Turn on or Turn off

[The Grim Mariner]

In recent issues of Miniature Wargames there appears to be a trend to promote the need for small games rather than a spectacle.  In a "Forward Observer" post a few months back, Neil promoted the view that big games with lots of nicely painted figures is actually discouraging new gamers because they cannot aspire to having such a collection.  This view is further reinforced in this months column and comments in the editorial (bizarrely though Neil laments the lack of such spectacles at Salute and thinks the show was poorer for not having them!).
In the same issue Arthur Harmon promotes a view that simple painting on plain sculpted figures on plain bases is the way to go, whilst appearing to suggest that quality painting standards are not something we should seek to improve or promote.

Personally I disagree with both views.  Big games with lots of nice figures is an incentive to a gamer not a disincentive.  Equally I want to improve my painting skills not be happy with returning back to 70's with block painted figures on green cardboard bases.

Am I alone in this or are we asking too much in wanting big games with well painted figures?

[The Voivod]

As always, different folks....

But I tend to agree. A nicely painted skirmish game is lovely, but there's something awe-inspiring on a hug painted force.
I have a fully painted imperial guard army and little compares on fielding row after row of guardsmen.
That said, yeah, I play (or have models for and intedn to play) a lot of games and skirmish does make it easier to get into.
I wouldn't be so quick to start another massed battle game, but they are part of my hobby.

[grant]

I think the sheer impressive nature of a "proper" game is awe inspiring and inspirational.
It ups my game in painting, research, and general hobby. I don't like ugly miniatures, and always try to paint to the highest standard - certainly nothing by many around here! But everyone has their own hobby I guess.

[Daeothar]

Ooh; now there's a nice can of worms...

Interestingly, in the last issue of Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy, a very similar ranting article by Warwick Kincade was published. The essence of this article was the same; skirmish games are bad, Golden Daemon inspired painting is bad, games with huge armies are good and block painting your figures is good.

This ruffled my feathers to such a degree that I actually contemplated sending in an article of my own as a counter. Because I strongly disagree with this train of thought.

In my opinion, whilst large armies are also a sight to behold, a skirmish game is much more accessible to beginning players. I believe GW had the right of it when they had their Combat Patrol rules up (during 3rd ed?). This allowed one to build up a skirmish force, which could then form the basis for a larger army.

So, whilst large armies are eye candy (and I've faced off against Voivod's IG many times, so can I vouch for the fact ), it can also be quite daunting for starting players. It will take them who knows how long, and cost them who knows how much to get an army on that level.

This is no different than back when we were starting out, but then too, it was not only something to aspire to, but also something to be looked at with trepidation, as building an army is and was quite a commitment. And back then too, a lot of people were not able to commit to this, because of monetary constraints, time issues or just butterfly syndrome.

But what mr Kincade was posing is that this hobby is not just a hobby, it's a lifestyle! he speaks with awe of an icon in the hobby, who was sort of a mentor to him, who does not own a TV set, so as to not be distracted from his hobby lifestyle.

To each his own, but to me, this is starting to sound a tad misguided. This is a hobby before everything else. I mean; apart from those lucky individuals making their money creating games, or those (slightly less lucky) painting miniatures for a living, there is nothing in this hobby we can even remotely call 'professional'. There is no living to be made form winning tournaments or painting contests in our hobby, so (in my opinion), there is no need to take this all so seriously.

Don't get me wrong though; I've spent more than my fair share of disposable income on this hobby of ours without any guilty feelings and I even have a Dark Angels tattoo on my arm (what can I say? I was young and I had the money...), so I'd say there's no lack of commitment there.

But I find offense in statements that anyone who does not paint large armies basically is a slacker, lacks commitment and is just doing it wrong.

The same goes for those who go around telling people that painting to the highest possible standard is a waste of time and they will never finish a project because of it. LAF and other sites are loaded with the most beautifully painted armies, many of them large, so I beg to differ. I can't escape the feeling that there might just be a touch of jealousy and/or compensating for lack of skill involved here.

Me, I love my skirmish games with beautifully painted miniatures. And I don't feel my commitment is in question (just ask my wife ). Also, I find that people who call others lazy and lacking commitment because they are enjoying this hobby of ours in a different way than they do are rather sad.

After all; were I to be as vocal as they are, I could easily counter those arguments by telling them that they are lazy, talent-less and unwilling to push themselves by not trying to paint to their very best (and beyond) on every single miniature, and that those merely blocked-in miniatures of theirs are an eyesore and an insult to our hobby when on the table.

But I won't, because these are all aspects of the same hobby and each will gravitate to and enjoy those aspects they like best in the way they want. I would say they're all different sides of the same coin, but there are so many sides to this hobby, that I'd rather say they're different sides of the same D20...



+++EDIT+++ I just re-read my ranting ramblings and realized that some of it actually comes off quite strongly. Obviously I do not want to insult anyone but rather illustrate my point that the article I referred to is wrong in pointing fingers, simply by reversing positions. If your bell is rung by 1000 mono-posed miniatures, only blocked-in, on an 8x6 table, all the more power to you; it's your way of enjoying our hobby...

