Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/04/20 20:28:42
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Does anything you just said have anything to do with anything that I've said? I know you have a chip on your shoulder and all, but your post seems pointless as a response to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/20 20:28:57
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2015/04/20 20:29:49
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Melissia wrote: Does anything you just said have anything to do with anything that I've said? I know you have a chip on your shoulder and all, but your post seems pointless as a response to me.
Yes it does. The game can be garbage and still be the most popular game, because of momentum. If it was launched in the state it was in today in a time with more competition, it wouldn't be the most popular. It grew large in a time where it was pretty much the only wargame around. That's why it's still so popular.
It's like you didn't read my post... It was only four words.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/20 20:35:41
2015/04/20 20:42:25
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
There are books and RPG's to satisfy that. The game is still garbage.
And yet the game remains the most popular of the tabletop wargames.
Source please. By Dakka's latest polls Warmahordes are almost dead even in popularity and Dakka started as a 40k site.
Dakka polls are hardly scientific. And if you look at the number of posts being made daily for 40k vrs WMH I think you'll see a different story.
Dakka polls are not scientific but posts on a mainly 40k forum are?
For the record, I'm surprised anyone thinks 40k is smaller then WMH. It's true in my meta, but that's because 40k has been dying out. We all own way more 40k stuff then WMH, and if we actively played, it would shift in 40k's favor.
2015/04/20 21:06:18
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
There are books and RPG's to satisfy that. The game is still garbage.
And yet the game remains the most popular of the tabletop wargames.
Source please. By Dakka's latest polls Warmahordes are almost dead even in popularity and Dakka started as a 40k site.
Dakka polls are hardly scientific. And if you look at the number of posts being made daily for 40k vrs WMH I think you'll see a different story.
Just my point. A poll on a 40k fan site would not be scientific and would be horribly biased ...yet Warmahordes pulled a tie.
As to the number of posts? Easy, GW sells flawed rules that they don't properly support. The majority of 40k posts are about rules conflicts, questions of how to play or about buying/building armies. Between poor rules, lack of consistent support, people who spend all their time being built/painted, 40k people spend all their time here while Warmahordes players are out actually playing their games.
Edit for auto-correct
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/20 21:09:07
2015/04/20 21:07:33
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Akiasura wrote: Dakka polls are not scientific but posts on a mainly 40k forum are?
Nope, sorry, my point was you can pluck evidence to support your theory, should have been a little more clear on that. So just to sum it up: You can't base an entire blanket argument based on a single online forum.
2015/04/20 21:10:37
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Captain Avatar wrote: As to the number of posts? Easy, GW sells flawed rules that they don't properly support. The majority of 40k posts are about rules conflicts, questions of how to play or about buying/building armies. Between poor rules, lack of consistent support, people who spend all their time being built/painted, 40k people spend all their time here while Warmahordes players are out actually playing their games.
Edit for auto-correct
That is a whole lot of assumption on your part based off of no evidence. I usually play two to three 40k games a week, paint several minis, spend time with my family, work my full time job, and still find time to post on here and several other sites. It's not some kind of crazy juggle in your life to do so.
2015/04/20 21:13:48
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Captain Avatar wrote: As to the number of posts? Easy, GW sells flawed rules that they don't properly support. The majority of 40k posts are about rules conflicts, questions of how to play or about buying/building armies. Between poor rules, lack of consistent support, people who spend all their time being built/painted, 40k people spend all their time here while Warmahordes players are out actually playing their games.
Edit for auto-correct
That is a whole lot of assumption on your part based off of no evidence. I usually play two to three 40k games a week, paint several minis, spend time with my family, work my full time job, and still find time to post on here and several other sites. It's not some kind of crazy juggle in your life to do so.
Pretty sure he was joking, mostly.
2015/04/20 21:13:59
Subject: Re:how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Akiasura wrote: Dakka polls are not scientific but posts on a mainly 40k forum are?
Nope, sorry, my point was you can pluck evidence to support your theory, should have been a little more clear on that. So just to sum it up: You can't base an entire blanket argument based on a single online forum.
