"GW hatred..." Topic

"There will always be a small thriving community of traditional wargamer/modeler/collectors who wil not be touched by the likes of GW, and from the above quotes it underlines their horrible attitude."

Hammer . . . I'm not disagreeing with you. There will always be a loyal group of followers to ANYTHING out of the mainstream, and they will hold on for dear life to that which they hold sacred.

I could just as easily change a few words in your sentence and have it say: "There will always be a small thriving community of Apple users who will not be touched by the likes of Microsoft."

Yet, the "pc" is still probably 90% of the market, and Apple is likely still only 10%, mostly engineers and cad users. And I'm not knocking Apple, my first pc was a Mac and it was sweet! But Apple did nothing to unite the industry behind a single user interface standard, Microsoft did. Which is why we now have plug and play, and pc's as a whole are far better for it.

GW raised the bar as far as presentation was concerned. And they raised the bar for wargaming magazines too. And for that, I am grateful.

Yes, they do things that annoy me at times, but nothing I can't cope with.

In the UK there are lots of shops with … Sports shop.. written all over them, go in and try and buy a full 16 player football team strip, goal keepers gloves and padded shirt, golf gloves shoes, rugby boots etc etc…. they dont sell them yet they call themselves a 'sports shop' They sell Premiership replica team shirts at £45.00 GBP a time and designer trainers and sweatshirts for shopping in. GW are like this to wargaming…. It isnt real wargaming its fantasy roleplay stuff. Just like the psudo-sports shops

Hammer

I do not believe that GW prohibits "rouge trader" stores from stocking non-GW product.

I've been into many "rouge trader" status stores that focused heavily on GW stuff, but they still had an extensive range of other products on their shelves.

I believe the deal is that a store has to carry a certain amount of GW product, and they have to run some sort of GW gaming event shedule to maintain "rouge trader" status.

In return their shop gets mentioned on the GW website and in White Dwarf.

If an independant "rouge trader" store exclusively carries GW product, then it's the decision of the store owners (and not some kind of draconian mandate from GW).

@Hammer – sorry but your analogy sports shop analogy holds no water whatsoever.

You can walk into a GW shop and buy everything you need to play a game of war where people (and things!) fight and people (and things!) die. That sounds like a "wargame" to me. That includes rules, figures and dice.

You can also buy materials related to, but not exclusive to, the wargaming hobby i.e. paints, and modelling tools.

What you can't do it wander into a store and buy a competitors product – in the same way you can't walk into a NEXT and buy a Marks and Spencer suit.

All wargames are, by definition, fantasy. No one really fights, and no one really dies. It doesn't matter if you are playing historical, fantasy, or sci-fi – they are all "make believe".

What you are saying is that any game you don't like isn't a "real" wargame. That is your perogative, but it doesn't make it true. Better to say that you don't like GW systems and games.

GW *is* wargaming to the masses – like it or not GW games and systems are amongst the most popular miniatures wargames in the world. Saying it isn't so does change anything.

Regards,

Dave

P.S. As for GW products, I only play WAB and occasionally Warmaster and since Warmaster:Ancients is now available i doubt I'll play much of Fantasy Warmaster anymore.

"That would be like Pepsi demanding all stores to sell only Pepsi."

They actually do that. Even with stores.

It goes like this: "If you sell Pepsi products only, we'll give you a better discount."

How's that different from being "Chapter Approved" or whatever?

Some stores take the bait, others don't.

Not trying to inflate the post count, honest.

My point above is not to defend GW per se.

I'm just making the observation that basically all big business with enough leverage is guilty of using tactics like that. The ones that aren't wish they had the leverage…

It will happen again when the GW hate thread reaches tennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

I am amazed how this thread keeps going and going. Is this the longest thread ever?

I wondered the same thing myself…

WHY is there so much hatred directed towards GW?
Is it because their stuff is so expensive?
Is it because people say their games suck?
Is it because they change their marketing, and business policies with each phase of the moon?
Is it because they change stats on non selling models to make them "Selling" models, more than Italy changes governments?

Yes.

Foxmeister
Sorry, but wargaming to me is historical, it must have some basis to the historical wars even if its only the well painted accurate figures, its about wars. GW is fantasy with no thread of reality to it at all. If you meet a wargamer he will more than likely say… what period do you game in…. its a natural thing to say.

GW may well sell lots of stuff but its not wargaming stuff its fantasy games, like Monopoly is a family game. They are completely different.

All the time fantasy gamers want to be seen as Wargamers because historical wargaming is the generally acceptable hobby. Having mutant dead lurkers and blood dripping two headed giants is not the type of thing that normal average joe public would find remotely interesting or acceptable.

Seeing regiments of Napoleonic cavalry lined up IS perfectly acceptable and has no shock value. That is why fantasy monster gamers like to be associated with historical wargaming, it makes it… more acceptable. Where as many many historical wargamers do not want to be associated with fantasy games. Fantasy gamers might not like this fact but it is perfectly true.

There is nothing wrong…. I say again nothing wrong with fantasy gaming, it is just its subject matter, it can be seen as goreish and with hobbits, dwarfs and elves rather silly. Sorry but its true.

Hammer

> That is why fantasy monster gamers like to be associated with historical wargaming, it makes it… more acceptable.

But to the general public, it's still "grown-up men playing with toy soldiers"!

Hmmm… I tend to agree with both sides of this argument.

Wargaming is playing games of war.

Most people will immediately think "Historical" when they play a wargame, or when they hear "wargame", but that does not mean that the Fantasy and Sci-Fi games are NOt wargames.

