Article on Fanboys, Exclusivity, and Sonic the Hedgehog

[wittdooley]

New Friday Freewrite article up from me. Standard caveat applies: all the Friday Freewrites are editorials (read: Opinion pieces). I make my best efforts to be fair and tempered in them:

QCG -- Dr. Fanboy: How I learned to stop the hate & love more than one system (http://queencityguard.com/index.php/2011/07/15/dr-fanboy-how-i-learned-to-stop-hating-love-more-than-one-game/)

As always, C&C welcome and appreciated.

Please enjoy!

[Toxik]

A very nice read this one. The comparison of Nintendo vs Sega = GW vs PP is, I think, right on the money.

Also, congratulations. You just made me spit coffee all over my screen because of "They’re the hipsters of wargaming". The Pressganger from my local shop in socal was in fact, a hipster. So I couldn't help but have a good laugh at this.

[Denzark]

Witt

A nice article and I like how you handled the first comment. My tuppence:

I got into this hobby at the age of 10. Luckily, my old man has been building models all his life and taught me many things - nowhere did I go for the 18 shades of brown blobbed on my space crusade minatures. I never felt obliged to use GW paint or glue as revell or humbrol did just as well for cheaper (even then in 1990). The circle of knowledge was not one way - he tried acrylics after seeing them in White Dwarf and decided that water based was easier than enamels and white spirit.

Another thing I learnt was that you could just as easily use other company's kits and convert them - many of my favourite miniatures are simple hand swaps with a 'Free Company Crusader' now carrying a bolt gun etc.

I did this then and still do now- although take care that anything that may go tournament wise has 50%+ GW components.

I have tried and got some enjoyment out of Mechwarrior (pre-painted stuff), MTG, and Warmachine. I should be ripe for opening up to other companies. I should find GW reprehensible and yet I don't. But hang on denzark, I hear you asking - on this forum you quite happily jump down people's throat on stuff like CHS and Warmachine.

So why is this?

Firstly, economics. On a scale of economy I have sufficient unpainted GW stuff to last me an age, and i very rarely buy new anymore. Ebay and Maelstrom Games get my custom. I took a conscious decision not to branch out whilst I had this quantity of miniatures, and also the majority of gamers about were GW.

Secondly, rules. I had made the change from RT through to 5th ed. The change to 3rd was the hardest for me - although no matter what i state about dumbing down of rules, i like getting through a game in 2-3 hours rather than 2-3 days. But simply, the random nature of how you got your mechs in MW took a lot of fun away for me. The funny little damage disc thing, and the manga-esque crappy plastic to go with. Ugh. As to Warmachine, as I often state, it became obvious that the best chance of winning came with killing the warcaster. End of. Just like being stuck for ideas in 40K, go for killing their troops. Rules combined with economics is pretty much a nail in the coffin.

So where am I now? Well GW is a luxury item for me, just like beer and eating out. I get pleasure from it, and I am quite ambivalent to the company - a private company's aim, and actually if I understand right, its duty under UK law, is to make money for its shareholders. I can either vote with my feet or, accepting it is a pure luxury, can play along. I don't take offence with them as a whole because it is business not pleasure for them. Its a shame, the old D10 x D10 Madboyz table was what got me in in the first place, but the slicker smoother approach is what happens when the corporates kick out the geeks from management. Overall 40K is in a better place.

So what makes me quite so vitriolic? I could be live and let live. But, quite simply, it is the sheer amount of PP players who hold it up as some sort of redemption of the soul. Worse is the 'I left GW, the grass is greener' types. I HATE LOATHE and EXECRATE being preached to. It is like a recovered alcoholic telling me how much better it is to be dry. Well thats great, thank you, but (with a few notable exceptions) I drink responsibly and you can keep your damn poxy opinions to yourself.

Or the TV evangelist or street Hari Krishna. Bog Off! Don't preach to me. Why come on a 40K blog on a 40K thread and start trying your utmost to convert us? It is just crap.

So, the answer is, whilst I am quite mild, and think actually people should get out and try other systems, and other model manufacturers, it is the constant interference with people taking a diametrically opposed position to anyone still getting buckets of enjoyment out of 40K that has turned me into a rabid zealot.

This has not been helped by the worst if the worst - during the news about GW having a profit warning, people encouraging others to deliberately try to go elsewhere to try and hurt GW. Not becuase the minis are better or the prices are lower, but because like a slinking jackal or other carrion eater, they thought the time to influence GW was while they were weak. Kick a man while he's down.

All this makes me rant. I am probably just hoping the whiners get in their waahmbulances and go back to the nearest warmachine forums.

On top of that, there is 2 more facts. Firstly, the price for a 2 horse drawn Khador mobile toilet block is telling me GW isn't all that expensive comparitively. Second, people talk about various of the companies who are smaller than GW, including PP, having from time to time supply problems. When they resolve this by growth, as soon as the money gets to GW scales, the smaller now larger companies will float, and then get in the corporate suits as the geeks can't be trusted with sums like that. Life - its business not pleasure so don't take it personally.

So, if I am a monster, it ain't GW has done that - it is an adverse reaction of anphylactic shock scales to being preached at by people who just clart on about stuff without thinking it through.

Rant over.

[wittdooley]

Witt

A nice article and I like how you handled the first comment. My tuppence:

I got into this hobby at the age of 10. Luckily, my old man has been building models all his life and taught me many things - nowhere did I go for the 18 shades of brown blobbed on my space crusade minatures. I never felt obliged to use GW paint or glue as revell or humbrol did just as well for cheaper (even then in 1990). The circle of knowledge was not one way - he tried acrylics after seeing them in White Dwarf and decided that water based was easier than enamels and white spirit.

Another thing I learnt was that you could just as easily use other company's kits and convert them - many of my favourite miniatures are simple hand swaps with a 'Free Company Crusader' now carrying a bolt gun etc.

I did this then and still do now- although take care that anything that may go tournament wise has 50%+ GW components.

I have tried and got some enjoyment out of Mechwarrior (pre-painted stuff), MTG, and Warmachine. I should be ripe for opening up to other companies. I should find GW reprehensible and yet I don't. But hang on denzark, I hear you asking - on this forum you quite happily jump down people's throat on stuff like CHS and Warmachine.

So why is this?

Firstly, economics. On a scale of economy I have sufficient unpainted GW stuff to last me an age, and i very rarely buy new anymore. Ebay and Maelstrom Games get my custom. I took a conscious decision not to branch out whilst I had this quantity of miniatures, and also the majority of gamers about were GW.

Secondly, rules. I had made the change from RT through to 5th ed. The change to 3rd was the hardest for me - although no matter what i state about dumbing down of rules, i like getting through a game in 2-3 hours rather than 2-3 days. But simply, the random nature of how you got your mechs in MW took a lot of fun away for me. The funny little damage disc thing, and the manga-esque crappy plastic to go with. Ugh. As to Warmachine, as I often state, it became obvious that the best chance of winning came with killing the warcaster. End of. Just like being stuck for ideas in 40K, go for killing their troops. Rules combined with economics is pretty much a nail in the coffin.

So where am I now? Well GW is a luxury item for me, just like beer and eating out. I get pleasure from it, and I am quite ambivalent to the company - a private company's aim, and actually if I understand right, its duty under UK law, is to make money for its shareholders. I can either vote with my feet or, accepting it is a pure luxury, can play along. I don't take offence with them as a whole because it is business not pleasure for them. Its a shame, the old D10 x D10 Madboyz table was what got me in in the first place, but the slicker smoother approach is what happens when the corporates kick out the geeks from management. Overall 40K is in a better place.

So what makes me quite so vitriolic? I could be live and let live. But, quite simply, it is the sheer amount of PP players who hold it up as some sort of redemption of the soul. Worse is the 'I left GW, the grass is greener' types. I HATE LOATHE and EXECRATE being preached to. It is like a recovered alcoholic telling me how much better it is to be dry. Well thats great, thank you, but (with a few notable exceptions) I drink responsibly and you can keep your damn poxy opinions to yourself.

Or the TV evangelist or street Hari Krishna. Bog Off! Don't preach to me. Why come on a 40K blog on a 40K thread and start trying your utmost to convert us? It is just crap.

So, the answer is, whilst I am quite mild, and think actually people should get out and try other systems, and other model manufacturers, it is the constant interference with people taking a diametrically opposed position to anyone still getting buckets of enjoyment out of 40K that has turned me into a rabid zealot.

This has not been helped by the worst if the worst - during the news about GW having a profit warning, people encouraging others to deliberately try to go elsewhere to try and hurt GW. Not becuase the minis are better or the prices are lower, but because like a slinking jackal or other carrion eater, they thought the time to influence GW was while they were weak. Kick a man while he's down.

All this makes me rant. I am probably just hoping the whiners get in their waahmbulances and go back to the nearest warmachine forums.

On top of that, there is 2 more facts. Firstly, the price for a 2 horse drawn Khador mobile toilet block is telling me GW isn't all that expensive comparitively. Second, people talk about various of the companies who are smaller than GW, including PP, having from time to time supply problems. When they resolve this by growth, as soon as the money gets to GW scales, the smaller now larger companies will float, and then get in the corporate suits as the geeks can't be trusted with sums like that. Life - its business not pleasure so don't take it personally.

So, if I am a monster, it ain't GW has done that - it is an adverse reaction of anphylactic shock scales to being preached at by people who just clart on about stuff without thinking it through.

Rant over.

Great Comment!

See, you're not the GW fan I'm directing that post at, either. I think there is a huge difference between fan and "fanboy." All of the rationality in your argument makes you precicely not a "fanboy."

I'm much like you. I buy the models I want to build and paint. I don't have a Space Wolves Razorback Spam list because I've no interest in painting that many razorbacks. I support GW when I like their products and defend them when I think they're being unjustly criticized. I've learned this often earns me the moniker "apologist." I think it's silly because any time I'm called an apologist it's usually in reference to defending a corporate policy that helps GW further their bottom line. As you said, my plastic army men are a luxury hobby item. I buy only as much as I can afford; sometimes it's GW, sometimes it's PP, sometimes it's Spartan Games.