[Elbows]

Definitely a turn on.  As a kid it was always looking at big battles/tables in White Dwarf and thinking "man, if only...".  However I think the same thing about skirmish games.  A beautiful game is a beautiful game.  Some things may be a bit intimidating but that's the nature of all things.  I think everyone, in every endeavor has an occasional gut check of "whoa, can I actually do this".  No big deal.

In a world which seems increasingly critical of success, it's not bad to have some high goals - even if they're simple hobby goals. 

[Harry Faversham]

These days I apply the KISS principle to everything including wargames. When I batted off in the sixties, we couldn't field a table with 3,000 well painted figures going at it on sculpted battlefield, like we can now... should a beginner even expect to?

[Oldben1]

Everything in moderation right?
I enjoy all aspects of the hobbies as well.  I like sci-fi, fantasy and historical equally.  I've poured over pictures of large battles, travel games, and even my own unskilled efforts.  Good fun is good fun and I think what I love the most is the creativity we all display.  It's amazing what you can do with styrofoam, popsicle sticks and a little paint. 

Sometimes I get discouraged but more often you can find inspiration in the really huge battles.  Where would I keep thousands of miniatures anyways?

[mcfonz]

Underneath it all I think this is an old school Vs new school argument.

There were grand spectacle games at Salute this yeah - BoW featured a Vietnam one that had a large beautiful table. However, I suspect that this is not what they meant.

At the moment, I think the type of games that are in ascendancy are smaller skirmish level games. I think this is for two reasons, the first cost, and the second is that it leans more towards 28mm which is ideal for those folk who like lots of nice details that they can learn to paint easily - ideal for the newcomer.

The other reality of all this is playing space needed and the time folk have to play a game. Those large spectacles tend to take days to play, not hours, or even minutes. They also do cost a lot of time and money and focus.

I think the reality is that they are just not as popular as they once were. I also don't think that the argument that fewer of them at Salute detracts from the show - quite the opposite.

Over the last few years I have seen a growth in participation games - and this is a massive plus. If, like me, you want to try before you buy then these are essential. Also, rather than just have people stand and gawp at your masterpiece, you invite people into a game where they are actually participating.

For me it's swings and roundabouts. But most importantly it's led by trends, both general social trends in terms of amount of free time, how often, economic and also just the preference of gamers these days.

I actually think that having those sorts of opinions suggests someone who is not entirely in touch with the industry anymore . . . .

[Jericho]

Also remember that these guys write for a magazine that needs a monthly content of god-knows-what as as it has something to do with the hobby. As in most such magazines a lot of filler starts to get in there along with cleverly disguised commercials (we call them 'publi-reportage' here)
I see it like those women magazines with contradictory articles in the same issue; for example "Find your natural beauty" vs "10 ways to slim down fast".
Besides, it is one man's opinion so it's hardly representative of the hobby or its practitioners.

The hobby is also not static but organic it always grows in ways or areas which some like and others dislike. Now is the time of the skirmish game and probably in a couple of years it'll turn back around in favour of big armies and massive battles. As with history it will swing back and forth always favoring some other.

As such it is no use to lament bits of the hobby that have changed, for better or worse...

It reminds me of a quote from Highlander. Try to read it with Sean Connery's voice  
'Why does the sun come up? Or are the stars just pin holes in the curtain of night, who knows?

[The Voivod]

Well, as much as there's more a focus on skirmish games, massed battle are far from extinct.
40 is still the most popular wargames and I have a sneaking suspicion many a company would love a game that does as bad as age of sigmar.
While with the dawn of said game there was a mass exodus towards Kings of war and warpath is also aimed at big games and gaining momentum as far as I heard.

I also think it has a lot to do with skirmish games being easier to produces. And gamers pick up any game if it's good (and sometimes when it's not)
For the cost of creating two complete mass battle game armies, a company can create several smaller armies and build on that.
Privateer press' flagship Warmahordes began as a skirmish game with about 35 (or 1st ed equivalent) while the norm has now grown to 75 pts.

We might see some flux, but I really don't think either game mode is better then the other.
It's up to the game and the players (and/or modellers).

[nic-e]

I find it quite interesting that there would be a call for the simplification of miniatures and games. It's almost as if people are calling for a return to the abstract simplification of games like chess.

(from an art student perspective it's kind of like the early 20th century deconstruction of artistic formality in favor of abstraction. Obviously gaming is massively different but it could be a symptom of the same cause, that is that gaming just like art in the early 20th century has become much more accessible to the general public and as such more people are bringing in their ideas and perspectives and attempting through deconstruction to come to terms with the topic. )

[mcfonz]

Well, as much as there's more a focus on skirmish games, massed battle are far from extinct.
40 is still the most popular wargames and I have a sneaking suspicion many a company would love a game that does as bad as age of sigmar.
While with the dawn of said game there was a mass exodus towards Kings of war and warpath is also aimed at big games and gaining momentum as far as I heard.

Could be wrong, but AoS isn't so much of a massed battle game as 40k. Either way, I am not sure that these are what are being talked about as 'spectacles'. I could be wrong, but I think they were referring to games like the Battle of Waterloo game from a couple of years ago that won prizes at Salute.

