Gah. Sorry 'bout the semi-double post... :-(
***
Speaking of GW's "no foreign miniatures" policy, here's an interesting extract
from a White Dwarf supplement (IIRC it wasn't actually part of the WD, but a
separate folded insert or somesuch) introducing Epic:Armageddon:
"...Che Webster and Brian Aderson, very kindly agreed to play through a small
scenario In order to illustrate how the new Epic rules work. Both Che
and Brian have just started collecting new Epic armies - the models used
for the battle, and which feature in the photographs accompanying this
article, come from their own collections. Note that Che's army includes a
number of (extremely nice) 'scratchbuilt' Gunwagons that he is using instead
of the standard Gunwagon models in the Epic range. [...]"
For GW, that's pretty bold - even *hinting* that scratch-built models
might be OK... 'Course, it helps that E:A is a "Specialist Game" (*) rather
than
one of GW's core games :-/
(*) or at least was. It seems that Specialist Games is currently being
folded into GW proper again :-(
This is an amusing one. Let's not forget they ever famous conversions that
made use of several $50 models or the one or two time where the parts lists
for their conversion or terrain projects included multiple parts which had
been custom cast by the boys in the foundry. I remember reading some of those
articles and thinking, "Oh sure, let me just run down and pick that right up"
with the utmost angry sarcasm.
There are times when I truly wondered if they were at all in touch with their
players or if they had bought into their own hype so much. Some of the
conversions or painting projects, etc were only practical if you were either
independently wealthy or being paid to produce content for a gaming magazine.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
----- Original Message ----
From: Eli Arndt <emu2020@comcast.net>
This is an amusing one. Let's not forget they ever famous conversions that
made use of several $50 models or the one or two time where the parts lists
for their conversion or terrain projects included multiple parts which had
been custom cast by the boys in the foundry. I remember reading some of those
articles and thinking, "Oh sure, let me just run down and pick that right up"
with the utmost angry sarcasm.
Didn't you ever read the old airfix and similar pastic modelling magazines?
Their conversion projects always featured a trip into the bits box for a
harness buckle from another expensive kit. By the time you had finished
converting the coboy into the polish lancer there were othen components from
half a dozen kits that had gone into the mix. If you wanted to do the
conversion you either needed to buy half dozen expensive kits to make on and
have a huge pile of bits or scratch build the difficult bits yourself. It's
never been a GW unique issue. At least the current crop of modelling magazines
restrict themselves to a kit, scratchbuilt parts and the aftermarket etched
brass parts. I find it really funny how the orginal request "what is the
current 40k game like?" has generated a huge storm about people's bad
experiences
10+ years ago with the game that bares little relationship to the
current version.
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 8:47 PM, John Tailby wrote:
> I find it really funny how the orginal request "what is the current
Mine go back almost 20 (gulp!) years. RT came out in 86 / 87 right?
Sheesh. Teh Age is getting to me.
Damo
> At 10:47 AM +1000 7/9/08, John Tailby wrote:
I have squats, 40K AND EPIC. Need I say more?
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 10:47:42AM +1000, John Tailby wrote:
> I find it really funny how the orginal request "what is the current 40k
I think the problem is that at least in the UK there are the Games
Workshop players - who wouldn't be on a list like this because they
don't play anything else - and the people who aren't interested in GW
(maybe they've never played, or they have given up some time ago).
Personally I quite liked Necromunda apart from the "must shoot at closest
target" rule, but I was playing with mates who didn't care in the slightest
about "official" figures and indeed had bought the boxed
sets extra-cheaply because the game was being discontinued. :-)
R
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:47 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> I find it really funny how the orginal request "what is the current
Nonsense, I played 40K from the Rogue Trader days and my wife has been
involved since 2nd Edition, the last time we were involved with 40K was last
November and I was very nearly an outrider at one time (and two of my good
friends were outriders). The concerns raised here, in the vast majority, STILL
apply to GW. They aren't evil, but they are
_not_ loyal to their customers (or their fans or their outriders).
Just wait, play long enough and they will do it to you too. I expect
that in a few years you too will join the ex-GW player support group.
Til then, have fun, but don't try to tell us that things are different, all it
takes is thumbing through a White Dwarf to see they haven't changed (see any
squats?). If GW changed, they would get a TON of old players back, rather than
providing a steady pool of recruits for other games (or, unfortunately, no
games in some cases).
And I'm the guy who LOVES their settings and listens to Death Metal.