I agree with you on the Privateer Idealogue, and I mentioned it in my article. I don't get it. I'm all about making moral and ideological stands (I will never buy a Chrysler automobile due to their bailout), but GW is hardly representative of "the man," and to me toy soldiers are hardly worthy of taking up the aforementioned soap box. Do I think GW makes mistakes. Absolutely. I think the dispairity between Australian pricing compared to the strength of their dollar is criminal. I do, however, think the "embargo," as it were, is understandable. The unfortunate result there was that the correct fix (the embargo to, effectively, protect the Australian GW market-- I mean the LGS here) was coupled with the unforseen AUD strength, screwing the Australian consumer. The pricing needs to be fixed, not the "embargo." If AUD prices were in line with the rest of the world, the embargo would have been small potatoes because Aussies wouldn't have had to order from overseas to get their product affordably.

Anyways, I do appreciate the reads and any real comments and criticism. Cheers!

[fuzzbuket]

your question was why:

why ? because im scotish angry and on the internet :P seriously that was a very good artical!

-fuzz
p.s. you have no idea how vicious ps3 VS xbox arguments get :P

[scadugenga]

Denzark: I was with you completely until you got to the GW-kicking a man while he's down comparison.

It's not a real comparison.

GW is a corporation. When things are going well, (IE, they're flush and raking in the dough) they are not going to be open to any kind of radical change. If it works, don't fix it.

The only time you can make a large corporation rethink it's operating model is when things are going poorly. *cough*americanautomakers*cough*.

So, but for that bit, I"m 100% with you on the rest.

Witt: Good attempt at an article, but you really do kind of try to turn the gaming world into a us/them (GW/PP) equation, and it's really not that simple.

I think the gaming community as a whole is largely a "let's just enjoy playing a game/hanging out" society. It's the online venue where you get the real extreme lefties/righties going on.

And, like Denz mentioned--there's nothing worse than a born-again* recovering alcoholic (or in gaming terms a disenchanted mono-gamer.) They villify their former obsession and tend to refocus their obsessive behavior on something new. (To the alchoholic, they tend to obsess about being sober; and the mono-gamer tends to focus on whatever new game catches their fancy.)


*I use the "born again" tag to differentiate the preachy, get-in-your-face recovering alcoholics as opposed to the average everyday recovering alcoholic who's just happy to experience life outside the bottle, so to speak.

[DarkLink]

As to Warmachine, as I often state, it became obvious that the best chance of winning came with killing the warcaster. End of.

So... exactly like Chess?

[Denzark]

@ Scadu - OK, maybe the comparison is not as straight as all that - maybe because one is dealing with a company, from one's point of view it is also business not pleasure - so acting when they are low is 'amorral' not immoral'. But the taste is still bad as the if a company needs change it needs it all the time not just when at a profit loss time.

@ Darklink: no, not quite. 2 reasons - there are no dice in chess, and each piece does 1 thing (all melee) not shooting or spells. Also, as befits a thousand year old game, chess players are more dignified than to try to convince me that it is the saviour of my soul from the evil that is 40K.

[warpcrafter]

There have been a lot of other tabletop wargames that I have found to be acceptable alternatives to GW games, but I couldn't get other people interested in playing them. The best of these games that deserved more success than it got was Celtos. I still have the rules but traded the few miniatures I bought for it many years ago after it became clear that the GW zombies at my FLGS wouldn't even consider another game. I bought into Warmachine when second edition came out, but now the people who were all Warmachine just a couple of months ago have moved on to Malifaux and Dystopian Wars. I don't have the money or short attention span to keep up. It's infuriating.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

@Denzark,

I agree! I dislike those types too - well, I've pretty much left GW and indeed the grass IS greener for me, but that's exactly it : for me. Many of those people seem to forget people like things simply because it's their taste. It's a very odd attitude - I don't see why people can't just let others enjoy what they enjoy.

[eldargal]

Excellent article, pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. I've no problem with people preferring Warmachine to GW and playing it instead, what I do have a problem with is people coming on a 40k/WFB forum and whinging about GW products and telling people to play WM instead. Ditto for the reverse, though I've not seen that happen in the WM sections of BoLS or Warseer as yet.:rolleyes:

[DarkLink]

@ Darklink: no, not quite. 2 reasons - there are no dice in chess, and each piece does 1 thing (all melee) not shooting or spells.

Well, your complaint with Warmachine wasn't that dice were involved, it was that you didn't like the win condition of "kill the caster". Or at least, that's what I read. And since the win condition for chess is always "kill one specific model", it sounds like it really is the same thing. Warmachine introduces randomness and complexity through dice and buffs and similar wargaming mechanics, while chess introduces them via restricted and specific available moves that make thinking ahead of your opponent difficult and complex, especially in the long term.



Also, as befits a thousand year old game, chess players are more dignified than to try to convince me that it is the saviour of my soul from the evil that is 40K.

That's a problem with the players, not the game. I wouldn't say that I disliked a game because annoying people played it (so long as there were normal people to play it so I could ignore the annoying people).

[Denzark]

@ Mr DL - no, I clearly haven't explained fully. The 'kill the king' objective is not bad in itself. But combined with WM fanboyz saying 'the rules are tighter, updated every third pulse of the atomic clock, and only played by a combination of Alexander the Great, Sun Tzu and Cobra Commander due to their infinite complexities' it smacks of tosh.

And I don't think I actually have stated I dislike the warmachine game anywhere - it is mediocre to good (I can think of 3-4 games that I would rather play given a free 2-3 hours in my life) but if you look at warmachine as a whole, including rules, prices, minis, fluff, and importantly, players, the last factor is what is turning my ambivalence (from the first factors) for the WM hobby into a dislike. My loathing is, however, reserved for the 'preachers' as per my OP in this thread.

@ Ms EG - you are quite correct. My internet thug persona has maintained some maturity, in that I have resisted crayoning over WM threads in their forum in a wanton rollercoaster ride of kill bill-esque retribution for perceived ills.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
In my humble opinion the false dichoctemy spouted by the fanboys , THERE IS ONLY GW!
WARMAHORDES IS BETTER THAN GW!

Has sort of polorised writing of the OP.
I am aware the article was to point out the narrow view of people with a strong emotional tie to a manufacturers product line, rather than the HOBBY it self.

But I would rather think the actual difference is GW plc vs the rest of the companies in the table top minature games hobby.

As '...GW plc are in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children.'And as such operate an insular marketing structure , and tend to use asthetic inspiration , for short term appeal.Instead of the long term interest companies that focus on gameplay seem to use.

I have no problem with people enjoying GW plc products.(You pay your money and make your chioce.;))

However , I belive alot of people simply feel there is not any option to GWplc products. And as there is quite a lot of OBJECTIVE arguments about how poorly GW plc compare on value for money.

The only recource for the 'GW fan' is 'I like it because I like it, not because it good value for money!'
Which is absolutley fine and acceptable.(Denzark.;))

But the 'GW FANBOYS' have such a strong emotional attachment they simply can not except that GW plc products do not compare favorably to other products.
And as they can not make any defense using facts, they are only left with emotional ties which often displays like 'religeous indignation.'

And the Warmahordes , fanboys are usualy ex GW players , who have found ONE of the many game available outside the GWplc branded 'GW hobby'.

And want to 'show' how great the TTMG hobby is with one limited example.Rather than use the massive variety availbale.

It is YOUR HOBBY . use what ever minatures you want , with the rule sets you like best!

[eldargal]

But your statement is subjective in its entirety. GW do compare favourably, they are the market leader for a reason, you know.

There is objective evidence in the sense that there are cheaper models than GW, but whether or not they are better value is subjective. Mantic are much cheaper, but in my subjective opinion they are utter trash. So they are certainly not better value for me because.

Warmachine models are quite nice, some of them, but they are more expensive per model than GW so that hardly speaks against GW.

Off the top of my head I can only think of the new Avatars of War plastic dorfs that I like as much as GW models and are cheaper. That is one kit though.

Your opinion may differ, hence the 'subjective' thing. But GW does not objectively compare disfavourably to the competition. Are they more expensive than some? Yes, does that objectively make them poor value? No. If you prefer the cheaper kit, then yes, but that is subjective.

I'm all for people preferring Mantic, WM or whatever to GW, what annoys me is when they come into GW forums and start spouting guff about their preferences being objectively better than other peoples when it is simply not true.


Hi all.
However , I belive alot of people simply feel there is not any option to GWplc products. And as there is quite a lot of OBJECTIVE arguments about how poorly GW plc compare on value for money.

The only recource for the 'GW fan' is 'I like it because I like it, not because it good value for money!'
Which is absolutley fine and acceptable.(Denzark.;))

But the 'GW FANBOYS' have such a strong emotional attachment they simply can not except that GW plc products do not compare favorably to other products.
And as they can not make any defense using facts, they are only left with emotional ties which often displays like 'religeous indignation.'

[SotonShades]

I'm a little too hung over to really get in to this right now, but I did want to say that it was a nice article, I mostly agreed with the points made and I enjoyed reading it :)

I also have to say that I agree with eldargirl's stance; by all means play other games, enjoy them and do feel free to introduce me to them. However please do not go to a forum or any other environment that is solely for the discussion of 40k and tell me your system is better. Equally, 40k fanboys shouldn't do the reverse, or attempt to shout down the rest just because they play the market leading game etc.

Around here, there doesn't seem to be much interest in other games systems (at least, not amongst my gaming group) so I'm fairly happy to stick with GW. I don't feel that their models or policy or prices are particularly bad , neither do I feel they are perfect. I am very aware though that that is how I feel. Fanboys, on either side, don't seem to get that their opinions are often how they feel.

[scadugenga]

Oh, there's anti-PP trolling on the WM/H forums, it's just nowhere near the level that you see happening in the 40k forums.

I chalk that up to 40k (and WFB) being the "entry point" for the majority of new(er) gamers. 40k is all they know, so when they get disillusioned, some end up getting all "born again grass-is-greener-esque" and start trying to regurgitate their opinion on everyone else's plate.

You don't see many gamers' entry-point being PP. It's something people discover having already been in the community after awhile, so there's less "BAGiG" going on the reverse direction.

Maybe the trolling tends to stem from some partially-hidden self-esteem problem. Like the troll's image of self-worth is somehow tied in to the perception of their favorite game or something.

[laestli]

I remember this whole fanboi thing with WoW and WaR, even a very similar article. The born again MMO nutjob Warhammer fanboi's were ridiculously annoying in any thread where people were trying to compare and contrast the two games on official and unofficial forums. I'm sure we'll see this whole thing play out again and again as time goes on, emotional investment will pretty much guarantee it. At least the fanboi vs. fanboi cripple fights are amusing from certain point of view.

[Verilance]

from my perspective this is nothing new, I started wargaming with boardgames primarily those produced by Avalon Hill in the seventies. but as with most of my peers this new games Dungeons and Dragons was starting up and lots of people went to role-play. There was some difficulty between the boardgamers and the role-players as well.

