Help support TMP


"In what ways do you think GW has affected historical gaming?" Topic


55 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board


Action Log

17 Jan 2012 10:08 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Changed title from "In what ways do you think GW has effected historical gaming?" to "In what ways do you think GW has affected historical gaming?"


1,978 hits since 17 Jan 2012
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Personal logo Miniatureships Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Jan 2012 8:05 a.m. PST

My question is based on the assumption that many of todays younger historical gamers were once GW players. If that is so, how does starting in GW games effect the way those players play historicals and purchase historical miniatures?

Please no bashing of GW, just opinions of how you think the playing of GW games effects how those players play and purchase historical miniatures

Ran The Cid17 Jan 2012 8:12 a.m. PST

GW has made plastic kits the norm over metal figures. Players moving over from GW are very willing to use plastics, and may expect that plastic kits be available for their armies.

Spreewaldgurken Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 8:16 a.m. PST

People always talk about how historical games like FoW try to follow "the GW model… to attract the kids," but I noticed some years ago that it's actually the exact opposite process. The Oldsters are the ones following the kids, not vice-versa.

Historical gaming used to be a bunch of nerds with type-written and hand-drawn rules run off on a xerox machine. Now the same nerds are 30 years older, and they all expect big, shiny, full-color presentations, boxed sets, pre-packaged units and armies, and so on. Historical gaming was heavily influenced by the success of GW and other fantasy gaming.

Matthew83 Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 8:19 a.m. PST

Not being a gamer, more a painter/collector I would say that GW got me into collecting but growing up and seeing larger and cheaper historical figure ranges the change was a no-brainer.
I appreciate the contribution GW makes in bringing youngblood into the hobby and long may it continue, everyone I know started out with GW and a good number remain ardent fans.
I know a guy who was into Empire/Bretonnia as a kid and now games medieval, no doubt the influence remains.

Cheers

Matt

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2012 8:27 a.m. PST

I don't know if me or my group is typical.

The only reason I got into GW at all was so my son could play. He had little interest in it.
I got into Flames of War because one of our group said he always wanted to get into WW2, and these rules seemed easy to play. He had other rules sets to try out, "just in case". We stayed with FoW, because it gave good game.

Other members of our group played some Epic and Necromunda, but only as one of the many other periods they played. The Necromunda games are played abut 2 or 3v times a year, GorkaMorka maybe once, if we are lucky.

So, there has been no seducing youngsters into historical gaming on our part.

My purchasing has been for years tied to going to conventions.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2012 8:27 a.m. PST

I don't know if me or my group is typical.

The only reason I got into GW at all was so my son could play. He had little interest in it.
I got into Flames of War because one of our group said he always wanted to get into WW2, and these rules seemed easy to play. He had other rules sets to try out, "just in case". We stayed with FoW, because it gave good game.

Other members of our group played some Epic and Necromunda, but only as one of the many other periods they played. The Necromunda games are played abut 2 or 3v times a year, GorkaMorka maybe once, if we are lucky.

So, there has been no seducing youngsters into historical gaming on our part.

My purchasing has been for years tied to going to conventions.

Dynaman878917 Jan 2012 8:28 a.m. PST

Not at all. GW fads come and go but true curmudgeny historical gamers will still be here once they leave.

Personal logo 20thmaine Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2012 8:30 a.m. PST

Spelling mostly.

Orkz, Boyz, effected.

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2012 8:36 a.m. PST

GW has markedly increased the profile of gaming overall – plus changed the standard, as noted, for what constitutes a rule book

Also, they have made it much easier to get paint/bases/terrain – most of my Ancients and medieval troops are mounted on GW bases!

GarrisonMiniatures Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 8:38 a.m. PST

In the UK, many years ago, wargames figures were the cheaper end of the metal market usually with a limited number of poses and used in bulk, whereas D&D/Fantasy figures tended to be more expensive, more detailed and would be used as individual figures with a lot of variation in poses, etc.

This has certainly had an effect throughout the hobby – they brought the costs and standards of the individualistic Fantasy skirmish figure into the sphere of mass armies, and lots of others followed.

I'm not agreeing with this as being good or bad, incidentally, but whatever you think about the style of figure I think that they have been ultimately responsible for raising expectatios of quality of painting, detail, etc, though at a cost.

