Is it just me or is Warhammer 40K boring?
Gerald P. Illies
Please forgive me for putting this in the historical newsgroup but if I
had placed it is the fantasy newsgroups I would probably start receiving
death threats. The fact of the matter is, I spend a large sum of money
purchasing EXPENSIVE games workshop minis, and spent a large sum of time
carefully painting the neat(I will admit that they look cool) minis. Then I
was excited to play, and finally found a place in which to test my tactical
skills. Much to my horror, I found the game system to be extremely boring.
I am a long time historical gamer so I have multitudes of good rules systems
to compare it to, and I would have to say Warhammer 40K ranks low on the
scale.
Thats not all. When we game historical campaigns we always have history
to talk about, debate about, and joke about, but with 40K all you can talk
about is, this weapons stats and that units skills, or all the cool weapons
you could have if you decided to sell your left nut(please excuse my
profanity) to get the money to purchase them. I have half a mind to just
sell off my 40K stuff and chalk it up as lost time. Or is there still hope
for my ambitions!?
Gerald P. Illies
www.minis-market.com
warbeads
Keep the minis, find a set of appropriate rules (SF and/or Fantasy) that
you like and 'convert' your mini's to those rules.
Best of both worlds. Er, at least from a guy who has never knowingly
(it's a long story) bought GW minis.... or their rules...
Gracias.
--
Glenn
North American Skirmishes (MOTW) prior to 1700's.
French Wars of Religion (DBR) interest.
SF (StarGuard, Dirtside 2) and Fantasy (Dwarf) gamer also.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tim MacPherson
The Brawl",meaning that you have a large group of minis on either side of a
rather small regulation-sized table, racing across the table to meet in HTH
combat. He who rolls the most dice best, wins. Yawn!
IMO, the 2nd edition was a better game...it still had its problems...that
could have been fixed with the current edition...but they basically
redesigned the game. The new edition is rather bland ...it lacks all the
funky weaponry,psychics, and gadgets of the previous edition.
40K used to be one of my favorite games... but not anymore. I have dumped
all my 40K and invested in Ancients.
--
Tim MacPherson
Kelowna BC
CANADA
ti...@home.com
"Gerald P. Illies" <tri...@paulbunyan.net> wrote in message
news:FRQV5.180$Ce2....@news7.onvoy.net...
Brian Langham
your right. it is.
now for the free advice, keep the mini's, pick up a set of the rules
"shockforce" here: http://www.demonblade.com/ for 17.95 for the second
edition.
and convert your 40K figures into shock force stats usint the build system
in the book.
if you are interested i'll even send you the cheat sheat i made up, and my
conversions of 40K stuff.
i am in no way affiliated with the game or company, i just think it is a
good system.
good luck,
brian
pulgao
<tri...@paulbunyan.net> wrote:
>
> Please forgive me for putting this in the historical newsgroup but if I
>had placed it is the fantasy newsgroups I would probably start receiving
>death threats. The fact of the matter is, I spend a large sum of money
>purchasing EXPENSIVE games workshop minis, and spent a large sum of time
>carefully painting the neat(I will admit that they look cool) minis. Then I
>was excited to play, and finally found a place in which to test my tactical
>skills. Much to my horror, I found the game system to be extremely boring.
>I am a long time historical gamer so I have multitudes of good rules systems
>to compare it to, and I would have to say Warhammer 40K ranks low on the
>scale.
This won't help you in your present case (and will probably get *me*
branded a heretic in this ng), but here's something for future
reference. Whenever I want to try a new set of rules, *before* I buy
figures, rebase, paint, etc etc etc, I always give the rules a few
play-throughs using flat cardboard cutouts instead of minis. If the
game sucks, I don't bother with the rest of it and I've save myself a
ton of wasted effort.
-- Steve Lopez
"Chess is ruthless: you've got to be prepared to kill people." - Nigel Short
The Chess Kamikaze Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/ludekdudek/
The Chess Kamikaze Club: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/chesskamikazes
Chucker
behooves me to answer this. (Clears throat dramatically)
The main draw of the GW line is, really, the amazingly detailed, beautiful
minis. The rules are written for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of selling miniatures. Not
to create in-depth, dramatic, challenging games, but TO SELL MINIATURES. GW
'Rulz Supplaments' are not expansions or clarification like Historical systems,
instead they are catalogs for the new figure lines. (THIS IS A CORPORATE AXIOM)
Chilling point of fact, the Dark Eldar figures were designed, and THEN rules
were written to fit them. (True story) GW is a miniature company. It is NOT a
game company. (I learned that in Glen-Burnie, itself.) (Glen Burnie is HQ for GW
US)
Another point: Several of GW 'hotshot' rules developers DON'T EVEN PLAY
Workshop..... The rules are written to appeal to a younger set of players (Age
12-13, REALLY). And so, the actual strategic, or tactical thought needed in a
game is minimal. Rules differences are the big, technicolor, flash-bang, comic
book 'flavor' revisions you speak of.