:-)
(I have both my original Realms of Chaos books signed by the members of Bolt
Thrower)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_Thrower
Well, I figure I have some perspective to come out of lurk here, and it gives
me something to talk about besides Full Thrust fighter rules when I do so for
once.;)
I help run something called the Online Blood Bowl League. It's been around for
about thirteen years or so, I've personally been a part of it for almost ten.
It's been some years since Blood Bowl has been sold as one of GW's main lines,
but ultimately a lot of what I see said here seems to apply. GW thinks nothing
of pretty much completely changing the rules around, and hang the loyal people
who've bought the previous ones and play them fairly religiously. While it's
true that when we're playing online, we're not buying models to do it, and
we've been around long enough without the models that very few teams any more
bother to show even the slightest hint of respect for GW's canon histories
(one of the league commissioners is fond of making whole teams of various
races based on different anime series), we're still playing the game.
However, we're playing third edition Blood Bowl, and when fourth edition came
out, we didn't like it. We decided to stay with 3rd. Then some monstrosity
called the Living Rulebook came out, which basically was advertised as "you
can download this for free and it's a living, breathing set of rules that we
can rebalance easily if we need to." In practice, this has come out more like
"we're going to change this whenever we feel like it, and one version of the
rulebook may not even be all that recognizable in the next." Don't get me
started on the game's use of cards, then not using cards, now using cards a
handicap, then aging rules that went away quickly because everyone hated them,
nerfing wizards so that the last thing that can reliably stop one-turn
scoring wood elves without ripping the entire team to shreds goes away, and so
on...
About the only solace to this is, we're now not the only abandoned league out
there. For the last few years another large online league (called FUMBBL, I
don't think it's an acronym for anything) came along
and modelled an entire help-you-play-the-game client based on one of the
Living Rulebook versions from a few years ago. (The OLBBL's system is more
generic where you use IRC dice bots to help emulate the rules,
FUMBBL's has more of it hard-coded into the interface. Ergo, you could
play FUMBBL's rules on the OLBBL's client, but not vice versa.) They came up
during the bigger internet boom, so this wound up being very popular and at
any given time they have hundreds of people active; as opposed to OLBBL's
couple dozen or so at the outside. Then GW decided to update the Living
Rulebook so that even FUMBBL's rules can't be recognized in the current
version. This is a bigger deal for them due to how much their interface is
married to that ruleset; we could theoretically change over any time we wanted
to, we just don't want to because we like what we've got better than what GW's
been coming out with. However, the end result is much the same: FUMBBL's now
playing "yesterday's rules" just like us, and GW doesn't care a bit.
So... yeah, a lot of this stuff I see said about GW does not ring to me like
it's stuff that only happened years ago and they've gotten all better now.
Same stuff, different year.
E
[quoted original message omitted]
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27374_1215619489_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27374_1215619489_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWel
l, if you want to glance over my comment like that, sure. But my comment
wasn't that GW wasn't the only one doing it but that they did do it. Also,
there is a big difference between extensive use of yours bits collection and
the inclusion of custom made parts only attainable if you happen to work in
the miniatures industry.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
----- Original Message ----
From: Eli Arndt <emu2020@comcast.net>
This is an amusing one. Let's not forget they ever famous conversions that
made use of several $50 models or the one or two time where the parts lists
for their conversion or terrain projects included multiple parts which had
been custom cast by the boys in the foundry. I remember reading some of those
articles and thinking, "Oh sure, let me just run down and pick that right up"
with the utmost angry sarcasm.
Didn't you ever read the old airfix and similar pastic modelling magazines?
Their conversion projects always featured a trip into the bits box for a
harness buckle from another expensive kit.
By the time you had finished converting the coboy into the polish lancer there
were othen components from half a dozen kits that had gone into the mix.
If you wanted to do the conversion you either needed to buy half dozen
expensive kits to make on and have a huge pile of bits or scratch build the
difficult bits yourself.
It's never been a GW unique issue. At least the current crop of modelling
magazines restrict themselves to a kit, scratchbuilt parts and the aftermarket
etched brass parts.