HornetsNestMinis Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 8:40 a.m. PST

I grew up playing GW games. (Rouge Trader) I finally moved to historical gaming when I grew tired of reading the faux history of the GW universe and started in on real history.

I don't play any of their games anymore but will pick up the odd figure here and there in the flea market.

GildasFacit Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Jan 2012 8:42 a.m. PST

For me none whatsoever, don't really know or care what it has done for others.

Lee Brilleaux Fezian17 Jan 2012 8:48 a.m. PST

I suspect that GW games have made us worry less about time/ground and figure scales, which seldom worked very well anyway.

We've certainly ceased to regard the mimeograph as a valid printing tool.

For myself, the GW hit/save mechanism (while actually being the dullest possible version of this venerable 1960s rule mechanic) at least reminded me that shooting did not demand the elaborate charts that seemed de rigeur in 1970s/80s historical rules.

Mick in Switzerland17 Jan 2012 9:10 a.m. PST

I agree with others – GW has caused the whole industry to improve including historical wargaming.

1. Historical rulebooks are (….mostly) better presented and more readable.
2. The sculpt quality and variety of poses of historical figures has improved significantly.
3. There has been a dramatic improvement to the general level of basing quality and painting quality.

Mick

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2012 9:14 a.m. PST

I agree with others GW has caused the whole industry to improve including historical wargaming.


This assuems that GW dragged historicals kicking and screaming into such "improvements", and that they would not have done it themselves.
I am not convinced.
Competition within the historical industry would have lead to such improvements.

Mick in Switzerland17 Jan 2012 9:20 a.m. PST

Dear John,

I think that the visibilty of GW products set them as a new benchmark.

If you look at the companies that are doing well in historicals, their management and sculptors often have past links to either GW or Foundry. Foundry and GW were the same company if you go back to 1985.

e.g Artizan, Copplestone, Crusader, Perry, Warlord & Bolt Action.

Many of the new historical plastics companies are made by Renedra which was formed by ex GW toolroom staff. (e.g Gripping Beast Vikings, Immortal Greeks, Fireforge Crusaders, Conquest Normans)

Mick

Derek H Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 9:27 a.m. PST

They got people used to paying much higher prices for their toys, thereby making it possible for people to actually make a decent(ish) living out of supplying the wargames hobby.

richarDISNEY Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 9:32 a.m. PST

Little to no effect.
The plastic thing was just a matter of time.

But a funny observation..
When the ex-GW Perrys started to use plastics, then the Hists thought it was acceptable.
But when GW did it years ago, it was heresy…
Funny…
beer

Yesthatphil17 Jan 2012 9:46 a.m. PST

My list would be about the same as Mick's except it would focus on the opposite effect …

My guess is that it depends whether you are a historical gamer (as in 'I am 100% historical gamer … I'm sceptical about generic match ups and tournament games and play no fantasy and Sci-Fi at all'), a (miniatures) 'gamer' ('doesn't matter what the game genre is, I'll play it – 'historical wargaming' is just another genre') or an 'in betweenie'.

On the list …
1/. I'm not absolutely sure – all publications have got much better over the years (so historical wargames publications would probably have upped their game anyway – Osprey predate GW, FoG got together with Osprey … there's no definitive reason to assume it wouldn't have happened anyway): some, I think, deliberately kept themselves more basic so as not to look like GW.

2/. I think this is the '28mm is good' argument. A significant number of the wargamers I know dislike 28mm because its general output looks like fantasy (and see how low amny 28mm fans would put accuracy on their desirability list). I think most figure ranges would be far better without the GW influence (more accurate, slightly more 'old school' …)…

3/. Again, basing is arguable. Individual basing looks awful (and leads to ground scale incoherence/'no scale') … Painting standards have dropped. People who like the gaudy '3 colour' painting will disagree. The good news is that the dipping technique is improving standards significantly.

I'd add that replacing useful text with fake game photos in books doesn't help. High on art work/low on history is turning historical wargaming into fantasy anyway.

The abandonment of scales is typical of the incoherent 'gaming' which seems popular on these pages (but people who post here are the minority, so don't take it too seriously …): you can't call it historical, so I'm not sure it counts.

Hits and Saves has also been mentioned. A pre GW mechanism that has survived elsewhere. Actually quite clumsy, but I can cope with the derivative version in Black Powder.