Please to note that while my evidence was, admittedly anecdotal..at least I provided some info as oppoaed to an unfounded and unsubstantiated claim as to 40k's unchallenged dominance.
You seem to be cherry picking here in order to avoid(distract from?) ..the fact that times have changed and GWs dominance is no longer an assured thing.
2015/04/20 21:19:06
Subject: Re:how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Gamgee wrote: Thankfully I didn't invest much in 40k. I was hesitant from things I heard of GW and the player base. All proven right unfortunately.
GW will die. It is dying. I will speed that up by not playing the game. I always got the RPG's.
So you didn't get too heavily involved, didn't like it, decided to move on, and have decided you're going to try and ruin the game for others who do still enjoy it? If you didn't invest too heavily, then what do you care if people are still playing? It sounds like you DID enjoy it if you're so upset you're willing to try to tank the game for others just to punish GW, that or you're just being kind of petty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Captain Avatar wrote: You seem to be cherry picking here in order to avoid(distract from?) ..the fact that times have changed and GWs dominance is no longer an assured thing.
Uhm, you're the one who cherry picked a poll, and I never said that GW would forever have market dominance. Anyone who's been in a tabletop store regularly for the last five year can tell you that GW's being crowded by newer games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/20 21:21:27
2015/04/20 21:25:10
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Going to answer this one because there is nothing else like it you may claim all these games are better and such and such but they are simply pretenders to thevthrone. No game has the back ground scope of 40k. No game has the balance between detail and quantity it does. More importantly lots of model designs something new all the time and its not slowing down that's why it won't die simple variety.
7th edition is great for 40k
What can replace 40k ?
Warpath please there models suck so do the rules and no where near a 10th of the models of 40k and background is just a scrible on a napkin
Infinity ha please metal models no thanks skirmish game dull give us huge army's any day I want a 100 guys to die and still have a hundred more.
Drop zone commander a bigger rip off than gw by far and is forever in the shadow of old epic.
There is nothing to replace it and that is the problem so until there is hail to the king baby
Pmsl
2015/04/20 21:27:07
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Captain Avatar wrote: You seem to be cherry picking here in order to avoid(distract from?) ..the fact that times have changed and GWs dominance is no longer an assured thing.
Uhm, you're the one who cherry picked a poll, and I never said that GW would forever have market dominance. Anyone who's been in a tabletop store regularly for the last five year can tell you that GW's being crowded by newer games.
No, you misunderstand. I meant cherry picking as in you are choosing to argue with the person who at least brought some evidence (though anecdotal) as opposed to commenting upon Melissa's unsubstantiated claim. It is the decision to demand that I provide better evidence while not asking the same of the person who made an unsubstantiated claim.
Truth is that there is no way to accurately tell which game is the dominant without a massive worldwide statistical analysis. It is for this reason people should avoid unsubstantiated claims and stick to offering up "qualified" personal observations (local gaming scene, changes to forums ,ect., ect. ...). Then we can compare observations.
2015/04/20 21:48:30
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
10penceman wrote: Going to answer this one because there is nothing else like it you may claim all these games are better and such and such but they are simply pretenders to thevthrone.
Pmsl
I can't apgree. I think the lore is given far more credit than it deserves - a lot of it, especislly stuff written in the last few years is extremely poor.
10penceman wrote: No game has the balance between detail and quantity it does.
You call it detail, I call it bloat.
10penceman wrote: More importantly lots of model designs something new all the time and its not slowing down that's why it won't die simple variety.
Pmsl
Depends really. I've read elsewhere that companies entering the death spiral tend to move to a model of 'sell anything/everything' regardless of quality. And typically with escalating prices. Whether that applies to gw is up for debate. that said - I've been less than impressed with the majority of their new releases.
Infinity ha please metal models no thanks skirmish game dull give us huge army's any day I want a 100 guys to die and still have a hundred more.