GW is priced 200-300% more than other manufacturers, and actually produces
28mm. Next to other 'sci-fi' manufacturers, the GW mini is a hulking, ornate
thing of art, the other, isn't. The two don't really go together. So you're left
with the options of A) Continue buying GW product to 'adapt' to another game
(since GW is now WYSIWYG) it kinda misses the point, and is VERY expensive. or
B) Having greatly mismatched figures on the board, which I find very disturbing,
C) Playing WH40K, which, you classify as 'boring'. (It's akin to a souped-up
RISK!) Also, GW product is priced according to the perceived power/ability of
the unit in one of the proprietary games, and NOT on the actual cost of
manufacture. (Where else can ONE 28mm trooper cost $10 US?!?!)
Where does all this dirty laundry take us?
Unless you have a son or nephew you're keen to get into wargaming, SELL YOUR
STUFF.
GW is the hands-down best at turning youngsters into rabid gamers. Most never
learn about the richness of Historicals, and will stay in the GW fold forever.
But enough (like myself) fall from the tree, to help our side of the hobby stay
'well-stocked'. For newbies, and youngsters GW is perfect.(Workshop vs.
Historical is Like Sgt. Rock compared to the Illiad.) I still love it, but had
to give it up the way an alcoholic stops drinking...(really, ask my
wife...that's what SHE compares it too....LOL) But for an existing, established
Historical gamer I heartily recommend avoiding it altogether, and sticking with
our side of the Hobby.
Historicals offer more range of choices, more depth in story/background, and
best of all.....COMPETING MANUFACTURERS.
(Hands back soap box)
Chucker
"Gerald P. Illies" wrote:
> Please forgive me for putting this in the historical newsgroup but if I
> had placed it is the fantasy newsgroups I would probably start receiving
> death threats. The fact of the matter is, I spend a large sum of money
> purchasing EXPENSIVE games workshop minis, and spent a large sum of time
> carefully painting the neat(I will admit that they look cool) minis. Then I
> was excited to play, and finally found a place in which to test my tactical
> skills. Much to my horror, I found the game system to be extremely boring.
> I am a long time historical gamer so I have multitudes of good rules systems
> to compare it to, and I would have to say Warhammer 40K ranks low on the
> scale.
Rotwang
a lottery than true battle tactics ... I think the WH system has now evolved
into something that will allow just about everybody to win a battle AT LEAST
ONCE, no matter how well or bad they play. If anything the distinctions
between armies have blurred and most figures are capable of taking out most
opposing figures of a same point value.
Given that a lot of GW customers are kids, trying to work complex tactical
concepts into a game would be futile, or maybe GW will realize a few years
down the road that it has a fairly solid base of older customers and start
catering to them as well, instead of going for the jugular of the 9 to14
niche.
But then again, I'm probably being naive and much too nice ... :-)
Mike Hillsgrove
I also dislike the rules. FGU is back, so look at Space Marines. You can also
find Kryomek, which is also better. All of your GDW stuff will work and the
Kryomek and Chronopia stuff is vastly cheaper.
Warhammer 40K, Warmaster, and Warhammer is designed for 13 year olds.
Just to note: I love to listen to these kids argue about correct paint jobs,
realistic battles, and authentic detailing. Kinda reminds me the historical
groups bitterly argueing pewter vs brass buttons on some Napoleonic Regiment, or
if chariots charged formed infantry. They yell and point to cryptic passages in
conflicting suppliments, each totally convinced that THEY have the ultimate
truth.
We don't ever really grow up.
Howard Fielding
of rules, or even that it was solely a matter of luck as to who wins
or loses. In fact, the latest [3rd Edition] set of rules is a pretty
damn good skirmish game. I use it for regular games in the 40K
"universe" and for historical games as well. Historically, our local
group, uses the Warhammer Colonial variant for fighting our colonial
battles. The rules are sufficiently versitile to allow for both small
and large size battles to be fought in a reasonable amount of time. I
am working on plans for using the same basic set for an Operation
Sealion WW2 campaign. There is already a group that has adapted 40K to
WW2 skirmishes so this should be a breeze. I will also be using a
modified version for my Ancients and fantasy games as I can't stand
WFB and its historical clone: Warhammer Ancients.
I'd say that most problems with the game arise from the players
themselves. There are people in our local group whom I will not play
against as they are prime examples of your typical "Cheez player/power
gamer". Choose your opponents well and you will have good games.