Broadly, no … I see a lot of damage done to historical wargaming by 'crossover' GW guff. No real gain. I quite like Rick Priestley's Warmaster/BP/HC activiation mechanism (but that had been borrowed by historical players anyway) but it's not a 'massive' benefit.

I also get tired of the 'good for the hobby' argument. Kids that are bitten by Warhammer mostly stay with it or give up entirely. I've yet to see much evidence of a GW feed into historical wargaming (and I have been given the statistics over the years).

So I'm more than happy for Fantasy and Sci-Fi, Pulp, Horror and whatever fans to enjoy their hobbies and crossover to mine if they choose to. Has my interest benefited from their's? … No, not much …

Knowing TMP, I suspect many will not agree

Phil Steele
soawargamesteam.blogspot.com
pbeyecandy.wordpress.com
ecwbattles.wordpress.com

kallman17 Jan 2012 9:49 a.m. PST

I would say GW has had a significant impact on miniature war gaming in general. I do not think we would see companies such as Privateer Press, Mantic, and others if not for the impact and success of Warhammer and 40K. I seriously got into collecting and playing miniature war games with both Warhammer and 40k in the late 80's. When Warhammer Ancients came out it was a natural segway into historical gaming which I had always been interested in doing. However, before Warhammer Ancients I had been turned off by most historical rule sets that I had seen. Not only was the production value poor but often the rules were not well written.

I think we can thank both GW and the advent of the internet for expanding the scope of the hobby. We now have an embarrassment of riches in regards availability of miniatures, well done rule systems, and growth in the hobby despite the nay sayers.

Personal logo Dr Mathias Supporting Member of TMP Fezian17 Jan 2012 10:15 a.m. PST

I was a 40K player.
GW released the Praetorians. Imperial Guard with sun helmets (I have loved pith helmets since I was a kid… not sure why).
I bought them.
Someone showed me the Foundry Victoriana catalogue. "If you like those… check this out."
I started accumulating Darkest Africa and sold almost all my 40K figures. That's when the lead pile began, and has since gotten way out of control- with more periods than a sane person should attempt.

Parzival17 Jan 2012 11:26 a.m. PST

also get tired of the 'good for the hobby' argument. Kids that are bitten by Warhammer mostly stay with it or give up entirely. I've yet to see much evidence of a GW feed into historical wargaming (and I have been given the statistics over the years).

What "statistics"? Someone tracks this? Who? Where? And more significantly, how? What would the evidence be? Aside from someone voluntarily stating that they started with GW and moved to historical (or expanded) AND someone else saying they would not do so, how in the world would you know one way or the other as to what is or is not behind interest or sales in historical miniatures, or whether anyone is or is not interested in historical gaming after starting with GW? I think it's fairly safe to say that no scientific polling exists on this issue, so this statement to me doesn't hold water.

Timbo W17 Jan 2012 12:08 p.m. PST

I reckon GW allowed (definitely not forced) historical gamers to take things less seriously, but this was a throwback to the Featherstone era rules.

I think there's always a place for detailed complex rules, but there should always be a place for a "lets just get em on the table and have a big fight" rules as well. And I see no problem with playing both types of games with the same collection of figures. Eg complicated for smaller battles, simpler for bigger battles, or complicated for when in a more thoughtful mood, simple whaen looking for a more relaxing fun game. Not that complication=simulation of course ;-)

Yesthatphil17 Jan 2012 12:17 p.m. PST

Well, Parzival, it looks like you have answered the question as well as just asked it :)

… and pronounced judgement.

Ii is no big point. What it says is '_I haven't seen much evidence'. And I then note that I have been given the statistics over the years. As well as a lot of statistics that I am not able to disclose (most companies survey this sort of thing constantly, and will help with facts and figures off the record), I have been President of the Society of Ancients for 8 of the last 12 years. A statistically significant number of members supply us with information including their age.

If there were a significant number of youngsters beginning with GW and switching to historicals, you would expect to see some changes on the average age profile of members (or, say, a shift in length of membership) … Actually, the age profile of SoA members has been largely unaffected (ever changing membership same date of birth range). That isn't tracking other statistics which I am not at liberty to share with you (but be sure things are tracked).

Other organisations report similar trends.

That proves nothing, of course, but if any switching in significant numbers was happening, you might expect average ages to go down within organisations, tournament entrants etc.

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, what I asserted was indeed absence of evidence.