I also think it has a lot to do with skirmish games being easier to produces. And gamers pick up any game if it's good (and sometimes when it's not)
For the cost of creating two complete mass battle game armies, a company can create several smaller armies and build on that.
Privateer press' flagship Warmahordes began as a skirmish game with about 35 (or 1st ed equivalent) while the norm has now grown to 75 pts.

I think that is highly debatable. With some examples larger scale games in terms of battles, are actually simpler because the rules tend to be more abstract. The difficulty with skirmish level is you have the likes of Inquisitor at one end that is virtually an RPG and at the other something like FUBAR which is incredibly rules light. I don't think either is easier to produce in terms of the actual rules.

Ranges as in miniatures is an odd one. Most rule sets outside of the likes of GW and PP are aimed at people using miniatures they already have and are not exclusive miniature wise. If you were starting out and wanted to do both then I suspect that for a larger scale game you wouldn't pick 28mm. Hence FoW focussing on 15mm.

We might see some flux, but I really don't think either game mode is better then the other.
It's up to the game and the players (and/or modellers).

Yup. But I think places like Salute are a good indicator of market trends. It's not about whether large or skirmish game is better, it's about what people are playing. And if they are playing a lot of skirmish games then that is what is popular at that time.

[The Voivod]

Could be wrong, but AoS isn't so much of a massed battle game as 40k. Either way, I am not sure that these are what are being talked about as 'spectacles'. I could be wrong, but I think they were referring to games like the Battle of Waterloo game from a couple of years ago that won prizes at Salute.

AoS claimed to be, and in a sense works, on a smaller scale, but just look at the huge models GW is creating and the bundles they are selling.
They really want it to scale up.
I'm not sure why it wouldn't have a place in this discussion, as gw's games are the most prominent mass battle games, but be free to ignore it if I misunderstand.

As your second point, I was talking about the miniature ranges, compared to which books are relatively easy to produce.
A range of miniatures is quite expenive to create. Anyone with the desire and time can produce rules (one just needs talent if one wants good rules).
I know there are plenty of rules available for many rules and setting, but I find most rules come with their own ranges. Malifaux, infinity, even frostgrave produces it's own range. And a smaller range is easier to start up with.
A suitable range for a mass battle game is a far bigger investment and risk, then a small versatile range of skirmish mini's.
Consider that those (say frostgrave) are useful for any fantasy skirmish game or dungeon crawl. The infinity and malifaux are unique models, attract painters. Often a big box of rank and file troops are less versatile outside their own game.

And while I've never been to salute, I have only need to visit the net to see there's a huge boom in skirmish game.
I'm not saying it's not more popular at the moment. It's just that it appears to me the range of bigger games is also growing. Just not nearly as fast.

[Arlequín]

Experience has taught me that unprovoked outbursts tend to be derived from fear or threat. There are obvious real world parallels where a former majority, senses they've become a minority (whether or not that is actually true) and believes that their way of life (or indeed their very existence) is threatened as a result.

I recall the 'good old days' of carting a lot of figures around in toolboxes, setting a game up at the club on a Wednesday night and perhaps getting a turn or two in before packing it all away and carting it home. Little wonder then that people might actually be looking for something that they can actually finish, or that didn't require them to have to commit to getting that 24 figure battalion painted up before next week (with block painting as the only option to get them done in time). Times have changed, but some people haven't.

The guys who I recall had the big armies did nothing but that period, or at least very little else. With smaller forces you can diversify more, explore different things. Variety is the spice of life as they say.

People back then used to use a rule set until it fell apart from over-use, then tape it up and carry on... or finally admitted defeat and bought another copy. Now rule sets come and go with great frequency... unless they are tied into a figure range and people invest in that range, thus essentially handcuffing themselves to that system (in varying degrees of course... drop FoW and there are hundreds of alternative rule sets to choose from).

As for show games, they are (or should be) about spectacle. Back in the day, seeing hundreds of 25mm Napoleonics was quite spectacular, but since smaller scales have blossomed and 'skirmish' games are common, the big 28mm games just look 'cramped' now, despite the units typically being the same 12 or 24 figures they've always been. For the display gamer it is far easier to produce a masterpiece on 3' x 3', than it is on 8' x 4' +, in terms of time or effort.

I wasn't at Salute, but I gather the apparent drop in quality of the games was perhaps due to the table allocation process, which saw some regulars with proven 'wow' status not getting tables, while relative unknowns with a cloth did. Obviously that's hearsay... but if it is correct then blame the organisers for not vetting. I don't believe in favouritism and reserved statuses, but you should look into what you're getting for your show before the day.     

The games at shows that grab my attention feature excellent terrain and well-painted figures, regardless of size or period. The rest I walk past without a second glance... I've been going to shows for nearly forty years now and I've seen all that before on any club night.

    

[Malamute]

   

The games at shows that grab my attention feature excellent terrain and well-painted figures, regardless of size or period. The rest I walk past without a second glance...
    

Exactly this.