The First "wargame" that I played Was Panzergruppe-Guderian. I got it in an SPI magazine that was published in the 1970s. The Second Wargame that I played was Blitzkreig. a "Fantasy" Historical wargame that used semi-historical modern (i.e. WWII – Vietnam era) forces on a fantasy (ie mythical) continent.

The third Wargame that I played was "StarForce: Alpha-Centuri". An outright Sci-Fi game, but it dealt with the War between three different races in space. It had some pretty complex 3D movement systems as well.

GW sells products that are NO-WHERE NEAR the quality of any of those three products in terms of rules-design, but their production quality is vastly superior, but that is NOT where I am going with this post.

Most of the people I know who play GW products are these adolescent proto-goth/punk kids who are not really old enough to know what they are doing. I have a big problem with their appearance to begin with, but that is because of another issue that deals with the history of the Goth/Deathrock subculture, but again I digress…

GW, back in the early 1980s saw that the whole Punk sub-culture and the rising Goth subculture (and Heavy-Metal as well) were HIGHLY visual and the imagery of these sub-cultures was tremendously appealing to the younger generations. So, they co-opted the imagery and used it to market their fluff to a bunch of kids who see it and go "WOW, THAT's SO KEWL!" They don't have ANY idea of WHY they think its "kewl", or wht any of the stuff is for. They later find out and immediately want to be part of it.

SOME of them will grow up and realize that they want something a little more mature in their games, but some do not. I know quite a few of this type who are well into their 20s, 30s, and even 40s who still think that GWs stuff is the be-all-to-end-all of miniatures and gaming.

They ARE aware of historical gaming, but they think it "Stuffy and Boring"… Not ALL of them are completely lost causes, but some are. Those who are not are completely aware of how ridiculous most of GWs stuff is by the time they get to be in their 20s… Some of the Fantasy and Sci-Fi stuff is a bit more grown-up than GWs stuff (See Tom Meir's Thunderbolt Mountain miniatures for one example – It may take me a while to find a sufficiently mature Sci-Fi line, but I am sure that one exists)…

I for one play both Historical and Sci-Fi (With some fantasy). I have never been one to play with very immature games due to my first exposure to gaming brought with it an understanding that just because it wasn't "History", didn't mean that it had to ignore "Reality" (Physics, sociology, psychology, etc), and that the games needed to have some pretty solid rules, background and mechanics. The Sci-Fi that I play is pretty hard Sci-Fi, with the technology examined to follow the applications and implication as far as possible; the fantasy gaming I play is based upon Historical battles, but with a minimal amount of magic and monsters (Sort of like Gloranthan/Runequest stuff… a very deep background that is held together with Jungian and Campbellian priciples). I fought for TEN years to get the group that I gamed with to give up the shmaltzy fantasy games they wereplaying and to use WRG 6th ed with the fantasy rules in the back with our fantasy miniatures (And then DMB/DBF).

GW doesn't seem to take that approach with their games, and their marketting is engineered such that their games need not have the time investment to make them into something that has "SUBSTANCE". They have an "Image" they are selling, and that is all that is needed. You can sell excrement if you put a pretty enough face on it. I should point ouot that not all of their products are complete CR**, but they are well aware that they needed put too much thought into most of their games because the packaging and miniatures will sell pretty much whatever they put out to turn a profit off at least a single print run.

I guess that in a nutshell what I am saying is that Fantasy and Sci-Fi gaming is just as valid as Historical, and just as respectable if it has the right "Substance", but that GWs games really don't have that much "substance", they are pretty much all "Fluff" or "Image".

@Judas Iscariot – Sorry mate but I was LMAO through your post. How can one type of fantasy or sci-fi be more than "fluff" and image and one type not?

I'm sure people will argure that because they're into "hard" sci-fi that that makes their sci-fi games valid. But seriously guys… it still ain't real no matter how "hard" you make your sci-fi over people who just want to play fun games in a none-real setting, be that GW, Anime style, whatever.

I dunno. The more this thread grows the more it seems that there's a lot of elitest snobbery going on with the people who don't like GW and that their set of playing with toy soldiers is somehow more valid than GW. Err.. How exactly?

@Hyunster fka STGM1998 – I couldn't agree more. It is all just people playing with toy soldiers at the end of the day.

Hammer— -I- say you are completely, utterly, ridiculously WRONG in ALL your points. Sorry but it's true. Apparently using your "logic" that makes me right, since all one has to do is state one's case, claim it true, and then it is so. Please try not to drown when it rains next and your nose fills up from being thrust so far into the air!

A WAR GAME involves troops on either side shooting, maneuvering, closing with the enemy and killing him. That's certainly true no matter WHAT genre one is playing. Saying that Fantasy isn't a war game is pure hyperbole, and holds no water— tactics matter whether it's monsters, Dwarves and magic, or Old Guard taking the Prussians in the flank.

I have NEVER in my 15 years of gaming found the general public to be more accepting of Historicals than Fantasy or SF. As Hyunster said, it's ALL pretty stupid to most people seeing men still playing with toy soldiers. Perhaps if you got down off that high horse you might help the hobby rather than hurt it by turning potential historical players off with harsh criticism of the war games they most likely enjoy playing.

Judas Iscariot— wway to rashly generalize about the entire hobby, man! You couldn't be more wrong, but it's not worth even commenting on your points…

Nazrat,

I take it you lean towards the Fantasy games. As I said Fantasy players like to believe they are part of the historical wargaming hobby. And your comments prove just that, it bothers you that I think GW fantasy type gaming is very shallow and silly.