> so this statement to me doesn't hold water.

Well, the statement I have seen no evidence cetainly does hold water. It's a fact. And the statement that I have been given statistics also holds water (though I agree with you that 'such as they are' applies but then it always does to all statistics) …

My point remains that I constantly read these arguments about youngsters getting into 'the hobby' (and it is dabateable what that is) that way, and getting involved in 'historicals' (whatever they are) as a result but nobody ever cites any evidence that this actually does happen.

But maybe you know different?

Phil
PS as a PS, I'd like to add that am not bothered about the greying of wargaming or whatever (it seems to me one of those chattering class non-issues), just that I tire of reading about how this or that affects it when it is obviously just someone's opinion.

Mako1117 Jan 2012 12:37 p.m. PST

I'd say they've probably helped fuel an interest in pirates, and pirate games, with LotHS.

Personal logo Miniatureships Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Jan 2012 12:42 p.m. PST

Please note, that I began my question with "Assuming".

One of my reasons for even asking the question is the amount of GW items that I see in the flea markets of Historical conventions.

In my assumption about effect, I would guess that GW has effected how we play our games – how many games are now played on a 4 X 6 area, using points, and is between just two players? Now, I very much doubt that any of these three items are innovations just created solely by GW, but they are certainly the trade mark of their games.

Connard Sage Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 12:45 p.m. PST

I don't have strong opinions one way or the other, however I have made a mental note not to bother joining the SoA as the ex-Pres seems a bit up himself.

Yesthatphil17 Jan 2012 12:47 p.m. PST

Ex President

Phil

Connard Sage Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 12:50 p.m. PST

Noted

Yesthatphil17 Jan 2012 12:55 p.m. PST

And you would be more than welcome and valued.

For me, I knew I shouldn't contributed to this thread before I even started (I tried answering the questions honestly, then the follow ups and end up 'up myself': I think I knew it would end like that)

Please support my successors anyway (if only to revel in my retirement) soa.org.uk/store

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 1:36 p.m. PST

Sadly GW has affected historical gaming, all for the worst.

Dave Crowell17 Jan 2012 1:42 p.m. PST

I was able to get into miniatures wargaming because of GW. It became popular so people near me started playing.

Through that I was able to find our local-ish historicals club.

Historicals is what I really wanted to game all along.

As for the overall impact of GW, I think it has lead to an increased emphasis on the visual aspects of Wargames. No longer are bases just painted green, now they are textured and flocked, hills are not just bare foam, etc.

Gwydion17 Jan 2012 1:55 p.m. PST

The idea that GW moved historical rules into a better presented style seems unlikely. The growth of GW and the move to better presented rule sets may have been time coincident but a far more likely causal factor in the improvement in the physical presentation of wargame rules was the rise of the computer and the changes in printing production.

Ascent Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 2:32 p.m. PST

You say that the average age of the members of SoA hasn't increased. This must mean younger members are joining, otherwise the average age would just increase as the current members aged, surely?

Personally I started with GW and then moved into historicals and know others who have as well.

I think they've definitely had an effect, probably less so now then previously.

McKinstry Fezian17 Jan 2012 2:35 p.m. PST

GW certainly was/is the bread and butter of many of our local stores which in turn allowed we historical curmudgeons to expose new blood to historical gaming.

GW, and this is just my opinion. by pushing various painting schemes and using WD to hammer on painting themes did seem to help improve the standard of painting and basing which has improved markedly since the painted green base of the 70's.

I got into GW in a very limited way for my kids and other than BFG never had any personal interest but in seeing where they fit in the hobby, I think they've been an overall force for improvement for all, fantasy, sci-fi and historicals.

Derek H Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 3:30 p.m. PST

Ascent wrote:

This must mean younger members are joining, otherwise the average age would just increase as the current members aged, surely?

Was ever thus. No need to invoke any GW effect.

Derek H Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 3:38 p.m. PST

McKinstry wrote:

GW, and this is just my opinion. by pushing various painting schemes and using WD to hammer on painting themes did seem to help improve the standard of painting and basing which has improved markedly since the painted green base of the 70's.

When it comes to basing of troops for wargames (as opposed to display pieces) GW have been been well behind historicals for a few years now.

Probably because historical types buy their basing materials directly from the model railroad suppliers while GW don't publicise anything new in the basing department until they've sourced it cheaply, repackaged it and put it on sale with an outrageous mark-up.

