"Why Should a Player of Historicals Try 40K?" Topic

Poor Eto. Because I find the Borg Collective unsettling, and do not wish to become a member, there must be something wrong with me. Have you considered the alternatives? Among others, that they value collective loyalty higher relative to individual taste and judgement than is common among other miniature wargamers?

Nothing wrong with that, but it's not me. Perhaps you--and Bill--should consider taking "no" for an answer.

Perhaps you could read the post you're responding to and tell me where I said there is something wrong with you. Or maybe the point where I said their preference is "right" and yours is wrong". Or maybe the point where I offered an assertion for why they like playing the games.

All I pointed out was that you were engaging in sophomoric name-calling. Which you're continued in your last past calling themm the Borg Collective (impllying that they have no individual will) and they lack taste and judgement, which is obviously your provenance aloone.

Actually, Eto, you've never explained WHY they like playing the games. You simply assert that they do, which I would say was evident. Outside of government, wargaming is rarely compulsory. I'll admit I'd be a hard sell for rules which come in multiple volumes and frequently expire, but you've never mentioned an appealing feature. People seldom do. Like you, they get as far as "you play with minis, and these is minis, ain't they?" and regard the issue as settled.

(For what it's worth, I actually have a number of GW miniatures in my armies. It's the voluminous rules and the frequent changes I object to.)

You have, of course, said they go along with widely disliked changes, with grumbling as a sign of high morale, like soldiers. We can discuss later the sort of officer who regards grumbling as a sign of high morale, but you know, generally soldiers, the seriously religious and the political for whom politics has become a religion go along with orders they don't like because they're men under discipline, serving a high purpose. Possibly you can explain the high purpose GW's players serve?

Oh, and be sure to point out to me the next time you object to "sophomoric name-calling" in the case of "button counters" "rivet counters" "Treadheads" "Nappies" and such. GW's adherents are a distinct subset of miniature wargamers and as such certainly deserve a distinct designation. I'm still trying to find the right one. ("Generation Midwych" applies to the generation--see "Boomer"--and not just to the players.)

you've never explained WHY they like playing the games. You simply assert that they do, which I would say was evident.

Nope. Yep. And yes it is. So, your problem with my post is that I am not making up a reason that someone else does something then criticizing it? That makes sense since my problem with your posts is that you are doing that.

Like you, they get as far as "you play with minis, and these is minis, ain't they?" and regard the issue as settled.

And now you're making up whhat I say. I also don't know what issue you are trying to settle.

(For what it's worth, I actually have a number of GW miniatures in my armies. It's the voluminous rules and the frequent changes I object to.)

Me too. I guess the difference between you and me is that I don't denegrate and call names at the people who do buy the rules and play the game I don't like.

Possibly you can explain the high purpose GW's players serve?

I say you would have to ask them. Your approach is just to make up reasons on their behalf, and have the reasons be based on character flaws since you don't like the game they like.

as such certainly deserve a distinct designation

Designation, fine. Denegration, no.

Sorry Eto. I missed the distinction between "It's a TTMWG. You like TTMWGs" and "you play with minis, and these is minis, ain't they?"

But getting back to the topic, I consulted with my son, a recovering 40K player. His suggestion is that the great strength of 40K is its uniformity. Official interpretations iron out any ambiguity in the rules. The game changes between editions, but in any given edition, there are no player decisions other than "faction" and tactics--no local rules, no variants in table dimensions or types of play--making it a good choice for play with strangers, and so a good choice for late adolescence and early adulthood where moving and changes of peer group are frequent.

On the subject of greater willingness of the players to change how the game was played when the copyright owner has a new idea, he punted: could be, or possibly GW simply has greater depth, and could survive and rebuild from losses which pretty much sank Flames of War and Battletech. Does anyone have hard data to contribute?

Oh. And all names for a faction to which one does not belong have an element of denigration. I say this as a Boomer, a Kraut, a Yankee, a Bourgeoise and an intel puke, among other things. No one ever uses "Nappy" without malicious intent.

The "problem", if it is a problem, is competition games played at the FLGS, and sponsored by GW.
This requires uniformity in rules and figures.
I mentioned earlier in this thread Forest Goblins. Cute little green guys wearing loincloths, and with feathers piercing the skin on their foreheads. I bought over 100 of them. They were part of the 5th edition "codex". On the 6th, they were nowhere to be seen. Thus, "illegal". 🤷
I was brainwashed back then. And the only local guy who had an interest in playing told me right off that I wouldn't be allowed to use them in a game. Not even as generic vanilla goblins.

There is no such thing as "outdated" Queen's Rangers Hussars in any AWI rules. Nor invalid Gordon Highlander figures in any Colonial rules that I am aware of.

It's just like dog breeders. There are some breeds who are exclusively bred for looks and "confirmation to a standard". And there breeds, not many, who are bred because they get the job done. There is, shall we say, animosity between these groups of breeders. And that is why we get "perfect" dogs with genetic defects.

I missed the distinction between "It's a TTMWG. You like TTMWGs" and "you play with minis, and these is minis, ain't they?"