If you said to me Historial gaming is boring and for stuck up old men and that GW is were its at…. it wouldnt bother me in the slightest because I dont want to be associated with GW type fantasy stuff in any way. Its like women wanting to join mens clubs, why? Each to his own I say.

What Judas Iscariot said is exactly right, I couldnt agree more. Pink demons, Little wood elves, skeleton riders on giant bats or Mutant psyco guys waving electro chain saws is not wargaming, its fantasy and most of it in rather bad taste and is not looked at in the same way historical wargaming is by the public. Many museums and battlefield sites use wargames figures to display what happened as giant diaramas, the public like to look at them. I havnt seen too many Orc spacemarine displays with Goblin wizards casting spells….

Nazrat, If you like things like that I have no problem at all in fact good luck in your next game, may your hobgoblins cover themselve in Elf gore.

My next game is and English Civil War Wargame…Marston Moor 2 July 1644 on july 2nd…..

Hammer

"As I said Fantasy players like to believe they are part of the historical wargaming hobby"

Yes of course, silly me. 80%+ of the Hobby are just trying to hide their silly game behind a couple of very mature gamers replaying Maston Moor.

Go figure….

You'd take it wrong (AGAIN). I own primarily Historicals, playing Ancients, ECW, ACW, Wild West, WW II, Vietnam, and Colonial Sudan!. See, it just goes to show how far afield preconceived notions can lead you!

I do still play some Fantasy and hard SF (not 40K any more). I actually HAVE an imagination, and sometimes like to play WAR GAMES with unreal elements in them. Gore enters into it no more than in any conflict— people fight and they tend to die, if you hadn't noticed. Or do your ECW troops just not ever take casualties? And by the by, nowhere in my post did I ever mention or defend GW in particular— you attributed that to me. I'm arguing that you are wrong with your entire blanket assessment of Fantasy as NOT being a war game. Your position is completely indefensible, and I believe it to be troll bait. Feh!

Nicely said, Old Jim!

@Hammer

quote "Sorry, but wargaming to me is historical"

Yes – "to you". I don't believe that is a broadly accepted definition.

quote "As I said Fantasy players like to believe they are part of the historical wargaming hobby. "

Sorry you are wrong.

Fantasy players believe they are part of the wargaming hobby. And they are right, they are!

I don't see anyone trying to say that WFB of 40K are "historical" wargames.

quote "Many museums and battlefield sites use wargames figures to display what happened as giant diaramas, the public like to look at them. I havnt seen too many Orc spacemarine displays with Goblin wizards casting spells…. "

And why would they use Goblin wizards??? What has that got to do with anything?

I don't play fantasy or sci fi, but I don't "look down" on people who do.

Regards,

Dave

OldJim.. where abouts are you from?
Where do you conjour 80% up from, I think you have just invented it…what statistics or facts suggest 80% of the gaming hobby are GWers or fantasy gamers??? Long Long before GW were even thought of Wargaming was a hugely popular pastime. Did all the Wargamers all pack up when GW came on the scene? I think not.

I base my comments on what iv seen over the years. To get an estimate of anything you can only go by what you experience. The West Midlands in England is a large place. Over 30 years I have got to know alot of clubs and players. There are very few dedicated GW/fantasy clubs (other than in shops), there are a great many (Historical) Wargames clubs and players in this area alone. Some dabble in fantasy.. I do in SciFi. But the main area amongst adults is Historical.

This little island is not over-run with GW and fantasy gamers. From the time iv spent in wargaming, fantasy is the domain of the quick-fix short stay kids. Wargames manufacturers like Essex, Foundry, TableTop, Minifigs, Irregular, just to name a very very few, do a huge trade, so dont make out that GW are the all conquering producers when over here they are not, of course they do good business they appeal to the little-uns for a short time (like Judas cleverly put)but I dont see many adults into GW here.

Hammer

Foxmeister -Nazrat
I dont look down on fantasy gamers, you imagine I do, They are of no interest to me what so ever, I annoy you because I will not subcribe to your views, as I said previously What others views are are entirely up to them, I have just said what I think and have seen. As for Trolling that is often suggested by someone who is floundering in a debate.

I am quite happy for you to believe that GW and fantasy are the dominent force and that its all Wargaming I dont want to change your views on it at all.

To me of course, fantasy, GW, pink tenticled zombies and all are nothing of the sort and are as far removed from wargaming as Gridiron is to football even though Gridiron calls itself football? just my view gentlemen. I think this this has run its course now. It has been interesting finding out views from over the pond.

Hammer

I'll agree with Hammer's last points. The last gamecon I went to there seemed to be a larger group of historicals there compaired to the GW fantasy or sci-fi. In fact there were no adults among the GW crowd, and only a few adults into the typical hard core sci-fi type games.

All the people playing GW games looked under the age of 19. Maybe none of the adult GW gamers showed up there, but it does reinforce the idea that…. Let me put it this way.

"Silly gamers, GW is for kids."

Page 10 is right around the corner!

Hi Hammer,

You said: "As I said Fantasy players like to believe they are part of the historical wargaming hobby. "

Well, I consider myself historical wargamer. So does my web site: ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal

Nonetheless, I think you're getting yourself all wrapped round the axle by being so exacting with terminology. Players are playing with miniatures, using rules that represent the opposing sides at war, so wargame fits the bill regardless.