Perhaps you should try setting up a campaign in the 40K universe. Or,
as someone else suggested, transplant the rules to a different setting
of your own invention. A campaign would give you something more to
discuss than mere stat lines...
Or "steal" historical scenarios and use 40K opponents in place of the
actual combatants....
Lastly, there are plenty of "historical" games out there that are just
agony to play...Empire, Firefly and Challenger spring to mind
immediately. And lets not even mention the DB-whatsit series of rules!
;-)
Howard Fielding
PS. I'd be happy to buy your figs if you give me a good price! ;-)
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 17:03:33 GMT, "Gerald P. Illies"
Allan Goodall
wrote:
> Thats not all. When we game historical campaigns we always have history
>to talk about, debate about, and joke about, but with 40K all you can talk
>about is, this weapons stats and that units skills, or all the cool weapons
>you could have if you decided to sell your left nut(please excuse my
>profanity) to get the money to purchase them. I have half a mind to just
>sell off my 40K stuff and chalk it up as lost time. Or is there still hope
>for my ambitions!?
Well, first off, the kids that play the game often get right into the
background story. That's why the games have huge chunks of fictional
"history". It's the same sort of interest that gets kids talking about Star
Wars as if it was real.
As for the miniatures, there are a lot of good miniatures sets out there that
can still be used with the miniatures. I highly recommend Stargrunt II. I've
run it at conventions. I've run games using GW figures at conventions! SG2 is
a generic rules set that is quite adaptable. I'm still playtesting a
supplement I've written for using it in the American Civil War. There's also a
set of rules for using it in World War II. The mechancis are slick and easy to
learn.
There are other rules you could use with the figures. Other than that, you
could always sell your figures.
Allan Goodall a...@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto: http://www.vex.net/~agoodall
"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"
Tom Bryant
Hi Gerald,
I sympathize with you. Third edition of 40k does indeed suck eggs (and
considerably worse IMHO). I started with 2nd edition and that had at
least some ability for tactical combat. Third editions has little or
none. If you don't mind adapting those minis to a different ruleset try
either Stargrunt II by Ground Zero Games or Starguard fifth edition by
Reviresco. Andy O'Neil will vouch for the tactical accuracy and quality
of SGII and Starguard is also an excellent set of rules for tactical
ability and it plays extremely easily. Give another try with a different
set of rules. GW's rules get worse with each successive generation.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
"Gerald P. Illies" wrote:
>
> Please forgive me for putting this in the historical newsgroup but if I
> had placed it is the fantasy newsgroups I would probably start receiving
> death threats. The fact of the matter is, I spend a large sum of money
> purchasing EXPENSIVE games workshop minis, and spent a large sum of time
> carefully painting the neat(I will admit that they look cool) minis. Then I
> was excited to play, and finally found a place in which to test my tactical
> skills. Much to my horror, I found the game system to be extremely boring.
> I am a long time historical gamer so I have multitudes of good rules systems
> to compare it to, and I would have to say Warhammer 40K ranks low on the
> scale.
> Thats not all. When we game historical campaigns we always have history
> to talk about, debate about, and joke about, but with 40K all you can talk
> about is, this weapons stats and that units skills, or all the cool weapons
> you could have if you decided to sell your left nut(please excuse my
> profanity) to get the money to purchase them. I have half a mind to just
> sell off my 40K stuff and chalk it up as lost time. Or is there still hope
> for my ambitions!?
>
> Gerald P. Illies
> www.minis-market.com
Rhandolph
out old figures or bought 'new' ones.. that is sci-fi figs from other
companies or second hand GW stuff.. I would not give them my money on
principle even if I could afford to!
I did enjoy the dark pseudo-scientific-medievalism feel of the origional
game, some of which still exists in the newer simplified (some would say
dumbed down rules) and it was the background (with a bit of tinkering) that
brought me back for a few knock abouts.
But it's all quite spoilt by the price of figures and the over reliance on
big, bulky heroes with HUGE guns/axes (and big hats)..
Theres a GW shop in my town and whenever I pass it it seems mostly full of
12-16 year olds.. where do they get the money from to ever build an army?
Even with inflation the pocket money I got would have meant I could only buy
4 - 5 figs a week, even the plastic ones are £5 for 5..
I could go on ranting, but I'm sure others will pick up the thread...
Vincent GERARD
that the winner is the most lucky, the most treacherous guy, the most... the
worst guy! And, in this game, Game Workshop wins!!! (expensive figures; and they
aren't pretty! - and lots of awful things: I should also receive Death threats!)
Bye!
Vinz
Demian Rose
For what it's worth, I find 40K to be an average game...not bad
nor particularly good, but fine for the odd one-off game. So I do
understand how folks would search for something more tactical. In my
experience, the following are worth looking into:
Cry HAVIC
Shockforce
Stargrunt II
Starslayer
Warzone
VOR
(I've never read Starguard)
> If you don't mind adapting those minis to a different ruleset try
> either Stargrunt II by Ground Zero Games or Starguard fifth edition by
> Reviresco.