The dietinction is in the part you deliberately decieded not to quote:

You might like it.

It would be no worse a waste of your time than that one(?) historical game in your period of favour that you tried and really hated.

consulted with my son

I'm impressed with your one data point. We've had this dicusssion on other threads before. We don't have a deonominator for "all wargamers" or even "all 40K players", so generalizing is meaningless.

Take a lesson from the Buddah, or science, or mathematics, or dizens (probably hundreds beyond what I have read) and accept that there are things you can't know.

when the copyright owner has a new idea

Following my prior argument, I could not give a cold bucket of farts on a rainy day about what GW's new idea is. The only GW game I play is original Space Hulk. It is likely to remain so for the forseeable future, but who knows? And why would you care?

Other people have made a different decision. I don't look down on them for that. Feel free to call them derogatory names all you want; I will feel free to call you out on it.

all names for a faction to which one does not belong have an element of denigration

Again, you have the right to believe so. If you believe that you denegrate all people of a different skin colour or religion by identifying them as not yours, that is fine for you. Enjoy,

I disagree with you stating that as a universal that applies to everyone else.

I don't feel that someone who is different from me is inherently inferior. Again, I do not assert that my belief structure has to apply to you. Have a good time.

if it is a problem, is competition games played at the FLGS, and sponsored by GW.

If you want to feel that someone else playing a game that they choose to play that you do not is a problem, you have the right to feel that way.

the only local guy who had an interest in playing told me

So your problem with GW is the way some local guy wanted to play GW's games? I am sure he has a directly line to John Peake, Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson. Or whomever.

robert piepenbrink believes in the existance of Oldhammer players. I've heard of them, but never seen them. Then again, I don't look for GW games to play. Apparently, this term applies to anyone who doesn't play current edition (I thought it was old guys like me who still play 70's era rules).

Host a game with whatever version of WH or 40K rules you want. If noone else wants to play, that's an effect of other people, not GW. It doesn't make those people horrible people.

I host games of my own rules, QILS. It appears to me that most people both have a good time and have a good experience (which I define as them spending more time talking about tactics and operations than rules). Sometimes nobody else at the con wants to play my game. I'm not happy with that outcome, but I don't thin the universe or the population of Earth has slighted me in some way. Honestly, I consider it my failing for being inable to communicate the enjoyment I percieve others have had playing the games I host.

There is no such thing as "outdated" Queen's Rangers Hussars in any AWI rules. Nor invalid Gordon Highlander figures in any Colonial rules that I am aware of.

I am happy to take a wager or challenge on that point. Tell me what version of which rules you use to define those units, and I would guess that in the wide array that is other AWI rules, they way you are used to playing them would not be allowed. There are probably rules that are scoped such that the two forces you mention are not relevant, thus would be "illegal" to use in the battles covered by those rules.

Unless the AWI rules of preference that you play have never been updated with respect to those units, then there are, in fact, outdated units.

Outdated figures, as opposed to forces, are not a function of rules. They are a function of meta-game elements. I can play 49k with nuts and bolts or chits, as long as my opponent, not GW or the rules, agrees. Meta-game elements belond to the people who are executing a specific event.

Why should a player of historical s try 40k?

Maybe because they don't have anyone to play historicals with, and there are a dozen 40k players in their area.

Maybe as a lighter game where they can take a break from serious historical research and having to paint realistic uniforms.

Maybe to have a hobby in common with their kids. Maybe just to prove for themselves that they don't like 40k.

40k and other GW games are what introduced many people to to miniatures gaming in the past three decades.

Prior to 1987, I had a handful of miniatures – mostly for use in D&D games, but a couple of GHQ micro-armor tanks and APCs for a little display.
I got a sci-fi RPG book for Christmas that year from my friends: Warhammer 40,000 Rogue Trader. It had rules for skirmished with miniatures. I played a few small skirmishes using paper cut outs photocopied form the back of the book. I started collecting some minis for it, and put some terrible paint jobs on them. Then I put all that into storage and went overseas for two years.

When I got back, and was attending JC, I shared a house with three of my friends who I had played RPGs and wargames with in high school, and got more heavily into 40k and Space Hulk, dabbled with a few other sci-fi miniatures rule sets, and developed a set of house rules for a more free form game played on Space Hulk tiles.
Then I transferred to a four year school in another state – and 40k was what I found players for.
Moved back home after a few years because I needed to work a year to get financially ready to finish college, and played 40k. Went back into the military, and everywhere I was stationed, I found 40k players.
I played other games at conventions, or when invited over to a friend's who had armies for that game, and I kept trying other rules-sets (and minis), and I would occasionally find a group of people willing to play other miniatures games, but 40k and other GW games were the ones I would find almost everywhere I went.

