Re: A Question (hmmm that question)

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:42:09 EDT ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:

> [...] their attitude about what goes on the table. A friend gamed at 
a club sponsored by GW while he was on an extended trip to England. He 
had gone to the trouble to take his rather beautiful Warhammer armies 
with him! Non-GW figures were present; he was told to take "that trash" 
off the table. Not a charming attitude! <

I think "attitude" really sums up most people's problems with GW. The 
attitude that GW gaming is somehow different (and, of course, superior) 
to other games (the "GW hobby" line); the attitude to non-GW stuff as 
described above (I can live with GW wanting to concentrate on its own 
games; that's not unusual -- the AH General did the same thing, long 
before WD went all-GW); the attitude that only the latest release of 
each game is valid -- we've all heard the saga of the gamers not 
allowed to take part in an event because their minis dated from the 
previous edition of a game -- or even a previous game! (How do you 
imagine GW would cope with someone trying to use "Space Fleet" ships in 
a game of BFG?)

Then there's the insistence on everything being "official" (which, 
interestingly enough, is belied by what is published in WD, but not in 
practice, it seems) and the monomania that the idea of the "GW hobby" 
produces. Games clubs that purport to be "wargames" clubs, but _only_ 
play GW, are rife (and are often supported by local GW stores). Anyone 
who has a copy of issue 30 of Ragnarok will have laughed/groaned over 
the stories of the kid who wouldn't buy some green paint because its 
use as a shade of Ork flesh hadn't been "officially" approved, or the 
one who thought some home-made rules were really neat when he saw them 
played at a con, but lost interest when he found out that they were 
home-made, and not "real" rules.

And yes, they're expensive. Something _I_ find annoying is that they 
don't live up to their promises: I've been trying to get some spare 
parts (a decal sheet) for years, but first they wouldn't sell me one 
because it was too small an order, and then, when I had a big enough 
order, they'd decided not to do them by mail order or something! So 
much for the much-vaunted Mail Order Trollz!

But beside all that, the thing which I _really_ object to about GW, 
both for myself and as a (hopefully) responsible parent, is the sheer 
bleakness of GW's games. There is no optimism at all; every "nation" or 
side is equally dreary and corrupt -- if not literally, then morally. 
The entire GW universe is just one big bloodbath, with no redeeming 
features whatsoever that I can find. And they _push_ this ethos in all 
their material: "Suffer not the alien"; "Blood for the Blood God"; 
Heresy, Chaos, Decay.... Yuk!

Contrast this with the Tuffleyverse. Jon has said many a time that his 
universe was designed to provide a setting for conflict, and that there 
are no "good guys" and "bad guys", but at least there _is_ a positive 
side to it. The ESU comes over (to me, anyway) as Communists In Space, 
but they have admirals who, after joining with a nominal enemy to fight 
the Kra'Vak, offer their surrender in order to avoid further bloodshed; 
and the NAC commander refuses to accept that surrender because the 
human powers may soon need every fighting ship and crewmember that 
they've got. I don't want to get into an argument as to whether this is 
realistic or not, but at least it shows courtesy and respect, which are 
_supposed_ to be military virtues. The only thing "respected" in GW's 
world is the biggest chainsaw!

Phil, who can't take "the blood god" seriously, not after my son came 
up with "Squash for the Squash God! Pumpkins for the Pumpkin Throne!" 
<g> while cooking one day.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"We gotta get out into Space / If it's the last thing we ever do!"  
   -- Return to the Forbidden Planet
A sentiment echoed by Phil Atcliffe (Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk)