Re: [GZG] GW bashing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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