Indeed. Personally, I'm not gonna spend four hours per model painting/modelling only for them to be removed a dozen at a time. Kinda pointless, IMO. Massive casualties belong to epic-skale games like epic, or dzc. As for the metal thing - metal is awesome. Regarding skirmish - lots if people find them very engaging. I liked the fact that I've only got a dozen guys on the board - each guy matters.
There is nothing to replace it and that is the problem so until there is hail to the king baby
The question is: should one game replace it? Personally, I feel that the hobby is better served by a variety of smaller games, rather than one singke behemoth.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
2015/04/20 22:07:24
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Indeed. Personally, I'm not gonna spend four hours per model painting/modelling only for them to be removed a dozen at a time. Kinda pointless, IMO. Massive casualties belong to epic-skale games like epic, or dzc. As for the metal thing - metal is awesome. Regarding skirmish - lots if people find them very engaging. I liked the fact that I've only got a dozen guys on the board - each guy matters.
40k is definitely not the game for you. There is nothing wrong with that; you just won't ever be happy playing 40k no matter what GW does. It's like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
1. 40k is an ideal game for people who enjoy spending endless hours modelling, and proudly play their collections on a large scale; inevitably, that means dozens must be removed. This is the game and hobby, and if you don't like that, you won't enjoy 40k. Personally, I spend 10-25 hours per model (including troops), and since my typical army has 100 models and typical collection has 200+ models (or more!), that's 1000-5000 hours per collection in hobby, which I enjoy immensely -- every much as bit as playing opponents.
2. If skirmish games are your preference, 40k is not the right game for you. There are much better skirmish games. On the other hand, there is no Cool Factor in skirmish games, to me. On my tables, I have more time, money, and models invested in TERRAIN than 100% of skirmish games I see -- never mind the models. Heck I probably have more time and effort spent on my table tiles than everything on the table in most skirmish games I see.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/20 22:10:07
2015/04/21 00:16:28
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Talys wrote: 2. If skirmish games are your preference, 40k is not the right game for you.
And what is 40k, after all, if not an oversized sci-fi skirmish game?
No, a game recreating an epic battle is not an oversized skirmish game at all.
I mean, I could go on forever, but I won't. But just look at the mechanics of WM/H compared to 40k -- they are totally different. WM/H rules are not enjoyable if you had 200 points per side. It just isn't designed for that. 40k is playable at low point values (eg Kill Team), but other games with better mechanics are simply superior at that scale.
Look at real life: two elite squads fighting in city ruins (alone) would be totally different than two battalions advancing upon each other in the same city ruins. For one, you want need exceptional heroes; for the other, you want regimented discipline.
You can't write a tabletop game (one set of rules) that's simultaneously as efficient at moving 75-150 models as is efficient for commanding 10-20 models. I mean, that's just common sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/21 00:43:53
2015/04/21 03:30:28
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Talys wrote: 2. If skirmish games are your preference, 40k is not the right game for you.
And what is 40k, after all, if not an oversized sci-fi skirmish game?
No, a game recreating an epic battle is not an oversized skirmish game at all.
I mean, I could go on forever, but I won't. But just look at the mechanics of WM/H compared to 40k -- they are totally different. WM/H rules are not enjoyable if you had 200 points per side. It just isn't designed for that. 40k is playable at low point values (eg Kill Team), but other games with better mechanics are simply superior at that scale.
Look at real life: two elite squads fighting in city ruins (alone) would be totally different than two battalions advancing upon each other in the same city ruins. For one, you want need exceptional heroes; for the other, you want regimented discipline.
You can't write a tabletop game (one set of rules) that's simultaneously as efficient at moving 75-150 models as is efficient for commanding 10-20 models. I mean, that's just common sense.
It is an oversized skirmish game. Mechanically it is. There's far too many rules for the size of armies that you play, it's bloated and unwieldy, it either needs to be big armies with simplified rules, or smaller armies with complex rules. Saying the mechanics are different to WMH is a strange argument, the mechanics of WMH are also completely different to infinity, another skirmish game, which is completely different to Malifaux, another skirmish game, etc...