I'm not sure I'd agree with your postion that seems to be that non-historicals are in the minority. From my experience in my home town and travels, from what I see in discussions on usenet and elsewhere on the internet non-historicals vastly outnumber us. As an example, the historical usenet group broke away from a combined miniatures group in 1996 because our posts were virtually lost in a relatively vast sea of posts on non-historical – mostly warhammer – topics.

Be that as it may, my experience is in Canada and the US, so in the UK, things may well be different. And you could be right – maybe trends are indeed changing.

Now, on the other hand… I think Fox and Nazrat are correct – your behaviour seems to demonstrate that you are trying to be deliberately provocative.

I actually like the little tangent this thread has gone down.

I do get what Hammer is saying: Wargaming is about gaming wars— actual wars. Or perhaps also what-if scenarios. Or perhaps what-if conflicts and alternate history. Or perhaps fictional conflicts in fantasy/sci-fi universes that are only related to the conflicts in our world in that someone in our world wrote the fiction these wars take place in.

I would say that fantasy and sci-fi games are part of Wargaming. They're a subset just like anything else. On a continuum between exacting conflict simulation (check out some of the hex based stuff that's currently being produced — consimworld.com ) and fantastical conflict between non-existant beligerants fighting on non-existant fictional worlds, different games are at different extremes. I don't think one way is better or not, except…

I think JI is on to something with the image thing. Some of the ideas in 40k and WHFB (to a lesser extent) are attractive to teens and pre-teens purely on an image/conceptual level. Infact, they're designed to be— that's the target market for those games.

Here's another reason I dislike GW: The use of historical names for their characters with little regard to the appropriateness of those names and the disregard for the actual history of that historical figure held by the typical GW gamer. I've actually heard someone say "Is Dante's Inferno that pistol he carries?" Shudders…

It looks as if this argument has degenerated into a misunderstanding of the somantics (ie the definitions used for certain words) between the party's differing arguments.

My point was:

Both Historical and Fantasy/Sci-Fi are "wargames"

GW produces "Wargames" with the emphasis placed HEAVILY upon the "Game" side of the equation.

And: GW produces what is basically Fluff.

Now, to define Fluff…

Fluff is basically a poorly constructed thesis or product that has a tremendous amount of IMAGE (or what people call "High Production values"

Fluff LOOKS cool as all hell, but when you begin to examine it… It falls to pieces.

Take for instance GWs rationale behind most of the 40K races. One in particular that I have looked at is the Tau. A supposedly VERY high technology is behind that race, yet they design combat armor that restricts their depth perception by the use of a monacle eyepiece in their helmets… That strikes me as particularily stupid for a race that has two eyes, and professes to a high degree of technology.

There is also the "Because they are good at Long-ranged warfare they suck at hand-hand"…??? WHY? If I were the supreme head Tau, and I knew that there was a deficiency in our forces ability to fight at close quarters I would begin to institute some pretty severe training programs in just that discipline. And seeing that I am the head of a pretty freaking HIGH TECH society… I'll bet that we have some technology that will make for some pretty FREAKING REALISTIC training… Thus giving us an edge in close combat.

GW produces games that make arbitrary rulings about BS like this just for the sake of providing artificiall flavoring.

Now, if the Tau were made of tissue paper or something like that, then I can see that they might be a little less capable in Hand-Hand… Except that they are a technologically advanced society that OBVIOUSLY has the capability of producing some advanced power-armor. There GW goes again… If the Tau can produce Powered-Armor they can overcome the fact that they seem to be made of tissue paper…

Like I said… It is Fluff. It is a bunch of BS that is thrown together with little or NO thought given to the cohesion or believability of the background given to the game.

It looks cooll as all hell, but comes apart like a poorly knitted sweater from your Great-Aunt Gertrude.

As Nathaniel has pointed out above… This can be seen in their use of Historical names without the consideration of the actual history or appropriateness of that name. That is just one way to equate or have some sort of recognizable congruence between the game and a real world recognizably "Cool" name/place/event.

In the Music Industry that is done ALL THE TIME… I should point out that a lot of the GW Execs were at one time or another pretty close to the Punk/New Wave or various other Music scenes in England… At least the ones that I met when I went to University in England in the early 80s… I think that they are all well aware of this marketting trick.

But, GW has at one time or another produced some games that had some degree of acceptability. Warmaster Ancients is one that seems to be doing quite well. Although technically that is produced by Specialty Games isn't it???

I hope that better explains my position.

I do look down somehwat on games that are "Fluff", that does not mean that I have not played them, or will not play them in the future. I just may, but they are not what I am going to spend my very valuable time in pursuing. When I was younger and a little less constrained in my choices, I would probably be neck deep in 40K…

Technically I was neck deep in some of the figures from 1985, when the short lived production run of Nazi Space Orcs was done.. I even did a few sculpts of them myself…

Anyway, to get back on track…

GW is a MARKETING MACHINE, and as such they have LITTLE CONCERN for the value (The amount of actual substance, or ability of their games to withstand a bit of serious skeptikal scrutiny). They are concerned about the LOOK of the game. How well it makes people go "WOW! That looks KEWL!"..

And, that is Fluff, no matter how you slice it…

@Hammer

quote "I dont look down on fantasy gamers, you imagine I do"

Re-read your posts. Even in the same post you said…

quote "To me of course, fantasy, GW, pink tenticled zombies and all are nothing of the sort and are as far removed from wargaming as Gridiron is to football even though Gridiron calls itself football?"

And in what what do you not "look down" on Fantasy wargamers? Enought said!