Then folks (and I was one) became disenchanted with D&D because of its limitations and moved on to other systems which were better (for them) because they heightened the gaming experience (for them) arguments were long and heated on this topic.

the more things change the more they stay the same

[Mauglum.]

Hi eldargal
I was refering to the GW plc products that CAN be compared objectivley, NOT the ashetic preference for a particular style of minature.
All products that have a function , (hobby supplies and rule books.)
Can be compared objectivley.

And as such GW plc products in this catagory often do not compare well to the competitors products.
Sorry if I did not make this clear.

A persons personal taste for individual minatures only goes so far as to cover 'collectors ' portion of the customers.And if you like it enough you can justify paying the asking price, to your own personal sense of value.
(We all do this...:D)

(However , as the customer base is shrinking with every price rise,the price rises get higher and higher to cover the ever decreasing sales volumes...this will evenualy result in GW plc pricing them selves out of the market.)

For people that play games , the 'value for money' covers the cost of the entire experiance.And this is where the 'fanboys' start spouting 'GW plc spin' in defence of what they love,(on 'blind faith' as the op calls it.)Rather than acept the objective critisism of the functional elements of the GW plc product range.

The reason GW plc is the market leader, in thier own self proclaimed niche of the market.
Has far more to do with what GW did ,(1985 to 1997) rather than what they are doing now.
(Factual fiscal study underway of the performance year on year of GW plc 2001 to 2011.When complete this will give actual evidence of how much sales volume has been lost recently!)

'GW plc make the best toy soldiers in the world*'.
(*For GW plc games.Apart from AoW, and other manufacturers that you may like, that are sometimes cheaper...:D)

If you enjoy GW plc products, fine by me!

I Just want EVERYONE to be aware of the alternatives available, that GW FANBOYS AND PP FANBOYS pretend do not exist... :D

Enjoy your hobby , it belongs to YOU.
(Not GW,PP,AoW,Battlefront Mantic Games ,Reaper,PeterPig,Perry Minatures, Warlord games,TTG, Heresy Minatures etc .....I think you get where I am coming from .:D)

happy gaming
Lanrak.

[Verilance]

you could always do what I did as a wee bairn, I used my coin collection as soldiers. each one was a different class so to speak pennies up till Silver Dollars (the monarch of my little realm) they fought many battles on my bed, my floor etc.

my point...

Game Systems only matter because of the story they present, for my money and time of all the miniature companies out there GW provides the best balance between likable back story for the world and each army, and quality of miniatures. It may not always be so but on a very limited budget you have to choose to buy what you like most as opposed to seeing what else is available.

[wittdooley]

Your response really doesn't make any sense. I think you actually believe you're countering EGs post, but you really don't. I think, perhaps, you're confused on the difference between objective and subjective, which is entirely possible if you're not an English speaker.

Despite that, I really didn't address that argument at all in the article. We can do pricing comparisons until we're blue in the face, but I left that out because it wasn't relevant to the article.

I'd love for you to better articulate the "objective negatives," as without doing so it's really, really hard for any of us to respond to you.

And FWIW, I mention three other companies in the article beyond simply GW and PP; I highlighted them because they are without question the two largest players.

[Verilance]

Can someone with greater understanding than I please explain why Warmachine/Hordes is compared to 40K anyway? From looking at the models, reading a bit of the background etc it seems to me that other than being a skirmish type game it has far more in common with WFB,

It is certainly not War in the Dark Future at any rate

as you might have guessed the story of a game matters to me

[wittdooley]

They really don't have anything in common in terms of background or gameplay. I've tried to explain that numerous times. No one likes to listen.

Because they're so different is part of the reason I play both.

[scadugenga]

Can someone with greater understanding than I please explain why Warmachine/Hordes is compared to 40K anyway? From looking at the models, reading a bit of the background etc it seems to me that other than being a skirmish type game it has far more in common with WFB,

It is certainly not War in the Dark Future at any rate

as you might have guessed the story of a game matters to me

When you get down to it, the comparison is really PP & GW. And as for why, my guess is that PP and GW are the two biggest kids on the block--with GW being the much larger kid. ;)

People substitute 40k for GW as 40k is the most recognizable product that GW produces.

[relasine]

Oh, there's anti-PP trolling on the WM/H forums, it's just nowhere near the level that you see happening in the 40k forums.

I chalk that up to 40k (and WFB) being the "entry point" for the majority of new(er) gamers. 40k is all they know, so when they get disillusioned, some end up getting all "born again grass-is-greener-esque" and start trying to regurgitate their opinion on everyone else's plate.

You don't see many gamers' entry-point being PP. It's something people discover having already been in the community after awhile, so there's less "BAGiG" going on the reverse direction.

Maybe the trolling tends to stem from some partially-hidden self-esteem problem. Like the troll's image of self-worth is somehow tied in to the perception of their favorite game or something.
I think the reason you see a lot of negative sentiment about GW is because there's a lot to be negative about. There are things that could largely be considered a matter of opinion (quality of the rule set, fiction, etc.), but there are also a lot of things that the grand majority of gamers are pretty unhappy with, indefensible things, particularly when they've moved from Games Workshop games to Privateer Press ones.


They switched their metal line to resin (a cheaper material), increased the price, and to top that off, the quality control of the first batch of Finecast miniatures was pretty lousy.
You can't play Specialist Games in a Games Workshop Store. That means no Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Epic, Warmaster, etc.
They don't have a tournament program. Not only does Privateer Press have a tournament program with lots of built-in options, they update the thing yearly.
Their distribution methods are draconian. Ask your LGS owner how much Lord of the Rings product they are required to keep on the shelf to maintain status as a Stockist Retailer. Ask someone from New Zealand how much they're now paying for a box of Tactical Marines.
Social media and the internet are anathema to them.
Their system for updating armies is antiquated. PP showed us that you can successfully update every single model in the game (both Warmachine and Hordes) over six months with a new rules edition. There are still two 3rd Edition and four 4th Edition (not counting Orks) codecies awaiting update. 5th Edition launched three years ago.
They don't have a proper army construction computer program for games that severely need them. Instead I have to rely on an unlicensed subscription service that skirts the domain of IP violation by relying on the community to violate it for them.
There's an apparent disconnect between the game design studio and modeling studio. If a model doesn't come out in the first wave of new releases, you're often looking at 50/50 chances of not seeing the model at all unless you want to shell out big bucks for Forge World kits or learn to sculpt. They are admittedly getting better at this, but there are still gaps that will never be filled.

That's a barrel of negative, I know. There's also a lot to love about GW and what they do, but the stuff I listed above can weigh on a veteran after awhile. Hell, in my experience the people who complain most about GW are people who currently play their games.

Privateer Press isn't a perfect company. Their current product supply problem is a big problem that has been going on for almost a year. Their sculpts are often hit-or-miss. Mispacks (for me at least) have been an issue over the years. That said, if you're unhappy about anything I listed above, Privateer Press can look like a beacon of light.

[wkz]

Can someone with greater understanding than I please explain why Warmachine/Hordes is compared to 40K anyway? From looking at the models, reading a bit of the background etc it seems to me that other than being a skirmish type game it has far more in common with WFB,

It is certainly not War in the Dark Future at any rate

as you might have guessed the story of a game matters to me

Fluffwise...
WHFB: Grimdark Fantasy!!
40k: Grimdark Fantasy!! In Space!!
WM/Hordes: (slightly less) Grimdark Fantasy!! With Steampunk!!
Note that "sightly less" is an average. Some factions and sub-factions are glowing so darn bright it hurts... not that they have their dirty bits, but others are "void of the Blackhole" dark

Focus...
WHFB: Big Monsters, Big Artillery, Big Blocks of Infantry, oh my!!
40k: Space Marines. ... ... *ahem* Beyond that, armies of Metal Bawkses and that "Modern war" feel (if not outright futuristic)
WM/Hordes: The Mr McAwesomesauce leading your army (or sometimes Madam). Also: Warjacks.

Gameplay Focus...
WHFB: Magic phase. ... ... *ahem* Movement and Maneuver with the most unresponsive blocks of miniatures this side of wargaming.
40k: Somehow, everyone is well armored enough to survive long enough to launch an absolutely brutal Close Combat. Except Tau. F*sk Tau.
WM/Hordes: Aim for the Warcaster, Boo!! Aim! For! The! Warcaster!!

In a nutshell...
WHFB: Tabletop miniature wargaming.
40k: Tabletop miniature wargaming.
WM/Hordes: Tabletop miniature wargaming.

The reason why the games are compared is because of that last point, despite differences everywhere else...

[eldargal]

Just to respond to a few of your points:

1)The Finecast price hike was 'lousy', no argument there.
2) You can, it depends on the store. Also, join a hobby club if you can, then it doesn't matter.
3) GW doesn't release tournament focused rulesets, PP does. To me this is one of the best things about GW.
4) Antipodean prices are certainly obscene, the LOTR thing is a contractual obligation to New Line Cinema or whoever it is, not really in GWs control.
5) Disagree, they don't utilise it fully but few corporations do to be honest.
6) Apples and oranges, PP armies have a few unit types that do much the same thing in, what, ten armies? GW has twenty nine armies accross two game systems which need updating.
7) Who cares? Honestly.:rolleyes: I have this thing called a calculator and wordpad which works brilliantly.
8) No, there is a disconnect between the design and modelling departments and the marketing department. Bear in mind GW have tried various methods over the past thirty years and currently believe this system works best for them.

Again a lot of these are subjective issues, like the tournament thing and the army program, not exactly objective. Others most certainly are, GWs antipodean pricing and Finecast price rises were extremely poor form. I understand why they are doing it, but still there must be better ways of shoring up antipodean sales and the savings on resin would pay for the costs of the change soon enough.


I think the reason you see a lot of negative sentiment about GW is because there's a lot to be negative about. There are things that could largely be considered a matter of opinion (quality of the rule set, fiction, etc.), but there are also a lot of things that the grand majority of gamers are pretty unhappy with, indefensible things, particularly when they've moved from Games Workshop games to Privateer Press ones.


