[GZG] GW bashing

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI don't feel
people are ganging up on me.

I just find it rather sad that so many on the forum seem to look for any
opportunity to bash GW. it's as if they get off on it.

On average GW releases a new version of it's rules every 5 years and each army
list gets a refresh about every rule cycle, some have been as long as 9 years
without much of a change. I don't think 5 years is too frequent.

Since you brought it up, It's been far too long since FT 2 came out and the
rules are now scattered across several books and don't often mesh well. One of
the first things out FT group did was gather together out material into one
file swo we had a cohesive document to use as the rules. If FT had a nice
cohesive rulebook we would have bought that instead.

Having a published rulebook makes it easy for different gaming groups to
interact. I can take my 40k army to any other club and expect to be able to
play a pick up game. I can't take my FT fleet outside my gaming group and
expect to play a game without a lot of work. Â

After having a look at the manufacturers you suggested I don't think they are
compasrable with GW. Reaper mineatures look agout as good as GW
were about 10-15 years ago. They arn't plastic multipart kits and any
conversion opportunities are very limited by the sculpts.Werner's models are
nice but they are about 10 euros each so are a comparable price to GW.

As I said I don't think GW do themselves any favours with their Australian
pricing. It's definately out of whack with the currency exchange. As a result
I don't by much product from local retailers, I buy most of my wargaming
material direct via the internet. For whatever reason GW have decided to
create an extra management layer to service their region. I guess other
manufacturers don't do that an just service their local retailers from head
office.

I remember when GW minatures used to be 5 for 2.50 pounds. They were rather
ugly lumps of lead by todays standard.

People are welcome at my club to play whatever games they want, but in order
to get them coming regluarly you need to find other people that want to play
their game so they have people to play with. It's easy to find people to play
with at a club if you play a popular standard game. I think napoleonic would
be a great period to game, good balance between different types of units,
loads of different armies, great models but no unified agreement about what
rules to play so the period is dead where I live and has been for years.
Infinity is an interesting looking set of rules, but unless you can get at
least half a dozen people to get into the game to create a core you will
struggle for lack of opponents and game variety.

I don't think GW are saying that people shouldn't make up their own scenarios
or play aids. This month's White Dwarf magazine features an article about a
campaign where they made up their own rules and suggesting peoplpe do the
same. GW also let TSOALR publish with their IP for years and only said you
can't try and make money from our IP.

GW have also said to other manufacturers, if you make fantasy football models
don't make them specifically for our game. I don't think that is unreasonable.
If board game geek is a commercial site I don't think it's unreasonable to say
that people should not make money from their IP regardless of how they get the
product.