Also, most of the above have "build your own" point systems
that make converting most any figure fairly straightforward. They have
varying degrees of play balance, in my opinion, but it's worth deciding
for yourself which system's point system is best/easiest for you. Off the
top of my head:
VOR (www.fasa.com)
Starslayer (http://mj12.chrispy.net) - this site has an online troop
builder and downloadable demo rules [I wrote 'em, so obviously
think they're the best of the bunch :-)]
Shockforce (www.demonblade.com)
Cry HAVIC (www.talongames.com)
Good Luck,
Demian
MSiggins
Would it not have been a good idea to try the system before you built armies
for it?!
Mike
Justin Taylor
Justin Taylor
Rhandolph
"MSiggins" <msig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001202130416...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
Well of course it would be wise to try the game first, unless
you had just been impressed by the figures and bought a few..
Personnally when I get into a new era I often start building an
army first, but then you usually have several sets of rules to choose from,
not so WH40k though as suggested why not use the figs.. even the
background.. and use different rules.
..Which brings me on to another thing that annoys me about GW
the rule that you can't use non-sanctioned GW miniatures if you want to play
in a club or official convention game.. good business sense yes, but often
bad for the player.. particularly if you've just seen some lovely figures
that would make great Imperial guard and at only 50 pence each.. or an
airfix kit that could be converted into a tank..
Another annoying but good-business rule to exploit the kids is that
a figure must carry the exact weapon he is meant to represet.. okay if
someone announces that three of their Goblins with muskets are actually
carrying Las cannons it would be unfair and unrealistic... but for practical
purposes if you have a squad of space marines with a heavy weapons guy you
don't want to spend even more dosh on having a figure to represent every
potential support/heavy weapon option from the army list.. a bit of
imagination and common sense, and a quick word 'Oh this chap here has a
plasma gun not a melta gun..' will suffice.
End of Rant Part #2
Allan Goodall
>Would it not have been a good idea to try the system before you built armies
>for it?!
I started with the original Rogue Trader version and never went past it.
It had some rather obvious system problems. It had a move phase followed by a
fire phase. This "move/fire" order hadn't been used in a "modern" tactical
game in years. Another problem was that while you had a negative modifier for
firing at a moving target, there was no negative modifier for firing in the
same turn you moved. There was no opportunity fire rule, something that had
been an issue with tactical games since the discovery of the "Panzerbush
syndrome" in the early 70s with the "Panzerblitz" board game.
To fix these short comings I used a slightly modified version of the Squad
Leader turn sequence. This worked surprisingly well. I added an opportunity
fire rule. GW later introduced an "overwatch" rule as an option in an issue of
White Dwarf. It was obvious others were calling for this.
I found the game was fun, especially if treated as a skirmish game of 20 to 40
figures a side. I stopped playing, though, when I started falling behind in
the arms race. New figures and rules were making older figures obsolete. They
were also making the game "bigger". The more powerful figures made for more
figures on the table, which bogged it down.
When I saw 2nd edition, I stopped playing.
I still have two copies of Rogue Trader (if you were there at the time, you'd
remember the horrible binding GW used; I complained and then sent me a
replacement). I also have the two Realms of Chaos books and the Siege book,
and a couple of others. I still think I should pull it out and try playing it
again, to see if it is as much fun as I remember... with each side having a
few squads of mostly just infantry!
Mike Hillsgrove
http://www.brookhursthobbies.com/ For many other suggestions. Look for rules Medieval
Society of Ancients Good review of rules
Rules Sets from Emperor’s Press (Snurfed from their downloaded Catalog)
Warfare in the Age of Discovery
Miniature Rules for the Renaissance by the same team that wrote Warfare
In the Age of Reason $22.50
Revenge
our rules for medieval warfare $22.50
Normans
a scenario book for the above $10.00
Andy O'Neill
<<>>
>I have half a mind to just
>sell off my 40K stuff and chalk it up as lost time. Or is there still hope
>for my ambitions!?
Depends if you like the miniatures and can afford more or know people
who can afford more and like em....
Although, in order to justify the chain saws you'd maybe have to invent
energy shields or give the small arms the rather low effectiveness they
have in 40k.
I've not played 40k much, but it did strike me as a pretty poor system
when I played it.
I use Stargrunt 2 for sci fi and moderns, this produces effects which
match my understanding of "realistic" whilst being quick play.