Grizzlymc Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 3:55 p.m. PST

Enormous increases in TMP traffic.

Yesthatphil17 Jan 2012 4:19 p.m. PST

Just for clarity, Ascent, what I said was

> Actually, the age profile of SoA members has been largely unaffected (ever changing membership same date of birth range).

i.e. the profile _is getting older (the date of birth range remains virtually the same aside from some unfortunate losses as the elderly end). Even though the members are different whereas 10 years ago a typical member was likely to be 40 or so, today he/she is likely 50 or so (and may well have been a member at some point previously).

Anecdotally, of course, plenty of people start with whatever they can – and GW is an opportunity for many. What I was commenting on was the lack of evidence of any kind of substantial trend in statistics covering thousands of people over two or more decades …

And I wasn't knocking GW – except, of course, as in it being some kind of feeder into historical wargaming. I'd love it if it was – but I don't think it is and although it is an often claimed 'benefit' I drew attention to my not having seen the evidence*

Phil
*and again, per Parzival, that doesn't mean I deny the evidence or the possibility – just _I have seen the phenomenon (in the evidence I have seen from SoA, similar bodies, retailers and others).

fitterpete Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 7:58 p.m. PST

I got into historical gaming from GW games and I know about 20 other people who did too.
So start there.

Parzival17 Jan 2012 8:21 p.m. PST

Jump to conclusions much?

Membership in a gaming organization says nothing at all about trends in a hobby market. It only speaks to whether the organization itself is attracting new members, not as to whether people are or are not interested in historical gaming. If an organization's membership is aging with no new members joining, it could be because the perception of value is not present for a younger demographic (and indeed this is more likely the reason that not). It also suggests that efforts to interest new members are either ineffective or non-existent (again, highly likely). Or, quite possibly, potential members are dissuaded from joining due to behaviors, attitudes or policies of the organization itself. Other causes could simply be a lack of awareness that the organization even exists ( certainly related to ineffective membership efforts). Also, "historical" gaming is by definition much larger in scope than "ancients." Why would someone interested in 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th or modern gaming be drawn to join an organization called "Society of Ancients?" So, again, the standard of measurement is demonstrably flawed, and says nothing at all about the growth in historical gaming, the so-called "graying of the hobby," or whether or not GW's presence has or has not done anything with regard to either.

My intent was not to insult or attack, but to bring up a legitimate counter to your reasoning. I believe it still stands.

MST3Klover17 Jan 2012 9:38 p.m. PST

I started with historical gaming, but gave it up, and sold all my armies. At the time I really didn't like the available rules sets. Then I discovered GW and played their games almost exclusively for years. I now have enough painted GW armies that I don't need to buy any more of their figures – a good thing considering the current cost. I have always liked the core GW rules for Warhammer, Warmaster, 40K, etc. I think these rule sets have translated well into historicals as far as I'm concerned. Rules like Warhammer Ancients Battles, Warhammer ECW, Warhammer Great War, and Black Powder have definitely encouraged me to jump back into historical miniatures big time. I now have more historicals than I ever did before and have never enjoyed them more. So I guess GW has reinvigorated my interest in historical gaming. I know a lot of people hate GW, but I really love their rules and they have done a lot to bring me back to historicals.

Ascent Inactive Member17 Jan 2012 9:46 p.m. PST

It's very possible that people moving from GW are more interested in the 'game' side of things rather than the history side. Not that they aren't interested in the history, just that it isn't so important.

That could be why there are more army lists and points out there these days with less people willing to do the historical research, or at least to the same depths as others.

Early morning writer18 Jan 2012 12:46 a.m. PST

GW? What is that? As far as I know it's just an abbreviation for "Got Wind." After that, the 'term' is completely meaningless. Now, all respectable wargamers can exit this discussion and get back to buying and painting their favorite figure ranges – hopefully that would be Blue Moon and Old Glory, of course,

(shh, Miniatureships, you can pay me later)

Personal logo Midpoint Supporting Member of TMP18 Jan 2012 2:44 a.m. PST

Forgetting about the close-down deadline I wrote a long post.

Summary: To talk about the games misses the majority of the impact GW has had.

I would suggest that far more significant and positive has been:

1. GW allowing supplier companies to exist in a form that has allowed professionalism and development.

2. The churn of people through GW creating a group that has both the creative skills in respect of making a rules framework/sculpting and the ability to produce high standard products.