You don't annoy me Hammer, and I don't think you are trolling, but you do have a tendency to present your views as a statement of fact rather than an opinion.

Regards,

Dave

@Judas

quote "Like I said… It is Fluff. It is a bunch of BS that is thrown together with little or NO thought given to the cohesion or believability of the background given to the game. "

Generally, I agree with your views on "fluff". However, I think it's a little bit harsh to question the "believability" of a world which was created as a background for a game which is pure Fantasy/Sci-Fi.

Yes, it is true that much of what is written won't hold up to scientific scrutiny, but then again it's not supposed to. The Warhammer Universe(s) are not our universe, therefore it is quite plausible that different rules apply.

Your specific arguments for the Tau are well thought out, but I think you just need to accept that the backstory is a means to an end to explain (Deux Ex Machina style) why a particular race is strong in some areas and weak in others.

If you were to take almost any science fiction/fantasy film or book and analyse it to the degree you are analysing the 40K universe you would also find similar holes and glaring inconsistencies.

If you were to take WFB or 40K and strip out everything that isn't "fluff", you'll end up with a very few pages of "rules" and nothing else – the fluff makes it so much more entertaining to read!

Whether or not the fluff is fully self consistent is immaterial – it makes the WFB and 40K universes interesting places and an awful lot of thought and work has gone into defining those universes.

Regards,

Dave

Hammer,

Funny, I've seen and heard exactly the opposite reaction:

Playing with orcs and goblins and space aliens is okay, but the idea of playing with a "real" SS Panzer division spooks some people.

P.S. You wouldn't happen to have any numbers to back up your claim how well Essex et al. are doing? Yearly turnover perhaps? Or even number of employees?

Nasrat,Hammer it sounds like handbags at 20 paces.
I have been wargaming for 34 years and play Scifi,Fantasy and Historical.
In the past I have played and seen boring and extremely
a… retentive games put on by unwashed anoraks in ALL genres.Any genre can be fun and interesting to play if the people running the game allow it to be.
I play WFB but not 40K because I'm gaming against a new gene pool, not the same old guys I've been gaming against for 25 years [ it can get stale].
What has GW brought to the hobby :-higher production values
inrules presentation,scratch-built terrain,painting.
On the downside:- High prices,surgical removal of imagination [lobotomised frothing fanboys who think GW is the total hobby and religion], the us and them factor between Historical [hysterical] and Fantasy/Scifi [freeks].

Foxmeister,

I think that maybe they should apply some higher standards to their products, but then that would mean that they would have to spend as much money on writers as they have on visual arts, and I have discovered that visual arts are a much more mechanical process than learning how to construct deeply involved and intricate settings for a fictional background, whether it is Sci-Fi, Fantasy, or a real world fictional setting.

You point:" but I think you just need to accept that the backstory is a means to an end to explain (Deux Ex Machina style) why a particular race is strong in some areas and weak in others."

is EXACTLY my point against it. That kind of lazy and pointless rationalization for a world structure is just stupid.

It is basically saying… The Tau are good at Long distance combat because they are bad at close combat, or vice-versa… That is called a non-sequitor. One does not naturally follow the other, but in the Warhammer world it seems to… I call that a pretty daft world, and the rules are not consistent either.

Consistency, believability, rationality, STRUCTURE.

Those are the things that will build SUBSTANCE into a fictional environment. To make it even more detailed you could construct archetypes and myths to go with it, but that is an even more complicated construct than a believable physical environment. I think that until GW gets its Physical background better put together that they should leave the metaphysical world alone… They need to get some REAL sociological and social historians before they attempt a real mythology that is not just a cobbled together mish-mash of pseudo mythology plagerized from our real world myths.

As GuyT 2go above has stated…

Gw has brought us higher production values and a serious look at the mechanical processes of painting miniatures and constructing terrain.

This fits right in with their Fluff… They want things to look "KEWL as HELL!", and are not real concerned with how well it hangs together under ANY kind of scrutiny.

I think that it is well time that the hobby has both.

That it has the kind of rules that work well and reflect the setting that they are supposed to simulate, that the background/world that the rules are simulating is well thought out, rational and has realistic physical properties (This includes if you are going to attach a Magic system to it… Magic has just as many rules and properties as Physics or Chemistry – or if you are going to have a sci-fi technology… especially if you are going to have a sci-fi technology)

AND, the game should have the properties and production values that GW has brought to the table.

There are a great many game companies who are attempting to do this now. Many of them are pretty young and inexperienced, so their products still do not have the substance that an experienced creator would bring to a project, but many of them will get their eventually.

Gw at that point will be forced to catch up with at least a portion of their company. There will always be a market for Fluff (See the HUGE markets for such things as "American Idol" or The other "Reality TV" that has grown into a genre of its own… ALL FLUFF!), so GW will always have a place to produce such things…

But, as the Hobby becomes more and more sophisticated it will be forced to raise its standards more and more.

@Judas,

quote "They need to get some REAL sociological and social historians before they attempt a real mythology that is not just a cobbled together mish-mash of pseudo mythology plagerized from our real world myths."

GW are not in the business of producing rational and self consistent worlds. They produce games, and the worlds documented therein are purely for the purpose of supporting the game. Their worlds are rich and colourful, but they are and always will be fantasy worlds and shouldn't be treated as any more than that.

Most of their games also work on the "paper/scissor/rock" principle, meaning that each "race" will have strengths and weaknesses and how they choose to explain away these strengths and weaknesses is less important than the fact that they are there. I appreciate your point, but I think it's pushing it a bit to say that GW should employ sociological and social historians in order to make their world believable (when by definition it is not).