I find it really funny how the orginal request "what is the current 40k game
like?" has generated a huge storm about people's bad experiences
10+ years ago with the game that bares little relationship to the
current version.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l> >
> > I find it really funny how the orginal request "what is the current
Well I have to say, I've really enjoyed this thread. I'd put myself into
the mild 'Not a GW fan' camp - however I have flirted with them over the
years. I can remember being very excited when the first GW shop opened in
Hammersmith in the late 70s. I still have some of the figures that I
bought at that stage - for D&D at that point. I also have first edition
Warhammer rules (three A4 booklets in a box) which was initially at that
point an RPG. I lost interest in GW stuff once White Dwarf became a
marketing magazine - but recently (about two years ago) bought the
latest
Warhammer rules (along with the Orc/Goblins and Empire rule supplements)
just to give it a go after a 20 year break. I've not got any GW figures
-
I used fantasy figures and ancient figures that I already owned for other
systems - and scratch built some new stuff (e.g. Goblin Chariot). I
played about 15 games in total, mostly with another non-GW friend but a
few with a friend who worked in my local GW shop. I was left feeling vaguely
dissatisfied. I think that the issue is that GW games are great
as an intro to miniature based games, however once you've tried a range of
other games, returning to GW just doesn't work. The shame is that so many GW
junkies never discover what else the hobby has to offer. (Of course
-
there's the changing rules, business practices, etc, too - but we've
covered that already.)
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
Kinda missing the point, lad. There isn't anything else; it's called 'The
Games Workshop Hobby...' *seeth*
Second para:
http://uk.games-workshop.com/features/getting-started/1/
The_Beast.
Paul wrote on 07/09/2008 12:46:20 PM:
***massive snippage***
> ... The shame is that so many
> there's the changing rules, business practices, etc, too - but we've
***more of the same***
So buying games workshop stuff is a hobby in and of itself?
> At 1:41 PM -0500 7/9/08, Doug Evans wrote:
So buying games workshop stuff is a hobby in and of itself?
More of a religious act actually, like flagellation. ;-P
I didn't expect to post anything to this or related threads, because I'm kinda
hoping they'll go away, but...
I've wondered this, too. They talk about "collecting", which is what we do
when we see a figure and imagine a way it might go with an army we
have, or look around for some interesting conversion-fodder to make what
we want. It is rummaging is discount bins, etc.
But any GW store I've been in has exactly the same stuff as any other or the
online store, at the same prices. What GW calls "collecting", seems to me to
just be "buying". Maybe it becomes a hobby just because you can't afford to
just buy what you want, so you have to approach it strategically.
I'm not anti-GW. I've got various stuff from them, and actually want to
play their LotR game, and use some figures in other games. (I don't
like their devotion to special rules for figures--I just can't keep up.)
But the "GW Hobby" and their take on collecting puzzle me.
andy
---- Original message ----
> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:09:51 -0400
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAnd
y,
Your issue with the GW take on collecting is somethign that has formed over
the years with collecting in all forms. Originally things were collected,
because people collected them. Now things are made to be collected. It is the
speculative collection and artificial colelctibility that GW (among others) is
hoping to tap into. The idea is to convince people that you stuff is
collectible or to produce it with
artificial rarity to generate/stimulate collector interest.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Andy Skinner <andyskinner@rcn.com>
> I didn't expect to post anything to this or related threads, because
Yup.
Other references include collectable card games, collecatable minis games
(heroclix, et al), and even comic books where some companies started producing
multiple runs of the same book, with different covers.
This is one of the things that turned me off to "collecting" in general. Now
my collections are (kind of) more useful. Ok, I have some minis just 'cause I
like 'em, but I have NO minis that I bought for the purpose of selling at a
profit in the future.
It's even worse with GW as their intent seems to be to devalue their older
minis my writing them out of their own games.:)
John "I sold off my squats years ago" L.
> Andy,
But
> the "GW Hobby" and their take on collecting puzzle me.
[GZG]
> GW and Re: Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help me,
> Andy,
I think that these days "collectable" (or "collectible", never quite sure
which is right myself...) has two rather different meanings. In
some cases - as in "Collectable Card Game" it means having to buy
lots of packets of stuff "blind" in the hope of getting the particular items
you want to complete a set (as opposed to the
"non-collectable card game", which has everything in the one pack).
The other meaning, as GW and their ilk use it, is simply in the sense of "buy
everything we make so you can say you've "collected" the full
set"...
I think these days a "collector" is often simply someone who buys
lots of stuff and KEEPS it, rather than chucking it away! ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> -------------- Original message --------------
It is
> rummaging is discount bins, etc.
Help me,
> Obi-Wan Kenobi!)
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Jul 9, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Ryan Gill wrote:
> So buying games workshop stuff is a hobby in and of itself?