They switched their metal line to resin (a cheaper material), increased the price, and to top that off, the quality control of the first batch of Finecast miniatures was pretty lousy.
You can't play Specialist Games in a Games Workshop Store. That means no Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Epic, Warmaster, etc.
They don't have a tournament program. Not only does Privateer Press have a tournament program with lots of built-in options, they update the thing yearly.
Their distribution methods are draconian. Ask your LGS owner how much Lord of the Rings product they are required to keep on the shelf to maintain status as a Stockist Retailer. Ask someone from New Zealand how much they're now paying for a box of Tactical Marines.
Social media and the internet are anathema to them.
Their system for updating armies is antiquated. PP showed us that you can successfully update every single model in the game (both Warmachine and Hordes) over six months with a new rules edition. There are still two 3rd Edition and four 4th Edition (not counting Orks) codecies awaiting update. 5th Edition launched three years ago.
They don't have a proper army construction computer program for games that severely need them. Instead I have to rely on an unlicensed subscription service that skirts the domain of IP violation by relying on the community to violate it for them.
There's an apparent disconnect between the game design studio and modeling studio. If a model doesn't come out in the first wave of new releases, you're often looking at 50/50 chances of not seeing the model at all unless you want to shell out big bucks for Forge World kits or learn to sculpt. They are admittedly getting better at this, but there are still gaps that will never be filled.

That's a barrel of negative, I know. There's also a lot to love about GW and what they do, but the stuff I listed above can weigh on a veteran after awhile. Hell, in my experience the people who complain most about GW are people who currently play their games.

Privateer Press isn't a perfect company. Their current product supply problem is a big problem that has been going on for almost a year. Their sculpts are often hit-or-miss. Mispacks (for me at least) have been an issue over the years. That said, if you're unhappy about anything I listed above, Privateer Press can look like a beacon of light.

[relasine]

Just to respond to a few of your points:

1)The Finecast price hike was 'lousy', no argument there.
2) You can, it depends on the store. Also, join a hobby club if you can, then it doesn't matter.
3) GW doesn't release tournament focused rulesets, PP does. To me this is one of the best things about GW.
4) Antipodean prices are certainly obscene, the LOTR thing is a contractual obligation to New Line Cinema or whoever it is, not really in GWs control.
5) Disagree, they don't utilise it fully but few corporations do to be honest.
6) Apples and oranges, PP armies have a few unit types that do much the same thing in, what, ten armies? GW has twenty nine armies accross two game systems which need updating.
7) Who cares? Honestly.:rolleyes: I have this thing called a calculator and wordpad which works brilliantly.
8) No, there is a disconnect between the design and modelling departments and the marketing department. Bear in mind GW have tried various methods over the past thirty years and currently believe this system works best for them.

Again a lot of these are subjective issues, like the tournament thing and the army program, not exactly objective. Others most certainly are, GWs antipodean pricing and Finecast price rises were extremely poor form. I understand why they are doing it, but still there must be better ways of shoring up antipodean sales and the savings on resin would pay for the costs of the change soon enough.
On number two, standing GW policy is that you can't play Specialist Games in their stores. If you're lucky enough to have a red shirt who will overlook that rule, then that's fantastic. Yes, you can start your own club and play at a non-GW game store or at a friend's house, but the issue is that the policy itself is ridiculous, not that you can get around it.

On number three, I'm not talking about the ruleset; I'm talking about tournament programs. If you don't like tournies, that's fine, but lots of gamers do, and that's what tournament programs are for. What happened to the outrider program? Why did they get rid of it?

On number five, I can't understand how you disagree. What was the last podcast that a GW staffer came on? Why don't they have forums? Where can I go online to get a rules question answered by a company representative?

On number six, that's the excuse? They have more armies to support? PP released updated rules for 11 factions in six months, and it's a tiny company. Why can't Games Workshop do the same thing for their 29 armies in 18 months? Hell, double that to three years. Double that even. They still won't do it. The fact that they use such a limited design space for their game (which is not a bad thing itself), which should make a mass update easier, just adds insult to injury. I'll give them credit for finally updating the Tau codex so that Devilfish don't give up three kill points or to make all Storm Shields grant a 3+ invulnerable, but even that took three years after 5th edition was launched.

On number seven, A lot of people care. Army construction programs remove the human error part of army building. I just got back from Wargames Con where every player I saw had their armies printed out via Army Builder. Adepticon was the same way.

On number eight, it might work for them, but it doesn't for their customers. I'd love to be able to throw a Hydra on the field for less than $70 + shipping from the UK, or have a model for the Tervigon. It'd be real nice to be able to build Autocannon Dreads without having to buy two kits that total up to $67.

[eldargal]

Well for five, I disagree it is anathema, I agree they don't use it well. They have some good design podcasts on their website, their blog is a hell of a lot better than a lot of companies and the website is quite efficient too.

How many unit types does each faction in WM have? How different are those unit types to each other? The variety of 40k alone blows away WM, it is a far, far more complex system and takes longer to update. PP can do it faster because they are a tiny operation that doesn't have to arrange the printing of hundreds of thousands of books and kits months in advance of a release to satisfy initial demand. It is also part of their business model, staggered releases to give people time to save money between releases so they spend more. It works for GW, so they will continue. Having said that Harry on Warseer, I think, said we should see a change in the frequency with which they update army books and codices.

An army builder program is hardly essential, GW are undeer no obligation to create one when there would be little profit in it for them. Even if all tournament players everywhere want one that is still a minority of the GW playerbase. Criticising GW for this would be like criticising a car company for not releasing cups to go with their cupholders.

[Verilance]

On number seven, A lot of people care. Army construction programs remove the human error part of army building. I just got back from Wargames Con where every player I saw had their armies printed out via Army Builder. Adepticon was the same way.

What??

Kids today can no longer do simple math??

What is this world coming too!!!

i blame allowing calculators in schools :p

I own a lot of the army books even for those whose models I never entend to collect and have built many many lists just for fun.

never once have I thought to myself I need an aid to do so, pen and paper work just fine

[relasine]

How many unit types does each faction in WM have? How different are those unit types to each other? The variety of 40k alone blows away WM, it is a far, far more complex system and takes longer to update. PP can do it faster because they are a tiny operation that doesn't have to arrange the printing of hundreds of thousands of books and kits months in advance of a release to satisfy initial demand. It is also part of their business model, staggered releases to give people time to save money between releases so they spend more. It works for GW, so they will continue. Having said that Harry on Warseer, I think, said we should see a change in the frequency with which they update army books and codices.
On the first point, the four original WM factions have 60 (give or take one or two) currently available releases between warcasters, warjacks, units, unit and weapon attachments, solos, etc. Mercs have about ten more. I'm not going to take the time to count up the Hordes factions, but I'll ball park it at 45. Minions have about the same. Retribution probably has about 30. So in total, we're looking at around 565 separate model/units, by the end of the year it'll be closer to 580.

I'll concede that there are more units to discuss in 40k, but how many of them are really the same model in a different book with a different paint job? What's the difference in the stat line between Tactical, Assault, and Devastator Marines? Is there really a big difference between a Space Wolf Rhino and a Chaos Space Marine Rhino save the cost and one or two pieces of wargear? To get a Guardsmen's stat line, you need only take a Space Marine's and subtract one from most everything. The "variety" that you talk of is pretty spurious when you get down to it and really look at the design space that GW uses. When unit entries consists of the same stat lines with +/- one or two, there isn't much variety there.

And I'm curious, which units in Warmachine are you talking about that "do the same thing"? If you cite specific examples, I might understand what you're getting at better.

Explain to me how 40k is a more complex game, because I'd love to hear it. Its design space is way more restricted. Its dice mechanics are simpler. There's no resource management. Comparatively, there's less dynamism in terms of buffing/debuffing. Units (with a few exceptions, i.e. Long Fangs, PotMS) must all shoot the same target. The vehicle damage chart is outdated and not particularly elegant. There are very few modifiers in the game (vehicle damage chart being one of the only examples). The cover system is too simple for its own good. Wargear is the only part of the game that has any measure of complexity over Warmachine/Hordes, but when you compare that to warcaster/warlock interaction (there are over 100 warcasters/warlocks), the scale tilts back in the other direction.

I'm not implying these are bad things. 40k must be a simpler game due to the higher model count, and as a 40k player I'm okay with that. If 40k's ruleset were just as complex as Warmachine's, 1500-point games would take five hours. Its level of complexity is appropriate, but it is not more complex than Warmachine.

They have some good design podcasts on their website...
Link?

[eldargal]

Here:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=9400003

The combination of varying equipment options, stats,USRs, army specific USRs and unit specific USRs just seemed to give 40k armies a much greater variety in how a unit could be equipped and used than in Warmachine. This is often hailed as one of the advantages, a much 'tighter' ruleset. My impression of Warmachine, and I admit my experience is fairly limited, is that each faction is basically a combination of caster, warjacks and whatnot with a variation of rules to give them some difference. More akin to the differences between SM chapters than say SM, Eldar, Tau and Orks.

[SotonShades]

has anyone else noticed this is becoming the exact argument the original artical was, for want of a better word, criticising? I think that is brilliant hehe.

[SMC]

Why are people still saying that GW raised their prices because of the change to Finecast? GW raises their prices every year around the same time. This has been their practice for at least the last five years. Or are you going to argue that they raised prices on metals last year in anticipation of raising prices for finecast? It had nothing to do with Finecast. Did you all forget they raised prices on plastics and codices at the same time? Either you're ignorantly spreading lies to make your case or willfully spreading lies to make your case. Which is it?

[eldargal]

While true, GW are going to save an awful lot of money on using resin instead of metal, so the price rise just seemed like a kick in the teeth. As I said, it was poorly handled, they would have been better making a big issue of how the switch to a cheaper material would save the customer money. We call it the Finecast price rise because it happened when Finecast was introduced, even though it was not only Finecast that went up in price.

[wittdooley]

has anyone else noticed this is becoming the exact argument the original artical was, for want of a better word, criticising? I think that is brilliant hehe.

Yep, it has, hasn't it?:rolleyes:

I wholeheartedly disagree on your assessment about the internet/social media, Relasine. GW is one of the more adept miniature companies at utilizing this, particularly with Twitter updates. Both the GW main twitter feed (@voxcaster) and the Black Library twitter feed (@blacklibrary) update ALL THE TIME. Privateer Does a fair job as well. As for the blog: Really? GW updates their blog at least 3 times a week. I think that's pretty admirable. Privateer updates occasionally, but there's no real consistency to it. That's frustrating to me, though I do love their online terrain contests.

I agree that the initiation of Finecast was poorly handled, but as I've articulated before, the medium is only going to be a boon to the hobby (see Trollforged games "Trollcast") The durable resin material makes models of superior quality with a greater ease for hobbyist conversions. I just got my cockatrice, a "wave 3" model, and it is flawless. And gorgeous.