In Star Trek, Gene Roddenbury "created" the transporter purely as a means of getting the crew down to the planets surface without incurring the additional real world cost of producing the necessary models and special effects for continual shuttle missions. Like the Tau, it's just a means to an end, a "Deus ex Machina"

If you take Tolkeins Middle Earth, it is not a wholly believable and self consistent structure either, but that doesn't mean that Lord of the Rings isn't a great book and is in some way diminished because its' world doesn't follow the rules of our own.

From the sounds of it, you don't the 40K world and I don't either. It has been influenced by this "punk/metal/chaos" mythology that I've never been fully comfortable with, since there is no good or light in the universe, only varying levels of darkness.

Regards,

Dave

Hammer,

definitions can change with people groups and time… I think with your defintion of wargame is changing… to the "layperson" warhammer is a wargame (or possibly THE wargame), when I run into people and say my hobby is wargaming they invetiably ask "Warhammer?" – as they have a son, cousin, brother, friend who plays it… and these are people I'm expecting NOT to have a clue about miniatures… your dictionary may be out of date with the definition of this generation…

please note I am not saying your wrong or right, just what I have encountered…

Tolkien's Middle Earth is about as rich and well thought out mythologically as you can get (at the time). Tolkien was sufficiently educated to know about such things as consistency in both world structure and characters or other creations. While it is not "Believable" in the sense of a "REAL" world (as in you are not going to find the things that are in Middle Earth on your vacation to Calsbad Caverns or the Grand Canyon), you WILL find the things in Middle Earth in about every mythology and religion on Earth.

It is a construct of richly detailed archetypes.

GWs worlds are a construct or quickly thrown together fluff that looks good, but comes apart once it is examined.

There is no reason why they should NOT put some thought into their rock/paper/sicsors raciall types, because it is possible to create archetypes that work that way with consitent and cohesive explanations and myths to explain them… Mythic also does not mean "Fictional", it is about the mystery that exists in any spiritual system or religion or history that goes beyond the written history and into the dream world that we all exprience without having to be told about it. Archetypes will appear to us.

When I say Epmploy Sociologists and Social historians to write them a mythology I also do not mean that they need Phd's to construct their worlds, but it would help to have someone who is pretty well versed in that terminology and vocabulary to help them get some sort of consitency to their world, and remove some of the complete BS that currently pollutes their world. It may be completely "Make believe", but even "Make Believe" functions under some cosistent rules…

If it did not then Karl Jung and Joseph Campbell have gone off the deep end of no-where, but as it is they both have some pretty BIG schools of philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, etc in theire names.

I have no problem with the World of Darkness… I have lived in one of those since I was three years old, what I DO have a problem with is their mis-use of the symbolism and complete BS that they try to serve up as explanations. I also don't like their mis-use of that type of sumbolism because I belive that it is playing with some dangerous archetypes that have a lot of power, and throwing them around so carelessly is dangerous. It is akin to giving kids a bunch of instructions to dangerous instruments, and the parts to those instruments, but not telling them what those instruments are for, or what they are used for. That is another argument altogether though, and I have four years of wiriting about it in another forum that is more appropriate, so I will address the gaming points here.

For instance… If the Tau were going to have poor depth perception… They should have been modeled as cyclopses in reality, and not have been pawned off as being so stupid as to invent a technology that LIMITS their natural eyesight, which from the looks of the miniatures would have depth perception as good as any other binocular eyesighted creature decended from some sort of bi-pedal anthromorph.

The GW world is FULL Of BS explanations.. It is that "Deux ex Machina" you keep referring to that I object to. Just making a rule to balance game play is so infantile that it makes me want to PUKE! No… It isn't even infantile.. An infant would create something that was at least consistent within its understanding of a world… Well, maybe it is infantile after all, but that would then imply that GW's games are for kids (And made by kids).

If that is the case (and it is to an extent), so games are obviously made with a more adult audience with themes and backgrounds that are more easily understood by adults, and there are some games that are made for younger audiences that have simpler and easier to understand backgrounds.

I think that GW definitely fall sinto that latter one, but they could easily be BOTH…

Take Things like the "Wizard of Oz", or the Anime by Miazake. Both are definitely aimed at a younger audience, but both have backgrounds that are rich and detailed enough to captivate even a more mature audience. GW does NOT seem to have applied enough attention to their products to make them appeal to a broader audience. They seem to be aimed (And I will now say it again) at the "WOW! That's SO KEWL!" audience.

And, I will say it again…

They would do well, and there is NO reason why they cannot be aimed at a wider audience… They just need to get the BS and artificial explanations OUT of the games, and provide real world explanatins for why some of their races have the qualities that they do.

"Just making a rule to balance game play is so infantile that it makes me want to PUKE! "

It's only a game mate.

@Judas,

quote "For instance… If the Tau were going to have poor depth perception… They should have been modeled as cyclopses in reality, and not have been pawned off as being so stupid as to invent a technology that LIMITS their natural eyesight, which from the looks of the miniatures would have depth perception as good as any other binocular eyesighted creature decended from some sort of bi-pedal anthromorph. "

I don't disagree with you at all, but if you're going to play a fantasy game you need to invoke a little suspension of disbelief and just accept that things are as they are.

quote "GW does NOT seem to have applied enough attention to their products to make them appeal to a broader audience"

I think if you were to look at the spectrum of people who play GW games, you would see that they already have a wide audience.