The opposed rolls, alternate activations... etc... mechanics are
particularly involving.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Liverpool Wargames Association
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/LWA.htm
Rotwang
you'd
> remember the horrible binding GW used; I complained and then sent me a
> replacement). I also have the two Realms of Chaos books and the Siege
book,
> and a couple of others. I still think I should pull it out and try playing
it
> again, to see if it is as much fun as I remember... with each side having
a
> few squads of mostly just infantry!
I had mine (and some other rulebooks) glued by a bookbinder, really tough
now !!!
I guess that games like Warhammer Ancient Battles and Warhammer Panzer
Battles show that the WH system kinda works, the basics are dated and I
think that almost everyone will agree that the rules are too simple and a
bit too random for most people's tastes.
So the answer, afaik is yes, WH40k is boring, but not really bad.
The rest like GW company policy, figures, prices etc ... are what really
kill GW products ...
Howard Fielding
wrote:
>
>
> Hi Gerald,
>
> I sympathize with you. Third edition of 40k does indeed suck eggs (and
>considerably worse IMHO). I started with 2nd edition and that had at
>least some ability for tactical combat. Third editions has little or
>none.
Actually, I think you've got it backwards. The new 40K is a fairly
quick moving squad level game. The previous edition, from what I
understand, was just one big cheez-fest with Characters ruling the
battlefield.
Howard
Gerald P. Illies
Dear Justin,
You wouldn't happen to be interested in buying some 40K minis(painted)
would you?
GPI
Justin Taylor wrote in message <90bj9c$ibc$2...@gxsn.com>...
Quid Veritas
Warhammer. Personally paying that kind of money for plastic figs would
brand one as having a screw loose IMHO. So thanks.
Ian would like to play a Medieval / Fantasy low level (skirmish or small
unit) game. Your suggestions would be appreciated.
Tony. Yang
There are going to be a number of reccomendations given (DBA, DBM,
WAB, Tactica, Armati.... thr list goes on) The one piece of advise
I'll give is this. Play a rules set that other gamers in your area
will play. The best rule set ever created in the history of the
universe is no good if there aren't any opponents (unless you like to
play solitare)
Tom Bryant
The cheese is still there (check out Dark Eldar) and the tactical
capacity has been gravely limited. In second edition you could assign
different weapons in such a way that standard infantry squad could have
different weapons and INDEPENDENTLY TARGET THEM. Basically you could
make a std infantry squad with a heavy or support weapon for
anti-tank/vehicle work or cracking tougher nuts on the battlefields. In
third edition the tactical ability of the squad is destroyed as the
squad now has to fire on the SAME TARGET. This is fine when infantry is
fighting infantry, but it stinks if you have to use that unit to stop a
tank or dreadnought. At least under second edition you had the ability
to do what REAL squads do, have a support weapon to take on the tougher
targets and the ability to use those weapons independently from the rest
of the squad if necessary.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
Howard Fielding
wrote:
>
> The cheese is still there (check out Dark Eldar) and the tactical
>capacity has been gravely limited. In second edition you could assign
>different weapons in such a way that standard infantry squad could have
>different weapons and INDEPENDENTLY TARGET THEM. Basically you could
>make a std infantry squad with a heavy or support weapon for
>anti-tank/vehicle work or cracking tougher nuts on the battlefields. In
>third edition the tactical ability of the squad is destroyed as the
>squad now has to fire on the SAME TARGET. This is fine when infantry is
>fighting infantry, but it stinks if you have to use that unit to stop a
>tank or dreadnought. At least under second edition you had the ability
>to do what REAL squads do, have a support weapon to take on the tougher
>targets and the ability to use those weapons independently from the rest
>of the squad if necessary.
>
I think the reason for this is that GW has turned 40K into a squad
level game rather than a man-to-man level game. The premise is, IMO,
that the squad fires with the most effect when it is acting under the
direction of it's squad leader. This is represented in the game by the
fire system provided. That is not to say thatindividuals in a squad
are *not* firing off at other targets, merely that the fire is
ineffective.
The same sort of principles are used throughout the rules. Go back and
"revisit" 40K 3rd edition from this prospective and I think you will
see that they are actually a pretty elegant set of rules. The various
Army Codexes *do* add elements of "cheez" back into the game, but the
option is always there to not use the more excessive features.
Howard
Andy O'Neill
<quidv...@netscape.net> writes
>Ian would like to play a Medieval / Fantasy low level (skirmish or small
>unit) game. Your suggestions would be appreciated.
Well....
I should mention (my own) Swish, which is influenced in part by Fantasy
Warriors.
I stopped playing using these rules a few years back as there are far
more people playing warhammer. FB6 is worth a look, but perhaps rather
expensive.
I've read the intro pamphlet for Crucible, which explains how the basic
rules work. Crucible has some interesting ideas, mechanics don't seem
particularly innovative.