1+2=3 – the number of companies producing fabby stuff owned/staffed by ex-GW people using their skills and abilities to support and develop historical wargaming.

M.

Lovejoy18 Jan 2012 2:53 a.m. PST

I started with GW games and figures with the first edition of Warhammer when I was 10. I then moved into historical gaming and sculpting. All my current gaming group (20+) began gaming with GW stuff, and now do historicals. Oh, and none of us have joined the SoA, or wish to do so.

So for us at least, GW is a feed into historicals. And they are the only high street wargaming company. Without them I genuinely believe the hobby would suffer.

Sane Max Inactive Member18 Jan 2012 3:46 a.m. PST

I started with Historicals, but was not able to keep it up as there were no good hobby shops near me that treated someone my age as anything other than a pest. There may have been a local club of some sort that would have been tolerant of an 11-year old enthusiast, but since nobody ever deigned to talk to me I never found out about it.

Later on when GW opened I was pleased and refreshed by their decent service, and the plenitude of opponents and friends it provided. Only after doing that for a few years did I find out there were Historical games I might like.

The membership of our club is fairly evenly split between Historical-firsters and GW-firsters. Without the 50% of GW-Firsters we could not afford to have continued as a club, IMHO.

All narrative evidence only, and so worthless of course.

Pat

(Phil Dutre) Inactive Member18 Jan 2012 4:37 a.m. PST

I also started with GW (WFB 1st edition) in 83 or 84 or so, and have moved into historicals over the years. In my current gaming group (age bracket 35-45) most have started with GW in their late teens or twenties and hove switched to historicals sooner or later.

As for joining SoA or other societies (Pike&Shot, Lance&Longbow, etc.), I never felt the need to do so. For some reason, I associate them with wargaming seventies-style (WRG and such), something that's of no real interest to me. I also have the impression the interest in those societies is more on the study of history, rather than the actual gaming (mechanics, game design, scenario design, etc.).
This might be an unfair or wrong perception, but it is my perception.

This is not criticism on the SoA or their activities I am just saying why I am not inclined to become a member (and none of my gaming mates are), so gamers with our profile do not show up in their statistics.

Yesthatphil18 Jan 2012 4:42 a.m. PST

> Jump to conclusions much?

No, not really, Parzival. As I said in my original comment, 'I've seen no evidence of', and as I said in my clarifiction 'this proves nothing' … so no jumping to any conclusions.

As for your alternative explanations of SoA _and _other statistics* … I entirely agree: they are all good reasons why _any interpretation is debateable.

Of course my point was not that the statistics ('such as they are') prove anything, but that they match other patterns in showing no evidence of the trend other parties believe in. That doesn't mean the effect isn't there – just that I've seen no evidence of it.

For those historical enthusiasts who have indeed started their wargaming lives with GW or who's local clubs benefit from significant GW sections (that may even help keep the rest of the club viable), I am more than pleased about that.

Unfortunately, the 'what if' (what would have happened without GW?), it is one of those counter-factuals: speculation is rendered virtually impossible given how long we have had GW and how widespread it has become.

Phil
*(NB although there has been much more statistical analysis over the years, it is down to other organisations and companies to decide whether to discuss their data on this)

Yesthatphil18 Jan 2012 5:00 a.m. PST

Hi Phil Dutre …

Thanks for sharing your perception – SoA enjoyed a great expansion of popularity in the 1970s, so the association of '70's style' (whatever it means) is not entirely wrong (although everyone has moved on, the 1970s is part of our and our members' heritage) …

Of the societies you mention, SoA is probably the most game-centred in its orientation (mechanics, game design, scenario design, etc. though with the emphasis on history)
As the society doesn't favour one scale or game system over another, historical articles are strongly represented in the journal compared with any game system, period or genre, but the vast majority of our members are wargamers, that's for sure: check out Planet Ancients ( link ) the members blog platform (a lot of familiar and varied blogs in that left hand panel) …

Anyone is welcome (go to 'store' on the header menu on that Planet Ancients page)

Phil

Apologies to Miniatureships if I've contributed to the thread diverting from purpose in bursts (in my defence, my original post was intended to address the question in good faith … the follow up contributions have been answering questions addressed to me as honestly as I can)

Pages: 1 2