I don't play WFB or 40K myself, but I know many people who do and none of them are children or teenagers. They belong to diverse range of socio-economic groups with the obvious exception that it is still an extremely male dominated hobby.

Regards,

Dave

Just to comment on low GW Player attendance at Game Shows – back as a Warhammer Playing Kid, I didn't attend Games Shows because I had no idea there WERE such things. It was not until I started playing Historicals that i relised they were there.This comes back to making the Hobby accessible to new gamers. Personally, having taken 'GW playing youngsters' to shows, their first reaction is bemusement as normal, followed very quickly by the expansion of their range from Fantasy to everything…. plus buying the GW figures they DO want from Bring and Buys for peanuts! In the last year alone I have seen 3 lads of 16-18 'exposed' to games shows and they have ALL got into Historical as a result.

Pat

@Judas Iscariot – I was wondering what sort of films you watch or books you read. I.e. it can't be many because of your demands for believability.

Of course if you do watch films like Saving Private Ryan (total pap imo but I digress) then you are just as "bad" as those of us who play GW games because of the standards you demand in "realism".

Ohh, will this make it go over to ten pages?

perhaps I am from another time warp… It may help to know why my views are as they are… My home is on a Roman road and built on the foundations of a 17th century house, my direct ancestor was the 17th signature on Charles I death warrant. I am a amature historian and modeler first a wargamer second and I have spent most of my life pursuing Late Roman, Arthurian, Medieval and English Civil War history.

My wargaming started with the likes of Donald Featherstone and Charles Grant when the only figures you could get were Airfix, that is why I appreciate the unbelievable choice of figures we gat today, and I salute the sculptors, I also admire the brush work of many wargamers, it really is an art form. I have been involved in making masters for some small wargaming manufactures over the years, more the enjoyment than revinue. I also have a range of rule sets (thanks to computers very nicely produced) So I am a traditionalst.

I did not wish to be too damming of GW for its lack of ethics, I did not want to venture into the deeper reasons why I dont like them… but as I seem to thought of as a 'stirrer' I will just add a little mere, I find that the GW fantasy and SciFi universes are graphically undesirable and excesively violent especially as they are specifically aimed at the very young. Having been brought up in what we call 'middle England' I find that GW is creating and encouraging gratuitous mayhem, which for adults can be laughed off but not so young minds. Yes, we all know war is horrific no matter what its guise, but GW do it as glossy entertainment. Its the gradual errosion of ethics throughout society, but GW package it as fun to be part of… Thats it.

Hammer

@Hammer – "Its the gradual errosion of ethics throughout society, but GW package it as fun to be part of…"

LMAO! I never knew GW was to blame for all those Chav yobs who've never even heard of GW! Better inform our local MP's to get all GW stores closed and all our troubles will be solved. Thank you! :D

This comes back to making the Hobby accessible to new gamers.

Yeah, but I think that's part of GW's problem at this point — GW's pricing is taking it well beyond the reach of a lot of new gamers. It's no longer the "gateway drug" it once was.

There has been a "gradual erosion of ethics" in society for as long as people have been able to write.

There's a Sumerian writing excercise in which a father basically tells his kid to "quit hanging around with those good-fer-nuthin' friends of yours, get a job, and stop back-talkin' yer mum" (paraphrased, obviously).

So we need to get used to it. "Social Erosion" (which is really just change) is a constant fact in life. In fact, nothing is eroding except our memories of what it was to be young.

Oh, and the "Wargaming" hobby is way more than just "Historical Wargaming", otherwise there would never be the need to use the term "Historical" when discussing wargaming.

quote "Yes, we all know war is horrific no matter what its guise, but GW do it as glossy entertainment. Its the gradual errosion of ethics throughout society, but GW package it as fun to be part of… Thats it."

I don't think this is exclusive to GW. You'll see just as much blood, guts, gore and general nastiness on the BBC at 4pm (i.e. childrens TV) as you would "see" in a GW book.

There is a definite "horror" element to GW games that may well be totally inappropriate to very young children, but responsible parenting should ensure that this isn't an issue.

For the record, I play wargames because it is fun. When I was a kid, I played Cowboys and Indians, and Cops and Robbers with my friends and in those games people "died" but we had fun. And such games were going on long before any of us alive today.

It's not a new thing at all…. and GW is so far from the frontlines on this issue it might as well be back home holding the baby!

Regards,

Dave

Oh, and Bugstomper…

It is VERY easy for one type of Sci-Fi or Fantasy to NOT be fluff and another to be fluff.

Just read my posts and if you are still having a hard time figuring out the difference between Fluff and non-fluff, I will draw you a better picture.

In short: Fluff has no substance to it. It is just a bunch of pretty pictures (Images, posturing, poseur comes to mind) without any real thought put into either its creation or its being. It is a construct made entirely to attract attention, but will not hold up under scrutiny (and by scrutiny I mean that it has a set of consistent, coherent, and rational rules that govern its existence)

NOT fluff: Creations that have been given more substance and cohesion to their creation. They can be just as visually appealing as "Fluff", but when you examine them you will see that there is something below the surface, and that it is connected in a coherent and consistent manner with the rest of its world.

Some very angry people on this thread.

Its amazing how much passion this subject can generate if if can reach 9 pages.