I stopped playing 40k and WHFB in 2004 – about 17 years. I I collect, assemble, and paint minis, I've played some historical minis games (mostly 2ww2) when I've had people to play them with. Where I live now, the only miniatures games that anyone in the area seems to play are GW games… so I collect, build, paint, and… don't play.

eto, you're referring to treating WH40K as a rules set--playing whatever edition you want with whatever castings you please. But that's Oldhammer, to which no one has any particular objection. 40K is a complete system--frequently updated rules, changing "codexes" with complete armies eliminated and only GW-approved castings in use. Which is why it generates strong feelings other rules don't.

As for the Queens Ranger Hussars, the OFM had a perfectly valid point you're trying to evade. GW has a long history of invalidating entire troop types and the associated castings, which then become the toy soldier equivalent of unpersons. (I have a substantial force of GW-manufactured Squats which are banned from 40K, and I'm pretty sure GW is the first name listed in their Book of Grudges.) AWI rules may disagree over capabilities and basing, but they're not prone to banning toy soldiers of the correct period and scale. For that matter, last week I made arrangements to buy back some Prussian Napoleonic infantry I regretted selling back in 1982. Still valid, still properly based and I expect them to be back on the table next year. Word I get from GW players is that even when GW hasn't purged the entire army, the redshirts they have running conventions are prone to tossing out older figures because they don't recognize GW's early work.

I suspect that's a feature rather than a glitch. GW--and hence 40K--is different. Pretending they aren't misses the point.

But that's Oldhammer

Not according to the people who call themselves Oldhammer.

link
link

There isn't a universally accepted definition in these and other discussions, but the majority consensus seems to be versions of the rules from decades ago, not what was invalidated last week with a new codex.

As far as 40K or WH as an event, not a ruleset, do you consider than Bolt Action is only Warlord Games sponsored events? And so on for all the historical games that sponsor "official" activities?

I disagree that playing Bolt Action with my friends last week at my house is not "playing Bolt Action" because it wasn't at one of the sponsored events.

the OFM had a perfectly valid point you're trying to evade

I didn't evade the point.

His point was that different AWI historical rules do not change, invalidate, or eliminate specific forces, whereas different WH and 40K rules do. I simply said I do not believe that is true.

Bolt Action: Korea nerfed all my German armies.

His point was that different AWI historical rules do not change, invalidate, or eliminate specific forces, whereas different WH and 40K rules do. I simply said I do not believe that is true.

I mentioned my 120 nicely painted cute adorable Forest Goblins disallowed from the very next "codex".

Ask anyone with a full Squat army the last time they were permitted to use them in an "official" capacity.
Sure, they can play with any edition that "recognizes" them now. But they're so old and antediluvian now that their codex may as well been written on clay tablets.

GW rejects their bastard children. Why are they bastards? Because their father de-legitimized them. Not through any fault of theirs, but because his new mistress didn't like them. 😎
Why is that so hard to admit?

Why can't we also admit that there is no real need to have new editions of rules, new "codices" (not codpieces) that render existing troops obsolete, or new figures. The only reason is to force, errr encourage (🙄) the fans to buy all new stuff. If the old books and figures are complete, nobody will be buying any more. New sales require new editions of everything.

Am I as "gullible"? 🙄🙄🙄
Well… I'll report. You decide.
When Perry came out with "authentic" Volunteers of Ireland, who was the first in my block to get a few packs? The crucial difference here is that they didn't require invalidating any other units in my collection. I simply had another glorious Loyalist unit.
Ditto the Brigade Games Massachusetts regiments in "bounty coats". I never heard of them before, but I added new militia/Continental units which didn't replace anything.
Lord Dunmore's Ethiopians? A new unit that didn't replace anything. (They're also great Maroons for Pirate gaming.)

Stepping away from AWI into Napoleonics. Isn't there a "new" company producing Prussian figures to ambitiously provide for every possible uniform variation? Has Empire rendered obsolete previous Prussian figures, which they are fulfilling a need for?

I'd concede that Oldhammer, like Old School Wargaming, is fuzzy about the edges. But go to a bunch of 40K players with non-GW castings and a previous edition of the rules, say "I play 40K too" and see how seriously you're taken. So unless we invent a third term…

Perfectly true several other companies--some of them historicals--have tried to copy portions of the GW system, but GW remains the exemplar. Has any publisher of historical rules run tournaments in which only the castings they manufacture may be used? Has any other publisher/manufacturer of fantasy and SF forbidden the use of their own castings in their own tournaments? I may have missed something of course, but I haven't heard of either one.

Battlefront, very briefly, attempted to allow ONLY official Battlefront miniatures in "official" Flames of War tournaments. They were immediately hooted down by tournament players. Please note that their demographic was… elderly, as compared to GW players. They already had armies.
Also note that there are very many 15mm manufacturers of WWII vehicles. Nobody can copyright or trademark a Sherman tank or a Panther tank. That attempt failed.

This can only be attempted by a manufacturer who both publishers rules and manufacturers miniatures. I've never seen anyone attempt that.
Firelock publishes Blood and Plunder rules, and also manufactures Pirate ships and miniatures. But I've never heard of BnP tournaments. Once again, there are a lot of ship models out there, as well as Pirate miniatures. (I have 8 Long John minis, and 6 Blackbeards.)