I think people that bring the GW stores into conversations are conveniently closing their eyes to a pretty major fact: GW HAS ITS OWN STORES. No other hobby line does. GW runs them at a loss to grow the hobby. People complaining about not being allowed to play all their specialist games in the stores also forget that the store has to deal with customer questions about that game's availability if they allow it to be played. It's only slightly different than not being allowed to play a different game system in a GW store. Sometimes I think GW should just stop operationing their stores, but then I think about how much an internet uproar there would be then...

@ Relasine: Don't kid yourself on some warjacks being more or less the same. While I can only speak specifically to the factions I play, all the warjacks are essentially Dreadnoughts with different weapons. Ol Rowdy is an Ironclad with some USRs. The Pyre Troll, Winter Troll, and Slag Troll are all, effectively, the same troll with a different elemental ability. Hell, I'm still waiting for my Electroll :) I'm not saying it's a bad thing, as I do realize they serve a different purpose in the game, but it's no different than my Rifleman dread serving a different purpose than my furiouso dread.

[relasine]

@ Relasine: Don't kid yourself on some warjacks being more or less the same. While I can only speak specifically to the factions I play, all the warjacks are essentially Dreadnoughts with different weapons. Ol Rowdy is an Ironclad with some USRs. The Pyre Troll, Winter Troll, and Slag Troll are all, effectively, the same troll with a different elemental ability. Hell, I'm still waiting for my Electroll :) I'm not saying it's a bad thing, as I do realize they serve a different purpose in the game, but it's no different than my Rifleman dread serving a different purpose than my furiouso dread.
Fair enough, there is some play between warjacks, but remember that each faction has at least three "chassis" that they run their 'jacks on, and even comparing one warjack on the same chassis to the next you do see some variation in the statline (Hunter, Grenadier). However, are you going to argue that Dreadnought has more in-game options or mechanical complexity than a warjack? Dreadnoughts do three things: move, fire, and assault, and they limited access to some in-game buffs. Warjacks and warbeasts can do that and trample, slam, throw, headbutt, push, benefit from the game's resource management system, use a more elegant damage tracking system, and interact in very complicated ways with spells and effects.

I'll also concede that GW has gotten markedly better with their internet presence.


People complaining about not being allowed to play all their specialist games in the stores also forget that the store has to deal with customer questions about that game's availability if they allow it to be played. It's only slightly different than not being allowed to play a different game system in a GW store.
That's your argument? That because they'll have to "answer questions about availability"? And how is it slightly different for me to want to Epic at a GW from wanting to Malifaux? GW makes Epic. I believe that you can still special order at one of their brick and mortar stores. Why can't I play it in the store again?


Here:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=9400003

The combination of varying equipment options, stats,USRs, army specific USRs and unit specific USRs just seemed to give 40k armies a much greater variety in how a unit could be equipped and used than in Warmachine. This is often hailed as one of the advantages, a much 'tighter' ruleset. My impression of Warmachine, and I admit my experience is fairly limited, is that each faction is basically a combination of caster, warjacks and whatnot with a variation of rules to give them some difference. More akin to the differences between SM chapters than say SM, Eldar, Tau and Orks.
Thanks for the link. I'll check them out, but I think I listened to them already. Aren't they the ones that released back in 2008 when the 5th Ed. rulebook came out?

If your experience with Warmachine is lacking, why are you making claims about its level of complexity? If that's the case, you probably shouldn't make any claims about it at all. You still haven't addressed any of my specific arguments. All I see is "X+Y+Z=complicated" v. a game that you admittedly have limited experience with.

To address yours, Warmachine has all of things you've listed, save army-specific USRs (which they sort of do have on a limited basis i.e. Tough/Regeneration, Eyeless Sight, access to exclusive things like the Choir of Menoth, etc) and varying equipment options. This may seem like a lower level of complexity, but when you factor in that Privateer uses a more robust design space, a more complicated targeting system (i.e. individual models decide their target), a more complicated dice mechanic, and, chief among them, constant in-game, sweeping interaction with other models on the board (i.e. support solos, warcasters, etc.), you can easily tell which is more complex. Wargear may change a unit's role, but it changes little else about them. Compare Cygnar's non-character ranged units for a moment (Trencher Infantry, Trencher Commandos, Long Gunners, Gun Mages, Rangers). Not only do they all have different roles, but they all have different stat blocks and vastly different special rules. Hell, the nature of their roles is even more complex. 40k roles are mostly relegated to a few specific categories (i.e. forward/rear elements, anti-tank/anti-infantry, anti-elite/anti-horde). Warmachine roles are more involved, not only consisting of the categories above, but with more options. (i.e. forward disrupting, flanking/skirmishing, back-line suppression, mid-line trouble-shooting, front-line buffing).

I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing this point. Like I stated, 40k has to be less complicated due to its model count. It simply has to be for people to be able to finish a 1500-to-2000-point game in less than five hours. The fact that you can't admit that suggests to me that you're either trolling, in denial, or just don't know.

My original point here was that GW's system of updating their armies is antiquated and way too slow. You're seriously going to defend them on that when Necrons haven't seen a codex update in over eight years? Really? With all the resources they have at their disposal, that's complete and utter garbage.

[wittdooley]

Fair enough, there is some play between warjacks, but remember that each faction has at least three "chassis" that they run their 'jacks on, and even comparing one warjack on the same chassis to the next you do see some variation in the statline (Hunter, Grenadier). However, are you going to argue that Dreadnought has more in-game options or mechanical complexity than a warjack? Dreadnoughts do three things: move, fire, and assault, and they limited access to some in-game buffs. Warjacks and warbeasts can do that and trample, slam, throw, headbutt, push, benefit from the game's resource management system, use a more elegant damage tracking system, and interact in very complicated ways with spells and effects.


Never said they had more complexity. The question was simply where were there units in Warmahordes that did essentially the same thing. I offered up a suggestion. I'm curious about the 3 chassis; does Cygnar only have 2 (the lancer and ironclad chassis) while everyone else has more? If so, I feel cheated! :) To be entirely fair, 40k also involves a more complicated (though I won't argue necessarily better) armour mechanic (different armour at different points of the model, different levels of penetration, etc).



That's your argument? That because they'll have to "answer questions about availability"? And how is it slightly different for me to want to Epic at a GW from wanting to Malifaux? GW makes Epic. I believe that you can still special order at one of their brick and mortar stores. Why can't I play it in the store again?


Not really an argument, but perhaps an explanation. Also consider that not all your GW store employees will have been old enough to play these games and answer questions about them (and, quite frankly, they really shouldn't have to as they aren't products GW fully supports any longer). Again, not an argument or excuse, as I personally think it's silly that they won't "let" you play them, but I think it is a reasonable explanation/justification. I don't have a GW within 6 hours of me, so it isn't an issue for me.



I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing this point. Like I stated, 40k has to be less complicated due to its model count. It simply has to be for people to be able to finish a 1500-to-2000-point game in less than five hours.


We agree here, for the most part. I'd argue that, though it uses miniatures, Warmahordes shares as much in common with M:tG as it does with 40k, mostly due to the synergies required to play and the resource management to which you refer. I don't think this is a bad thing. I think being good at Warmahordes requries a vast amount more knowledge than 40k--you really have to know what your opponents army is cabable of to be successful. For some, that's a good thing, for others, that's a bad thing. For me, it's the primary reason I won't play Warmahordes in "competitive" tournaments. I simply don't have the time to devote to learn other folks armies. I love to play with my buddies, however.



My original point here was that GW's system of updating their armies is antiquated and way too slow. You're seriously going to defend them on that when Necrons haven't seen a codex update in over eight years? Really? With all the resources they have at their disposal, that's complete and utter garbage.

It's driven by the allmighty $$. They use their market research to determine that Marine codecies sell more models. I'd wager that Privateer has done the same upon deciding which factions to include in their 2-p starter. I don't have any of the stats, but I'd guess Cygnar (the good guys) and Cryx (arguably the most competetive) sell the most models. This is just a guess, but I can certainly see that being true. Honestly, if you ignore Phase-Out, the Necrons can still be very competitive.

Anyways, I play both because they are so different.

[Mauglum.]

Hi all.
As there has been mention of complexity and complaication.
And a comparison of 40k 'lots of options' compared to the aparent fewer options of other games.

40k game play is NOT complex.
As a Red shirt once said, 'Assaulty units assult, shooty unit shoot.Assaulty units move alot, shooty units shoot alot.:D'
(And any units that do both, tend not to be cost effective...:D)

40k has lots of options in the army lists ,( strategic focus,)because it has fewer options in the actual game.(Tactical focus.)
This also focuses the players on individual models.(Which follows the focus on toy soldiers, GW plc currently emphasises.)
This is done on purpose to appeal to GW plcs prime demoghraphic, who have a thirst for data, but are not great at grasping the over aching tactical view of the game.
(Source.. Rick Priestly.)

This results in a complicated rule set, due to the rules being written exclusivley for each model type.(Despite the game fuctioning at the unit interaction level.)Even though the game play is straight forward.*
(*Compared to other rule sets.)

And as such is quite unique.

Most of the other companies in the table top minature wargames market ,try to achive higher tactical complexity , and lower strategic focus.
As this tends to provide more complex gameplay and less complicated rules.(As the rules are written inclusivley.)

This tends to provides gamers with better value for money , due to the higher re play value .

If you are in the demoghraphic GW plc write 40k rules for , you will enjoy the game.;)

However, anyone wanting more complex gameplay, and less complicated rules , often fail to see the limitation of the 40k rule set.
Untill they are so heavily invested in it , they feel its too late to change maybe?

[wittdooley]

This tends to provides gamers with better value for money , due to the higher re play value .



And this quote invalidates anything you say. It is a wholly biased statement using it's own circular logic to support itself.

Also, to talk about strategy in list building is absurd. In a game like Warmahordes, you MUST build a synergistic list to even have a chance to win. Even then, the Paper-Rock-Scissors nature of the game can severely cripple your chances to win, which is why PP allows for two lists in tournaments. It's an admission that some lists will have a vastly greater chance to beat other lists.

Lastly, reading your responses makes my brain hurt, there's so much wrong with them.

[juliusb]

Although I have no desire to play PP games, I appreciate their success because they'll keep GW on their toes. The big deal-breaker for me is time, I don't have time to learn new rules and fluff (important to me) but most of all, I don't want to struggle finding games. 40K's popularity is it's biggest draw for me, I can easily find a game.

As for the hate, it's pure immaturity. Anyone who is passionate about a hobby company to the point of hate really needs to reassess their life and priorities. Talking about it on the internet is fun but if you're actually emotionally involved; sad.

