and I believe that has more to do with this than first meets the eye. Is what we are really discussing is the fact GW TELLS us how we should play this game?

If so Id like to make this point,
Its their product they have the right to tell you the “correct” way to play it. We as intelligent human beings have the right to tell them to stick it and do it our own way.

Unfortunately a heck of a lot of the people starting in this hobby are not intelligent human beings, they are young kids who don’t realize there is no wrong way to play the game. This then becomes our duty to try and make them realize life exists beyond GW BUT I believe it is wrong to try and convince them that GW is the enemy. (and I’ll justify that if anybody cares)

Regarding the miniatures… damn I thought I had a point to make then remembered the Bone Giant… yes GW make some really huge blunders with models. I don’t think there is very much in the current range you could describe as awful but let me know which ones you think I’ll give you my opinion on them.

And (now don’t qualitat/quantitat me on this one just pretend its possible) if you lay out GW range of models best to worst alongside every other miniature range available and picked the best in each category you cant tell me any other range of miniatures could match quality and depth of the GW range and if you honestly can, show me a link and I’ll browse it for a couple of days and recant my statements if I agree.