Not being a fatasy gamer, I find the idea that historical is proper and fantasy is dross is laughable. DBA and Hott use the same core mechanism as does WAB and WFB. Both involve playing with ( dare I say it) toy soliders and diceso I have to say that guys like Hammer are just elitist snobs. Hammer said

"its fantasy and most of it in rather bad taste and is not looked at in the same way historical wargaming is by the public. " Really, most of the public doe snot know wragaming exists and I have seen lots of people wander into GW stuff and been impressed bythe quality of whats on display and not shocked by the supposed bad taste.

Why is fantasy in bad taste? Yet its perfectly legitimate to wargame the Stalingrad offensive or to display fashist imaagry, both of which entail REAL pain , suffereing, tortue and murder.

Hamer said that its OK if fantasy gamers find Historiacl boring and stuffy, well given HIS attitude and the Attitude of many other wargamer snobs is it any wonder? If you had the choice of a game which was based on Tolkein and presented by freidnly games and a game/ lecture on 16th cravattes, I would choose the former and I am a historical gamer.

Now, is n't time we stopped this petty bickering and did someting usefull instaed.

Bugstomper (unusual name) reads into posts what he wants to see, I never suggested GW was responsible for any social Ills, I just said I thought the way they portray their universes as being different shades of evil and gratuitous violence on every page and in every model design, was not a suitable for children who they aim their sales at.

Its like FoxMeister said…. There is a definite "horror" element to GW games that may well be totally inappropriate to very young children, but responsible parenting should ensure that this isn't an issue. ……..

But parents dont and are not being responsible thats why the GW shops are filled with little lads drinking in this stuff…..

I dont wish to offend your freedom to allow children to see and read what they like. I just cant think of any advantages in allowing them to get involved in fantasy-SciFi horror. Its probably just my old fashioned views on bringing them up without those sort of images.

Hammer

@Judas Iscariot – Just read my posts and if you are still having a hard time figuring out the difference between Fluff and non-fluff, I will draw you a better picture.

A picture would be nice please. :)

Books that I read…(Caveat… I read a LOT because keeping up with current trends is one of the things that I try to do also because books are a medium that preserves a moment in history when an author created his work)

I have read pretty much everything by Gibson, Shirley, Sterling, Neil Stephenson, Ericson (D'arc X), Delaney, Greg Stafford… I have also read many of the classics: Asimov, Bradley, Harrison, Heinlein, Herbert, etc.

They all have some problems here and there, but their worlds are pretty consistent, and they have better thought out rules than the GW products. Most books are that way… They are better thought out than GWs "Throw it together using the most expedient means of manipulating the imagery associated with it that we can" products… That is not to say that there are not some REALLY bad books or movies out there… Lord Foul's Bane for instance… Miserable books… There are others as well…

There is a BIG difference between creating a game full of non-sequitors in its rule system and a book that has conceptual technological errors (or was written before a specific technology was invented or concieved).

But, most of the reading I do is of non-fiction.. Physical science/history, Historical, Sociological, mythological, or psychological/philosophical origins… The classics: Freud, Nitche, Hagel, William James… But it also includes more modern authors Karl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Karen Armstrong, Steven Galanter, Raymond Kurzweil, Maxwell Plank, Feynman, & Greg Stafford again (He has written SEVERAL books about topics from Native American Mythology and ritual practices to Medeival European Church Rituals and History) etc…

I watch all kinds of movies and I am a HARSH judge of many of them. Some I am very surprised at the depth of the topic, some I am less so.

I like things that some people find to be fairly odd. Part of that reason is I study cultural mythology, and current trends in society. There are often deep mythological currents that run through various contemporary sub-cultures and the media that they affiliate themselves with.

GW is part of a trend that has taken symbols and archetypes that contain a LOT of subconscious power and adopted them without thinking about the consequences of the exposure to those archetypes/symbols to those who are not aware of the power that they have…

If you do not believe that they have power… I suggest you look at GWs sales as a result of using those symbols and imagery.

It is not necessarily dangerous in and of itself, but it does carry with it the potential for danger of a type… The divisiveness of their existence is one such danger. Look at all of the dialog (and much of it heated or in an attitude of ridicule) that it has created…

And, yes… They are games. But why do I want to waste my time on something that is so poorly constructed…

Also… Suspension of disbelief should apply to the fact that we are talking about Orcs, Goblins and Sci-Fi technologies that do not (Yet in many cases) exist. I should not have to suspend my "disbelief" because of a poorly constructed plot device…

It is like the Star Trek episodes where the Artificial Intelligences run rampant for noo apparent reason other than to give Cap't Kirk a reason to have his shirt ripped.

There should be a reasonable explanation for why the Tau are no good at close combat, there should be a reasonable excuse why the religion of the 40K Universe has So overwhelming pervasiveness as to prevent the use of common battlefield techniques as marking targets, and not marching forward in a line like Napoleonic Infantry or going Over the top in a WWI trench warfare…. "'Cause I said so" is essentially the same thing as making a lame excuse like "It is supposed to be reminiscent of WWI trench warfare…

OK, but then WHY has it been going on for so long with weapons like artillery and machine guns. It only took them 6 years in WWI to finally get over the trench idea of warfare, and within WEEKS of WWI ending they realized that mechanization of the battelfield made trench warfare a BAD idea…

Looking at the weapons that are available in 40K, and how they are MADE to be used is pushing the "suspension of disbelief" too far. with roughly 1/10th of the men and machines (Those that GW has "provided") using a set of rules that simulates modern combat (Badly at that too) you do NOT get the same behavior and sort of combat that you do in 40K. You get something that looks a LOT more like mechanized warfare.

The GW/Warhammer universe seems to ignore the whole concept of evolution of technology and methodology that comes with advancing technology.