A while back, I bought Mordheim. This is far too simplistic for what I
want out a skirmish game. No Opportunity fire.....
I then chucked together a set of rules for Darkest Africa ( What ho
carruthers, on my web page ).
These are for missile orientated skirmishes with irregulars on at least
one side and command control therefore revolving around "characters".
I will be tweaking these somewhat for a mordheim-style game which will
have more emphasis on close combat.
I suspect these could be written clearer, but take a look and see if you
find the some of the mechanics interesting.
Ty Beard
They're fantasy colonial rules but we've used them for straight fantasy as
well.
--Ty Beard
"Quid Veritas" <quidv...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3A29AE37...@netscape.net...
Quid Veritas
having not played them, this isn't surprising -- will give em a whirl
before I trouble you further.
mjc
Jon Todd
1) No reaction fire rules (although this may have been addressed in a newer
version ... I'm going back to 1st edition rules). e.g. A unit with a
MegaDeathPlasma cannon will sit idly by as a unit crosses its field of fire.
2) The army lists tend to increase in power/interest over time, so that the
latest "Death Ninja Eldar from Craftworld Zulu" will mince a 2 month old
Space Wolves army.
Point 2 can be addressed to nearly everyone of GW's games IMHO.
jon
"Gerald P. Illies" <tri...@paulbunyan.net> wrote in message
news:FRQV5.180$Ce2....@news7.onvoy.net...
>
> Please forgive me for putting this in the historical newsgroup but if
I
> had placed it is the fantasy newsgroups I would probably start receiving
> death threats. The fact of the matter is, I spend a large sum of money
> purchasing EXPENSIVE games workshop minis, and spent a large sum of time
> carefully painting the neat(I will admit that they look cool) minis. Then
I
> was excited to play, and finally found a place in which to test my
tactical
> skills. Much to my horror, I found the game system to be extremely
boring.
> I am a long time historical gamer so I have multitudes of good rules
systems
> to compare it to, and I would have to say Warhammer 40K ranks low on the
> scale.
> Thats not all. When we game historical campaigns we always have
history
> to talk about, debate about, and joke about, but with 40K all you can talk
> about is, this weapons stats and that units skills, or all the cool
weapons
> you could have if you decided to sell your left nut(please excuse my
> profanity) to get the money to purchase them. I have half a mind to just
> sell off my 40K stuff and chalk it up as lost time. Or is there still
hope
> for my ambitions!?
>
> Gerald P. Illies
> www.minis-market.com
>
>
B. Charles Reynolds
> Ian would like to play a Medieval / Fantasy low level (skirmish or small
> unit) game. Your suggestions would be appreciated.
Neither of them are skirmish level, but if he's ever seen a DBA/DBM
game and is interested in that, give him a look at HOTT or Fantasy
Rules!
Jimi
> the rule that you can't use non-sanctioned GW miniatures if you want to
play
> in a club or official convention game..
GW tournaments stop non-GW models - its their right as the tournament
organisers.
Jimi
Tim Marshall
It's certainly any game master's right to do anything:
Jimi wrote:
>
> GW tournaments stop non-GW models - its their right as the tournament
> organisers.
But why would this matter? Other than for market approach... If the
models are the same scale, what's the problem? I don't understand that.
One of the ideas of a miniatures game, fantasy or otherwise, is visual
appeal.
I'm plastic figure user, primarily WWII. My web site has loads of pics
of our wargames. Maybe not the most gripping shots or the best painted
minis, but most of them don't look too bad. And that's with a mixture
of companies that provide minis and buildings: Airfix, Matchbox, Revell,
Fujimi, Hasegawa, PST, CTIO, Smer, Premo, Rocco, Edai, ESCI, Imex,
Atlas, Vero and possibly more if I thought about it hard enough.
I've heard so many bad things about Warhammer here, and this is one of
them. Other than marketing reasons, why only GW stuff allowed?
--
Tim - http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^
Avatar
: I've not played 40k much, but it did strike me as a pretty poor system
: when I played it.
: I use Stargrunt 2 for sci fi and moderns, this produces effects which
: match my understanding of "realistic" whilst being quick play.
: The opposed rolls, alternate activations... etc... mechanics are
: particularly involving.
:
The biggest limitation to GW's systems I have seen is their inability to
use common sense and instead apply excessive amounts of fiddling little
rules into the mix. A unit can't just have high leadership. Instead it
has to have high leadership and some special ability that enables it to
fall back, but not suffer any of the ill effects of falling back as other
units face. Or if a unit is specially trained in jungle combat,instead of
just being about to move more efficiently through jungle terrain (say
treating is normal ground instead of difficult terrain) the not only treat
the terrain as better, but *also* have the ability to move through dense
jungle terrain faster than they could normally move across totally open
eterrain as well. That is one of the things I like about historicals. My
highlanders can still fail on their charge and possibly break, and if they
do it hurts them just as badly as any other unit tht breaks in combat.