[wittdooley]

Although I have no desire to play PP games, I appreciate their success because they'll keep GW on their toes. The big deal-breaker for me is time, I don't have time to learn new rules and fluff (important to me) but most of all, I don't want to struggle finding games. 40K's popularity is it's biggest draw for me, I can easily find a game.


I can totally appreciate that. Quite frankly, I do more painting and modelling than actual playing, for the very same reasons. That's also why I do one of two "get-away" events a year (GenCon & Adepticon, usually) in order to make sure I have some good, quality, gaming time.

[eldargal]

My experience with Warmachine is limited, not non-existent. The impression I got was, as Wittdooley put it, that much of it was rock-papers-scissors style of combat, where you have to get the right amount of rocks, paper and scissors in your list to have a shot at winning. Unlike 40k where there is no such dynamic, or at least not to the same extent.

But you are still missing the point, it is not the ruleset that is complex, it is the dynamic of twenty nine different armies accross two systems which all need balancing against each other (andd the development team can only do so much) as well as production capacity (how many kits they can produce in a year), market strategies and market saturation (don't release too much too quickly or people run out of money) etc which makes it a far more complex effort to update something. They can't just throw something together over a weekend and stick it on the website. I really don't think people understand the logistics differences between a country that sells one hundred and twenty million pounds worth of kits a year in hundreds of stores and thousands of indepednent stores and a company that sells a few million pounds worth of kits in however many independent stores.



Fair enough, there is some play between warjacks, but remember that each faction has at least three "chassis" that they run their 'jacks on, and even comparing one warjack on the same chassis to the next you do see some variation in the statline (Hunter, Grenadier). However, are you going to argue that Dreadnought has more in-game options or mechanical complexity than a warjack? Dreadnoughts do three things: move, fire, and assault, and they limited access to some in-game buffs. Warjacks and warbeasts can do that and trample, slam, throw, headbutt, push, benefit from the game's resource management system, use a more elegant damage tracking system, and interact in very complicated ways with spells and effects.

I'll also concede that GW has gotten markedly better with their internet presence.


That's your argument? That because they'll have to "answer questions about availability"? And how is it slightly different for me to want to Epic at a GW from wanting to Malifaux? GW makes Epic. I believe that you can still special order at one of their brick and mortar stores. Why can't I play it in the store again?


Thanks for the link. I'll check them out, but I think I listened to them already. Aren't they the ones that released back in 2008 when the 5th Ed. rulebook came out?

If your experience with Warmachine is lacking, why are you making claims about its level of complexity? If that's the case, you probably shouldn't make any claims about it at all. You still haven't addressed any of my specific arguments. All I see is "X+Y+Z=complicated" v. a game that you admittedly have limited experience with.

To address yours, Warmachine has all of things you've listed, save army-specific USRs (which they sort of do have on a limited basis i.e. Tough/Regeneration, Eyeless Sight, access to exclusive things like the Choir of Menoth, etc) and varying equipment options. This may seem like a lower level of complexity, but when you factor in that Privateer uses a more robust design space, a more complicated targeting system (i.e. individual models decide their target), a more complicated dice mechanic, and, chief among them, constant in-game, sweeping interaction with other models on the board (i.e. support solos, warcasters, etc.), you can easily tell which is more complex. Wargear may change a unit's role, but it changes little else about them. Compare Cygnar's non-character ranged units for a moment (Trencher Infantry, Trencher Commandos, Long Gunners, Gun Mages, Rangers). Not only do they all have different roles, but they all have different stat blocks and vastly different special rules. Hell, the nature of their roles is even more complex. 40k roles are mostly relegated to a few specific categories (i.e. forward/rear elements, anti-tank/anti-infantry, anti-elite/anti-horde). Warmachine roles are more involved, not only consisting of the categories above, but with more options. (i.e. forward disrupting, flanking/skirmishing, back-line suppression, mid-line trouble-shooting, front-line buffing).

I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing this point. Like I stated, 40k has to be less complicated due to its model count. It simply has to be for people to be able to finish a 1500-to-2000-point game in less than five hours. The fact that you can't admit that suggests to me that you're either trolling, in denial, or just don't know.

My original point here was that GW's system of updating their armies is antiquated and way too slow. You're seriously going to defend them on that when Necrons haven't seen a codex update in over eight years? Really? With all the resources they have at their disposal, that's complete and utter garbage.

[relasine]

My experience with Warmachine is limited, not non-existent. The impression I got was, as Wittdooley put it, that much of it was rock-papers-scissors style of combat, where you have to get the right amount of rocks, paper and scissors in your list to have a shot at winning. Unlike 40k where there is no such dynamic, or at least not to the same extent.

But you are still missing the point, it is not the ruleset that is complex, it is the dynamic of twenty nine different armies accross two systems which all need balancing against each other (andd the development team can only do so much) as well as production capacity (how many kits they can produce in a year), market strategies and market saturation (don't release too much too quickly or people run out of money) etc which makes it a far more complex effort to update something. They can't just throw something together over a weekend and stick it on the website. I really don't think people understand the logistics differences between a country that sells one hundred and twenty million pounds worth of kits a year in hundreds of stores and thousands of indepednent stores and a company that sells a few million pounds worth of kits in however many independent stores.
I'm baffled. You're still defending GW's reluctance to update some of their armies for over a decade. You can make excuses for that from now until eternity, but it will always be absurd.

[eldargal]

I'm not defending it, I'm saying there is a reason for it. There is a difference.

[SMC]

No matter what you say or how much time you spend explaining how reality actually works you will not alter his opinion. He is...wait for it...a fanboy.

[relasine]

I'm not defending it, I'm saying there is a reason for it. There is a difference.
That by definition is defending it.

No matter what you say or how much time you spend explaining how reality actually works you will not alter his opinion. He is...wait for it...a fanboy.Obvious troll is obvious.

My appreciation for the way that PP does things has nothing to do with the matter being discussed here. I play 40k, too. I have painted (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=1464) and owned (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=16202) enormous amounts (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a316/relasine/DSC00663.jpg) of Citadel (http://s14.photobucket.com/albums/a316/relasine/Orks/) miniatures. I want GW to do better, and with all the resources at their disposal. I expect it of them. Why the hell don't you?

[eldargal]

Only if you are halfwitted dolt who lacks any kind of subtlety of thought.

GW had a reason to increase costs when switching to a new, cheaper material, that doesn't make it good nor right.
GW have a reason to stop cheaper imports of their products to countries in which they have a higher profit margin, that doesn't make it good nor right.
GW have reasons (logistical, commercial and developmental) to take a long time to update some older and less popular codices, that doesn't make it good nor right.

I do not like that GW takes so long to update some books, but I understand why it is so.

I do not consider myself a fangirl because I am more than willing to criticise GW when it is warranted, and it is warranted quite often. But it does annoy me when people hold up a tiny company like PP and say 'well if they can do it fast why can't GW?' with no thought as to what it would entail.

[Mauglum.]

Hi wittdooly.
Can you please expian what EXACTLY you dis agree with?

The more complex the gameplay, the more re-play value a game has.(Fact).
Game play in wargames is comprised of stratragic, and tactical factors.(Fact.)

Definitions.
Tactical factors are ALL the options players have in game.(Actions- interactions available and the variation in the squencing of these actions.)

Strategic factors are the all the options players take BEFORE the game starts.(Army building , unit load out and deployment .etc)

If a game uses the most apropriate game mechanics then the maximum tactical interation can be arrived at with the minimum of written rules.(Fact.)
Strategic conciderations usualy are more text heavy ,as each option has to be defined , rather than tactical game play which is derived 'organicaly' from the basic basic game mechanics and resolution methods.

In my last post I compared 40k to the rest of the table top wargames companies in general.
All rule sets use strategic and tactical elements.

PP games may be nearest to 40k in reguards to being strategicaly heavy.
But PP write thier rules sets specificaly for compatative play, and are quite honest about the limitations of thier game systems.

And thier rule sets are no where near as compicated as the current 40k rule sets.(Yet the game complexity is comparable.)

I try to be objective , and use interviews with game developers,and comparison to other products , when writing posts.

So I would be very appeciative if you could clarify what is 'so wrong it makes you brain hurt'?

[relasine]

Only if you are halfwitted dolt who lacks any kind of subtlety of thought.
So, we're onto personal attacks, huh? I think I'm done here.

[eldargal]

Why don't you address the meat of my post instead of having a hissy fit about me saying you would be a halfwitted dolt if you can't grasp the facts. I spelled out exactly why defending and understanding the rationale are different, if you can't grasp that then you would be a halfwitted dolt who lacks subtlety, I did not say you were.

Though it is quite clear you do seem to lack an appreciation for nuance.:rolleyes:

[SotonShades]

The more complex the gameplay, the more re-play value a game has.(Fact).

And yet mancala and chess (or variations thereof) are two of the most played and replayed games in the entirety of human history, despite having startalingly simple gameplay mechanics.

[Asimodeus]

Some (and in my experience most) PP players have there heads stuck-up there arse's (Fact!)

[wittdooley]

Let's be fair; there's a few of those in every corner of every hobby. :)

@Realasine -- You really have to look at the simple economics of it all, as that's clearly what GW has been doing for the last 10 years. Marines make more money than any other faction in 40k, and thus they get the starlet's attention. The same could be said for Orcs & Goblins in WHFB. There's a reason those two factions have the breadth of kits that they do.

They have to take those numbers into account when they make their production plans for Xenos races. That's why some of the less played Xenos races take so long to get updated. I have absolutely no hard stats on this, but I'd wager Tau and Necrons are the least played of the factions. Is part of this due to their out-of-date kits and codecies? Absolutely. But GW has people making research based decisions on whether or not it would be more profitable to revamp the Tau line, or release a Plastic IG Thunderbolt. The bigger $$ almost always wins, particularly in a publicly traded company. I'm not saying it's right, or fair, but it's how it works. Bigger revenue streams get more attention.

[Gotthammer]

Fact: Epic Butcher is best.

Fact: The Butcher eats beets.

Butcher, beets, Batlestar Galactica.


Jervis!

[Denzark]

Some (and in my experience most) PP players have there heads stuck-up there arse's (Fact!)

I just wish they would leave them there and not come out to harass 40K players...

[wittdooley]

Hi wittdooly.
Can you please expian what EXACTLY you dis agree with?

Sure :)



The more complex the gameplay, the more re-play value a game has.(Fact).
Game play in wargames is comprised of stratragic, and tactical factors.(Fact.)