To watch a friend of mine, yes..... I won't talk about his house. Let's just
say when the final war comes I want to be in his basement surrounded by his
lead walls....
Evyn MacDude infojunky@ceecom.net
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
didn't glance over your comment I carefully considered it against my own
experience in reading modelling magazines for the best part of 30 years. Yes
there are examples of GW modelling projects that are beyond the average gamer
where the makers got things cast. There are people in my Club that have gotten
into resin casting and can make rubber moulds and resin or plaster casts of a
whole range of components. It's an ideal way to make items for conversions or
terrain projects. You have stated before that you don't like GW games or
practices. It seems like all you posts are themed around GW "the great Satan"
of wargaming and that they do all these things that are wrong. Why position
the item so that it looks like GW did something uniquely bad and wrong? When
the scenario you describe isn't signficantly different to what other modelling
magazines have featured for years. If the GW staffer doing the feature that
upset you because they got one of their mates at the company to cast them some
components would you have been happier if they had gotten 20 kitsets and
dumped them after using one component? That the kind of thing modelling
magazines can do because they get the free kits to review.
----- Original Message ----
From: "emu2020@comcast.net" <emu2020@comcast.net>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thursday, 10 July, 2008 4:04:49 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] GW and Re: Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help
me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!)
Well, if you want to glance over my comment like that, sure. But my comment
wasn't that GW wasn't the only one doing it but that they did do it. Also,
there is a big difference between extensive use of yours bits collection and
the inclusion of custom made parts only attainable if you happen to work in
the miniatures industry. Â
-Eli
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_24183_1215702823_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_24183_1215702823_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe
re isa big difference between custom-made parts and showing a reader how
to do so and showing them a DYI project that uses unobtainable parts. The only
reason I find GW particularly nasty in this is because they are
not positioning themselves or their products/articles as projects for
experienced modellers in the hobby world.
I am not anti-GW. I am not happy with themself based on very real things
that happened to me as a player and a customer based on decissions and choices
that thecompany chose to make that did not need to be done. I do not dislike
GW games. I have stated more than once, that I enjoyed their games until their
business practices made them bad choices for me.
When it came down to it the cost/value of playing GW just wasn't there.
There are plenty of other games produced by less corporate companies or even
by companies that are very corporate that do not show such a
blatent disregard for loyal customers. GW doesn't want/need loyal
customers. They want you to drop a ton of cash play til you get bored and make
room for then ext 10 kids that are going to blindly have their mommies buy
them a stack of lead til they get bored and move on.
GW prices their merchandise wherever they want and it has nothing to do with
cost of production. To be honest, they sell enough of their figures that they
could easily charge less for figures and make up their numbers
in bulk sales. There was a time when I could afford to play 4-5 GW
armies all at once. Now, I would consider myself insane for trying to purchase
a single one.
Go out and drop $200 on a GW army and see how much play you can get out of
what you just bought. Then, go out and drop $200 on nearly any other
miniatures game and see what you can come up with an how much play you will
get out of it. Even if you buy mainly plastics, GW's plastics are so inverted
on their pricing it's crazy.
This is not just hater talk, this is their game plan as expressed to me by GW
employees as well as just a simple, basic, common sense analysis of their
marketing model.
Now, I think this discussion has gone on long enough and I really am tired of
defending my educated opinion on the matter. If it's a good value to you, play
GW's games. If it were a good value to me, I'd still play them too. Their
company has done nothing to build any comsumer trust or loyalty in me.
Thank you all for putting up with this thread,
Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
I didn't glance over your comment I carefully considered it against my own
experience in reading modelling magazines for the best part of 30 years.
Yes there are examples of GW modelling projects that are beyond the average
gamer where the makers got things cast. There are people in my Club that have
gotten into resin casting and can make rubber moulds and resin or plaster
casts of a whole range of components. It's an ideal way to make items for
conversions or terrain projects.
You have stated before that you don't like GW games or practices. It seems
like all you posts are themed around GW "the great Satan" of wargaming and
that they do all these things that are wrong.
Why position the item so that it looks like GW did something uniquely bad and
wrong? When the scenario you describe isn't signficantly different to what
other modelling magazines have featured for years. If the GW staffer doing the
feature that upset you because they got one of their mates at the company to
cast them some components would you have been happier if they had gotten 20
kitsets and dumped them after using one component? That the kind of thing
modelling magazines can do because they get the free kits to review.
----- Original Message ----