The difference is that it just doesn't happen that often...
Needless to say we do still have a lot of fun playing GW games. What we
don't like we change into something we do like. I can't say that I
regularly play any RPG or mini based game completely in OOB format.
Something is always getting changed...
Avatar
Avatar
:
: For what it's worth, I find 40K to be an average game...not bad
: nor particularly good, but fine for the odd one-off game. So I do
: understand how folks would search for something more tactical. In my
: experience, the following are worth looking into:
In my experience, with the opponents I regularly play 40k is quite
tactical game. Of course we are a bunch of die hard war gamers who grew
up on squad leader and panzer blitz so we look at games a bit differently.
The kids, without the tactical sense or point of view, are what make
playing 40k somewhat of a joke. So I just don't bother to play them. Any
younger players we have taken under our wings we have taught to turn away
from the evils of super characters and gimmicks.
I think the closest GW ever really came to putting out a truly decent war
game was with Epic 40k. The epic system *finally* actually played at the
scale it was meant to play at. Gone were the details of every little
weapon that made a single tank roll a dozen dice in combat on its own.
You could much more effectively see the tide of the battle turning and we
seldom saw the single side domination that was evident in ealier
incarnations of the the epic system. Unfortunatly, other players didn't
want a truer sense of scale for the game they wanted 40k, with 40k level
details, for all the minis usually associated with the peic scale...:P
Avatar
Brandu
Hello,
It's not 'really' a skirmish game(but it can be) and
it's not real expensive. You might try looking at
Armies of Arcana by Thane's games.
It's playable in 25mm or 15mm scale(15mm is nice for being
inexpensive) and the Main Rulebook is the last you'll ever
need to buy... All updates, rule add-ons are available for
free from the website. I have played MANY games of this and
I consider it the best Fantasy rules out there.
Additional Idea: Fantasy and Historical mix; You might take
a look at Flintloque/Deadloque. Take Fantasy Races and cross
them with Napoleonics. The English are Orcs, French are Elves,
Germanic states: Dwarves and Ogres, Scotts are Ratmen, Nepolise
are Toads, etc.... It's a very good Skirmish level game (There
is also a big battle game called Slaughterloo)
http://www.alternative-armies.com/
Hope that this helps
Brandu
--
To Quote Socrates: "I Drank WHAT?!?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Secker
<tmar...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> writes
>I've heard so many bad things about Warhammer here, and this is one of
>them. Other than marketing reasons, why only GW stuff allowed?
"it's so everyone can recognise what the miniature represents" or
"properly painted GW miniatures are the only way to show respect to the
other armies around you" but the simple truth is that GW exists to make
money, and the principle way they do that is by selling minis. Limiting
tournament armies to GW models only gives them another advantage over
their competitors when someone is choosing what minis to buy.
--
John Secker
John Secker
>I think the closest GW ever really came to putting out a truly decent war
>game was with Epic 40k. The epic system *finally* actually played at the
>scale it was meant to play at. Gone were the details of every little
>weapon that made a single tank roll a dozen dice in combat on its own.
>You could much more effectively see the tide of the battle turning and we
>seldom saw the single side domination that was evident in ealier
>incarnations of the the epic system. Unfortunatly, other players didn't
>want a truer sense of scale for the game they wanted 40k, with 40k level
>details, for all the minis usually associated with the peic scale...:P
>
Warmaster? - another GW game which has got close to a decent wargame
system, and which will also, therefore, not last.
--
John Secker
Jeff Hancock
when GW already has their own list? Isn't this why we separated the lists 5
years ago?
Allan Goodall
>1) No reaction fire rules (although this may have been addressed in a newer
>version ... I'm going back to 1st edition rules). e.g. A unit with a
>MegaDeathPlasma cannon will sit idly by as a unit crosses its field of fire.
The first edition, Rogue Trader, rules actually included reaction fire in a
White Dwarf article. It was an obvious miss in the rules "as written" though.
Allan Goodall
wrote:
>I've heard so many bad things about Warhammer here, and this is one of
>them. Other than marketing reasons, why only GW stuff allowed?
That IS the only reason.
The stores don't want people playing with figures they couldn't buy in the
store. To be honest, I can understand this. You're not going to find Home
Depot doing home building demonstrations with tools and supplies you can only
buy elsewhere. When it comes to sanctioned tournaments, well, if you pay the
piper you call the tunes.
I don't happen to like it, but that's how they do it.
Mike Hillsgrove
Avatar
:
: I've heard so many bad things about Warhammer here, and this is one of
: them. Other than marketing reasons, why only GW stuff allowed?