I agree with the 2nd point, but disagree with the first. Firstly, I think re-play value is a purely subjective. Just because a game is more complex strategically doesn't mean I'm going to want to play it again. I have that problem with Infinity despite the fact that I like the game. The game is far too heavy for me in some places. For the very same reason I despise BattleTech. I don't want to book-keep that much while I play a game to relax. I think finding a balance between the strategy and the fun makes for a game's replayability.



Definitions.
Tactical factors are ALL the options players have in game.(Actions- interactions available and the variation in the squencing of these actions.)

Strategic factors are the all the options players take BEFORE the game starts.(Army building , unit load out and deployment .etc)


I agree on your definitions, but this is, again, to me an instance of the three bears. We have to find our just right portion of a game while you're playing. I think that's why the amount of Strategic planning that goes into a 40k army list build is so much more forgiveable; you only have to worry about it before the game, and not during.



If a game uses the most apropriate game mechanics then the maximum tactical interation can be arrived at with the minimum of written rules.(Fact.)
Strategic conciderations usualy are more text heavy ,as each option has to be defined , rather than tactical game play which is derived 'organicaly' from the basic basic game mechanics and resolution methods.


This is the crux of one of my major issues with your argument. To say Warmahordes is less 'text-heavy' is so incredibly misleading. With 40k, you have to worry about only a few UNIVERSAL special rules during the course of a game. With Warmahordes, you have to be concerned with not only the special rules for every unit you control, but also your opponents. There is a lot of information on those cards. A whole lot.



PP games may be nearest to 40k in reguards to being strategicaly heavy.
But PP write thier rules sets specificaly for compatative play, and are quite honest about the limitations of thier game systems.
And GW writes theirs for more casual play. Why is this a bad thing? Further, there is an inherent flaw in the Warmahordes game system, otherwise they wouldn't allow every player to bring two army lists. Because of the R-P-S nature of it, if you didn't have two lists, you could simply run into a list that you'd have a near impossible time beating.

For me, Warmahordes has the highest threshold for me for acceptable book keeping. It is far more than in 40k. Neither is bad, but again, it's a matter of taste.



So I would be very appeciative if you could clarify what is 'so wrong it makes you brain hurt'?

You tend to use circular logic, but honestly I have trouble getting through your posts because of mangled mess of English you present. I wholly realize this is probably because you are not a native English speaker, and I envy and respect the fact that you're bilinguall; it doesn't make it any less maddening to read :)

[mikethefish]

I just wish they would leave them there and not come out to harass 40K players...

That might happen when the reverse is true and 40k folks leave off doing the same thing in the PP articles that appear on BoLS.

[Denzark]

That might happen when the reverse is true and 40k folks leave off doing the same thing in the PP articles that appear on BoLS.

I don't read the PP articles. However people who tread both side of the line have told me that it is a far rarer occurence for 40K players to be crayoning on PP articles.

[Dyrnwyn]

No matter what you say or how much time you spend explaining how reality actually works you will not alter his opinion. He is...wait for it...a fanboy.
Far from it. I've found Relasine's posts to be largely devoid of fanboyism. He doesn't make the claim that PP is better in all respects. He mentioned one of the reasons that GW gets so much negative attention is that they do a number of things to garner that negative attention. PP, in contrast, does less that inspires wrath among its player base. Not that one company is objectively better than the other, but part of the reason for the continual butting of heads.


Some (and in my experience most) PP players have there heads stuck-up there arse's (Fact!)
Honestly, now. This smacks more of fanboyism than anything Relasine posted.


I don't read the PP articles. However people who tread both side of the line have told me that it is a far rarer occurence for 40K players to be crayoning on PP articles.
Large target, I'm afraid. GW is still the monolith towering over the market and that makes it an easy target.

I always felt that fanboyism is about justifying the investment you made to yourself. You invest in a game system, be it wargaming or console gaming, or even PC gaming - it's financial at first, and then after a while investing time and effort, it becomes emotional. People look at what other systems offer, and theirs doesn't, and start to get a 'grass is greener' vibe. They present arguments to themselves about why their system is best, and thus why any shortfalls they have to experience are simply a consequence of having the best. If for some reason the fanboy switches 'teams', they're likely to be vitriolic regarding their original system because they regard the time, money, effort, and emotional investments they made in their original system as wasted. This is more common in mono-system or mono-company gamers who have limited funds. The most jovial and un-fanboy like gamers I've met are old guys who have an army for EVERYTHING, and regard all of their investments as worthwhile.

As far as the GW v. PP thing goes - I agree with most of Relasine's posts. GW is a big company, it's been around for a while, and has made a number of mistakes that angered it's fanbase. PP's smaller, has had less time to make mistakes, and tried to keep itself from making the same mistakes GW made. They're currently benefiting from being smaller, younger, and seeing what to do and what not to do in following GW's footsteps. Not to to say PP is a better company - but that for some, the perception is that it's better, because it's actively avoided old mistakes, and it hasn't been around long enough to commit more than a few brand new ones (supply issues!). I'm sure if we give PP another 10-15 years, there will be more player resentment, and more issues that crop up.

At least that's my view on the issue.

[Kovnik Obama]

Why don't you address the meat of my post instead of having a hissy fit about me saying you would be a halfwitted dolt if you can't grasp the facts. I spelled out exactly why defending and understanding the rationale are different, if you can't grasp that then you would be a halfwitted dolt who lacks subtlety, I did not say you were.

Though it is quite clear you do seem to lack an appreciation for nuance

Actually, he is more right than wrong. There's even an adage that goes, ''understanding is forgiving'', or something along those lines. Basically, if you say you understand the rationale, than you state that it is a valid argumentative point, in the sense that you are finding a logical implication which can then serve as a defensible point in favour of the argument. Or...

Understanding argument -> imply logical structure to said argument -> imply logical validity to the argument.

basically, if you say


GW had a reason to increase costs when switching to a new, cheaper materiaI

Than you say that they were right. ''Reason'' implies validity.

[wittdooley]

I always felt that fanboyism is about justifying the investment you made to yourself. You invest in a game system, be it wargaming or console gaming, or even PC gaming - it's financial at first, and then after a while investing time and effort, it becomes emotional. People look at what other systems offer, and theirs doesn't, and start to get a 'grass is greener' vibe. They present arguments to themselves about why their system is best, and thus why any shortfalls they have to experience are simply a consequence of having the best. If for some reason the fanboy switches 'teams', they're likely to be vitriolic regarding their original system because they regard the time, money, effort, and emotional investments they made in their original system as wasted. This is more common in mono-system or mono-company gamers who have limited funds. The most jovial and un-fanboy like gamers I've met are old guys who have an army for EVERYTHING, and regard all of their investments as worthwhile.



Yay. Someone got the comparison I made with wargaming and video games. Shew...

[eldargal]

No. GW had a commercial reason to increase prices, but they could easily have let the savings pay for the cost of switching to resin and earn themselves a bit of respect from the playerbase. They chose not to, I understand why but I still feel it was the wrong decision.
Your statement that understanding a different viewpoint validates it is utterly absurd. It is quite possible to understand a decision you disagree with without validating it. To argue otherwise is to imply that in any given situation one side is objectively wrong which is grossly simplistic and fails to take into account the potential complexities of a situation.


Actually, he is more right than wrong. There's even an adage that goes, ''understanding is forgiving'', or something along those lines. Basically, if you say you understand the rationale, than you state that it is a valid argumentative point, in the sense that you are finding a logical implication which can then serve as a defensible point in favour of the argument. Or...

Understanding argument -> imply logical structure to said argument -> imply logical validity to the argument.

basically, if you say



Than you say that they were right. ''Reason'' implies validity.

[Mauglum.]

Hi wittdooley.
Thankyou for you reply.
I apologise for my poor writing skills.(I am an native english speaker, but I do suffer from cognative dispraxcia.:o)

As reguard to game complexity , this is achived using a mix of strategy and tactics.

Gamers pick the game that appeals to them the most, on the strategy-tactical loading scale.

If we use a slot racing game as an analagy.

If we view the track as the tactical interction, as the amount of track types ,corner types and thier sequencing required the players to make 'in race decisions'.

And we class the amount of cars, seperate types of adjustments we can put on the cars , tyres- , spoiler- wing set ups, etc.As the strategic elements.(The stuff the players sort out before they start to race.)

Then the complexity of the game play is made up of a ratio between the amount of track and the amount of cars/ car component options.

A racing game with ONE track (starting oval,)track has limited replay value.Adding more cars -car components adds a little variety , and a little more gameplay complexity.

However, a few more sections of track can greatly increase the variation in the track layouts.

And thefore greater game play complexity is easier to achive with expanding tactical options, (track).

I view the level of tactical interaction as the 'meat and potatoes' of the game .The strategic overlay then makes up the balance.
Tactical complexity is generated by the game mechanics and resolution methods.
Strategic complexity is generated by seperate element definition.

Tactical and strategic elements are both equaly important.
And games vary greatly on how they load thier rules.

However , GW plc appears to overload on the strategic factors in 40k , simply to support short term marketing.

There is absolutly NOTHING wrong with the gameplay of 40k.Just the way the rules are written exclusivley.

If the rules were written inclusivley , focusing on the gameplay , they would be alot less complicated, and allow us to view the tactical -strategic balance more clearly.

And the limitations of the rule set would also be more obvious.I belive alot of folks make a massive investment in 40k.And then feel they have to try to justify thier level of investment.

I am not that heavily invested in any particular game.(We proxy alot at our games club...:D)

TTFN

[Kovnik Obama]

o. GW had a commercial reason to increase prices, but they could easily have let the savings pay for the cost of switching to resin and earn themselves a bit of respect from the playerbase. They chose not to, I understand why but I still feel it was the wrong decision. QUOTE]

Then you DON'T think they had a reason. You think they had an escuse. An argumentative statement is necessarily valid toward an objective end (logical implication). Otherwise, it's a sophism, or more modernly, an excuse.

[QUOTE]Your statement that understanding a different viewpoint validates it is utterly absurd. It is quite possible to understand a decision you disagree with without validating it. To argue otherwise is to imply that in any given situation one side is objectively wrong which is grossly simplistic and fails to take into account the potential complexities of a situation.[

No. It's impossible to understand an argument without giving it a high level of validity, exactly because any given situation has an objective truth (logical validity) that can be accepted by any reasonnable being. Of course, the simpler the argument the most apparent that objective value will be apparent.

[Gotthammer]

Finecast cost money to impliment through new moulds, trainging, packaging etc. GW theoretically had two options here - eat the cost on their end and wait for the long term savings on metal to pay it off, or raise prices now to cover the investment in a much more immediate way.

I understand the reasoning behind GW's descision to go for a quick return on the investment, it may even have been crunched by accountants as the more fiscally stable in which case GW would be obliged to their shareholders to do it. I don't agree with it.

Another example: Today at work a customer wanted me to drive to her house to bring a replacement for a faulty product. I couldn't as it's not a service the store provides. She thought it was unfair that she'd have to come back to the store to replace this item, as it was late at night, cold and raining, and told me I was being unfair to her. I understand her frustration and annoyance that she has to make the return trip to fix somthign that isn't her fault. I didn't agree with her expressing her anger at me as there was nothing I could have done to prevent it or fix it beforehand.

Thrid one: I don't like surrealist art. I understand why people find the concepts interesting, but I don't. Similarly, I like arguing about stupid stuff on teh internets, but I can fully understand that some people can find better ways to spend their time.

There is not always a single objective truth to some things that can be labelled as right or wrong. And someones viewpoint can be valid, even if I disagree with it.
Should I meet a person who was raised without ever meeting race/creed/lifestyle/subculture X in person, but only ever hearing tales about them from whoever, I can understand and see that in such an upbringing they would have misconceptions, expectations or predjudices. I won't necessarily agree with their views, but I can see that for that person with their mindset what causes their line of thinking and that it is, for them, valid.

[wittdooley]

I wish we had a thumbs system on the forums, because I'd totally thumb your post.

Ack..... I still gotta figure out what I'm writing for this week's Friday Freewrite. I have an article brewing that has nothing to do with Wargaming. Would anyone read it, or should I stick with something hobby related?

Bear in mind, the article that I've got drafted has plenty of geek-cred.

@Maug -- Appreciate the response, and I 100% agree that tactics make up the "meat and potatoes" of the game. I still think that the replayability of a game is dependent on how much meat and potatoes one can eat in a sitting. :) Sometimes I just need me some beer and pretzels :)

[mikethefish]

I don't read the PP articles. However people who tread both side of the line have told me that it is a far rarer occurence for 40K players to be crayoning on PP articles.

No offense to your friends, but they have been misrepresenting the situation. Being a fan of both systems - though especially PP - I read every Warmachine article on BoLS. I literally cannot remember an article more than 2 days old that didn't feature GW guys harassing PP games or players in some way. It varies from as little as one GW fanboy, to a whole legion, but the presence is definitely there. Ever since BoLS has started running WM articles (and I was there near the start - indeed, I found this site because of the PP articles), GW fans have been at it with a vengeance.

It's very tiresome, and no offense, but I feel pretty much zero sympathy for any harassment that has been going on in the GW areas. I agree that it should not happen on either side, but like I said - hard time feeling much in the way of sympathy.

[Denzark]

Have they Mr fish? Well as much as anyone on tinterwebz is my friend, they can remember said threads otherwise they wouldn't have said it - I wouldn't have quoted them if i thought they were often online as duty dickhead.

And remember I said it was rarer - meaning happens less. As opposed to never - I am sure it does.

And I have never seen A GW/40K player 'evangelize' about their system trying to convert PP players - probably because I don't recall ever hearing of anyone going to Warmahordes as their first system.

[wittdooley]

It's all reciprocal. There's little we're going to be able to do to change it.

[Kovnik Obama]

There is not always a single objective truth to some things that can be labelled as right or wrong. And someones viewpoint can be valid, even if I disagree with it.
Should I meet a person who was raised without ever meeting race/creed/lifestyle/subculture X in person, but only ever hearing tales about them from whoever, I can understand and see that in such an upbringing they would have misconceptions, expectations or predjudices. I won't necessarily agree with their views, but I can see that for that person with their mindset what causes their line of thinking and that it is, for them, valid.

Yes there is. Look up the definition of ''fact'' and ''truth'' in any non-deflationist epistemology book. And stating that you can understand the invalidity of a behaviour, or statement, or anything, only means that you understand why the argument isn't understandable. It's a case of natural langage conventions reversing the meta-language normal applications through grammatical transformations (similar situations arise when someone understand the sentence ''I lie'' as being true). I would recommend Chomski ''language and thought'' on the subject, second chapter, ''Present''.

[Denzark]

It's all reciprocal. There's little we're going to be able to do to change it.

Actually I think you can mitigate a little bit. When BoLS started to include fantasy and then shock horror, other systems, I chuntered at length about some feature by which the front page did not mix articles across systems, ie BoLS.net takes you there to front page, and you have to click to go to BoLS/40K or BoLS/Warmahordes etc.

I think this subtle delineation (In the same way you get in the lounge) would assist - simply because you would have to click twice as opposed to being able to 'tab' open articles from the same page.

I don't even lurk in the warmahordes area of the lounge let alone actively seek to go there to troll - If BoLS did a split on the front page trolls could be picked up and ignored earlier.

Some harsher modding could also stop internecine slagging.

When will it end? As stated so many times, if PP ever got big enough to challenge GW, thats when they get the suits in, whose duties are to the shareholders not the geeks at ground level.

Catch 40,000 including Primarch Primarch anyone?

[Kovnik Obama]

It's all reciprocal. There's little we're going to be able to do to change it.

Hey, at least VT2 doesn't post here, that's one thing to be proud of. :)

[Lockark]

Let's be fair; there's a few of those in every corner of every hobby. :)

@Realasine -- You really have to look at the simple economics of it all, as that's clearly what GW has been doing for the last 10 years. Marines make more money than any other faction in 40k, and thus they get the starlet's attention. The same could be said for Orcs & Goblins in WHFB. There's a reason those two factions have the breadth of kits that they do.

They have to take those numbers into account when they make their production plans for Xenos races. That's why some of the less played Xenos races take so long to get updated. I have absolutely no hard stats on this, but I'd wager Tau and Necrons are the least played of the factions. Is part of this due to their out-of-date kits and codecies? Absolutely. But GW has people making research based decisions on whether or not it would be more profitable to revamp the Tau line, or release a Plastic IG Thunderbolt. The bigger $$ almost always wins, particularly in a publicly traded company. I'm not saying it's right, or fair, but it's how it works. Bigger revenue streams get more attention.

In my personal experience the Tau are the race that attracts the most people who would not normally be interested in playing 40k. The problem arises that they will not keep collecting Tau, or even 40k in general.

[eldargal]

Fact: It was going to cost GW an awful lot of money to retool its metal moulds for the resin casting process.

Fact: They could raise prices to cover it, minimising the immediate cost to the company.

Fact: They could let the savings in material costs pay for it over time, maximising the immediate cost but getting good PR.

They chose the first option, it works for them, it makes sense but it doesn't mean it was the right choice in my opinion.

You see what I'm getting at? The fact (ha) is 'truth' in an objective sense seldom exists, to believe otherwise is absurdly simplistic and naive. To any given situation there can be many different responses, all equally valid, their 'truth' varying depending on the subjective views of those involved but all bases on the same fact or facts. This assumes an ideal situation where one is in possession of all the facts, and as only GW knows the full details of their manufacturing and commercial capacities, we certainly are not.

Which brings us neatly back to the whole point of this, namely tha most criticism of GW products (or PP products) are based on subjective tastes not any kind of objective data.


Yes there is. Look up the definition of ''fact'' and ''truth'' in any non-deflationist epistemology book. And stating that you can understand the invalidity of a behaviour, or statement, or anything, only means that you understand why the argument isn't understandable. It's a case of natural langage conventions reversing the meta-language normal applications through grammatical transformations (similar situations arise when someone understand the sentence ''I lie'' as being true). I would recommend Chomski ''language and thought'' on the subject, second chapter, ''Present''.

[wittdooley]

Here's a Friday Freewrite a bit early. Spurned from both seeing the new Harry Potter movie and a discussion at work.

Harry Potter & the Cultural Phenomenon (http://queencityguard.com/index.php/2011/07/21/friday-freewrite-harry-potter-the-cultural-phenomenon/)

Figured I'd post the fact that it's now published up here as well.

Enjoy, or don't :)

[mikethefish]

Have they Mr fish? Well as much as anyone on tinterwebz is my friend, they can remember said threads otherwise they wouldn't have said it - I wouldn't have quoted them if i thought they were often online as duty dickhead.

And remember I said it was rarer - meaning happens less. As opposed to never - I am sure it does.

And I have never seen A GW/40K player 'evangelize' about their system trying to convert PP players - probably because I don't recall ever hearing of anyone going to Warmahordes as their first system.

Not saying they are lying, just saying that sometimes folks' perceptions can be skewed. Also, we may be talking about two different things. Are you perhaps referring to the PP and GW sections in the BoLS lounge? If so, then yeah, those folks are probably right. I (and others) rarely, if ever, go to the WM section of the lounge, since the PP corporate forums are so good. Not much incentive. So yeah, there IS probably not a lot of GW people going to the PP lounge and harassing folks, simply because there is not many people there to harass.

No what I was specifically referring to was the PP articles that appear on the front page of this blog site. It's those that are usually hit by GW folks harassing the PP articles. And if you are unaware of GW folks evangelizing about their own system, then you probably aren't paying enough attention - totally understandable, since you aren't interested in the game and don't read the articles. But take my word for it, tt's not that uncommon for GW folks to tout the advantages of playing 40k.

Look, when PP articles started to appear on BoLS, the GW community had an opportunity to make us feel welcome. They could have accepted the change with grace, but to be frank - they blew it. PP also behaved badly - not trying to excuse that at all. It just makes me frustrated to hear GW folks moan about how they are persecuted by PP players, when the reverse is exactly the same.

[wittdooley]

So you're using the Disqus forum on the main page as your point of reference?

Sheesh, that's your problem. That thing is like a freaking underground Troll Cavern on every level.

[mikethefish]

As a PP player, I kind of have little choice. Like I said, the PP corporate forums are so good that there's no reason to post in the PP lounge here. So if I want to discuss any of the PP articles, it's necessary to use the Disqus area as that's where the only real conversation about them occurs.

It vaguely reminds me a lot of the original GW corporate forums before they put the kibosh on them. Good stuff IS in there (as a matter of fact, it's MOSTLY good stuff on the PP articles), you just have to wade through a lot of the GW fans' anti-PP trash to find it.

[Denzark]

Not to call you out but can you link to an exclusive Warmahorde PP thread where an exclusively GW or ex PP no GW player crayoned on it?