Because GW, as a game and mini manufacturing company wants you to buy
*their* products, meaning their minis to support their games. They view
their big tournements as showpieces for their product line and if someone
has a mini that came from another company, I guess they don't want to
competition.
I've found that the easiest way to avoid that kind of issue is to just not
bother to play in GW's big sponsored tournies and events. I've given them
enough money in the past to buy minis from them and don't see the point in
paying them more money just to play games in a space they are providing...
Avatar
John Secker
<mik...@erols.com> writes
>Thats the LOVE Warhammer List. This is the HATE Warhammer List.
>
--
John Secker
Avatar
: True enough, which is probably why Epic didn't last. Have you tried
: Warmaster? - another GW game which has got close to a decent wargame
: system, and which will also, therefore, not last.
I just can't bring myself to buy yet another scale of mini gaming at this
point in time. I've read the warmaster rules and they look pretty
interesting, but I just can't imagine when I would get the time to play
it or where I would store the minis for it! ;)
I've heard some good things about warmaster. What I've heard and what
I've seen in Epic 40k show me that GW does have the ability to put
together a decent product. Would be nice to see them use that ability on
their main lines. To give credit where credit is due, they have been
working, in their more recent WFB and 40k editions, to try and tone down
the super character and psychic/magic dominance that was making both games
somewhat dull to play... in official leagues...Shows that they can
occasionally listen as well.
The most amusing thing about GW to me, right now, is the fact that when I
started playing these games many, many moons ago the big rage was big
boxes of plastic minis to make units from. They slowly phased those out
going predominantly to metals with lousy plastic support for basic troops,
but now the focus has come full circle again and they are once again
releasing boxes of plastic minis to make units from...Its pretty funny
watching that happen...:)
Avatar
Avatar
Distribution:
Jeff Hancock (j.t.h...@home.com) wrote:
: Is it just me or are we discussing Warhammer 40K on the historicals list
: when GW already has their own list? Isn't this why we separated the lists 5
: years ago?
:
Actually the lists were separated so that the historicals posts would no
longer be lost in a multitude of GW gaming posts and that results is
easily scene, even with a single thread about 40k/GW on the list at the
moment...
Avatar
Avatar
: Thats the LOVE Warhammer List. This is the HATE Warhammer List.
Obviously you don't post or read over their much do you?? ;)
Avatar
Geraldine Start
i reccomend totally ditching anything games workshop if youre oldern say 12
its good to get the kiddies into the hobby, and if they ever go to prison
theyll be used to getting fucked in the ass(they over charge for those
miniatures the fantasy ones are the worst any of the brentonnian troops and
empire troops are for sale in the foundrys historical ranges, same
miniatures same sculptors no slotta base)>
>
>
Rotwang
Pan Loaf <pan...@panloaf.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MFg3OtfcaIY7NH...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 13:36:49 -0800, Chucker <chu...@hscis.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Historical is Like Sgt. Rock compared to the Illiad.) I still love it,
but had
> >to give it up the way an alcoholic stops drinking...(really, ask my
> >wife...that's what SHE compares it too....LOL) But for an existing,
established
> >Historical gamer I heartily recommend avoiding it altogether, and
sticking with
> >our side of the Hobby.
> >Historicals offer more range of choices, more depth in story/background,
and
> >best of all.....COMPETING MANUFACTURERS.
>
> As another ex-GW employee I must agree that you have hit the nail
> right on the head with this post.
>
> You've got to admire their marketing but you don't have to play their
> games.
>
> Pan Loaf <pan...@panloaf.fsnet.co.uk>
The GW policy of dropping games after one or two years has poisoned any new
game coming out ... GW created their own vicious circle with people not
wanting to buy potentially very interesting games and flagging sales
resulting in the lines being dropping, once more proving to people that
investing in games other than WHFB and 40K is wasted money.
To be honest, games like Epic, Warmaster, Space Hulk, Gothic, Necromunda
were decent games. They had their weaknesses, but nothing that a few good
house rules couldn't fix anyway. The main problem no matter what direction
the discussion goes, is those [expleteve deleted for your safety] prices
!!!!
In one sense we should be thankful for GW for drawing youngsters into
miniature gaming, because the "GW-alternative cooperative" is ready to
welcome them when GW kicks them out of Paradise once they bypass the target
age and relative sales potential.
Dale Cooper
kyonshi
>>
>> In one sense we should be thankful for GW for drawing youngsters into
>> miniature gaming, because the "GW-alternative cooperative" is ready to
>> welcome them when GW kicks them out of Paradise once they bypass the target
>> age and relative sales potential.
>
>
> whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat???
outre little sculptures to see them nerfed once they are finally painted.