2015/04/21 04:01:47
Subject: Re:how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
I offer my opinion on how 40k stays alive and how Games Workshop does not go under:
40k seems to be Warhammer Fantasy set in a science fiction environment, and Warhammer Fantasy seems to be Tolkein's writings. As far as I have read The Lord of the Rings is the best selling fiction work in the history of the modern world. Therefore, 40k draws on a rich intellectual property to which another layer of creativity from artists, sculptors, other writers etc., have added their own ideas. Each layer in turn helps keeps 40k going.
Games Workshop does not go under, in part, due to Tolkein's works and the works of many other creative people. Also, its customer base itself is creative: they take the product and add to it their creativity, painting, sculpting, even strategy and tactics, etc. Now many may have moved on, but regardless, the inertia is already there. Another post suggested a slow death if the company were to end. 40k has a depth to it that reaches back to the 1930s or 40s (Tolkein).
"They don't know us. Robot tanks are no match for space marines." Sergeant Knox from Star Blazers
Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life
2015/04/21 07:32:05
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
It is an oversized skirmish game. Mechanically it is. There's far too many rules for the size of armies that you play, it's bloated and unwieldy, it either needs to be big armies with simplified rules, or smaller armies with complex rules. Saying the mechanics are different to WMH is a strange argument, the mechanics of WMH are also completely different to infinity, another skirmish game, which is completely different to Malifaux, another skirmish game, etc...
In that case, are you trying to assert that all large scale wargames are just oversized skirmish games? If so, that's fine; I'll just disagree, as I believe that certain games (like WMH or Infinity) would be unplayable, or at the very least very unenjoyable given 100 models vs 100 models. Also, because all of the models are monopose, the table would become extremely repetitive.
My opinion is that not everyone wants to play 100 vs 100 models; just as not everyone is interested in playing 20 models vs 20 models. But I'll just leave the difference between skirmish/epic battle games at that, as there is nothing constructive to be gained by further arguing it.
For myself only, I can state it pretty simply. My attraction to tabletop miniature wargames requires three elements: awesome miniatures, an awesome tabletop, enacting an epic battle. Yes, I am shallow. It's not just the Rule of Cool -- it's ALL about the Rule of Cool, for me.
Removing any of those 3 elements instantly kills it for me, and I'd simply rather play a PC game, where at least there is no setup time, and the graphics are great. I am not interested in a tabletop miniature game that doesn't involve awesome miniatures exquisitely modelled, that doesn't have terrain that makes me go, "Wow!", or that feels puny. I want to see the fall or salvation of Hollonan, not some elite soldiers fighting in city streets.
Now, do I actually enjoy the game? YES! I love playing my Grey Knights, Ultramarines, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Blood Angels, or Imperial Guard. Do I try to win? Of course! And I am happier if I win than if I lose. On the other hand, I'm way more unhappy if my opponent isn't having a good time, and if I need to make adjustments I will gladly do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: 40K isn't deep, the fanbois just assume it is. Once you get off the jarhead coloured armour fiction, you see how rubbish and shallow it actually is.
Like every tabletop miniature game or RPG, 40k is what you and your friends want to make of it. A crappy, frustrating cheesefest of grey plastic soldiers going pew pew, I win -- or awesome armies colliding in a jaw-dropping tabletop. It's what you're willing to put into it, and what you want to get out of it. If everybody actually agreed with you, they'd stop buying GW products, and GW would *actually* go under.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/21 07:55:06
2015/04/21 07:55:17
Subject: how does 40k stay alive and how does GW not go under?
Talys wrote: No, a game recreating an epic battle is not an oversized skirmish game at all.
I mean, I could go on forever, but I won't. But just look at the mechanics of WM/H compared to 40k -- they are totally different. WM/H rules are not enjoyable if you had 200 points per side. It just isn't designed for that. 40k is playable at low point values (eg Kill Team), but other games with better mechanics are simply superior at that scale.
Look at real life: two elite squads fighting in city ruins (alone) would be totally different than two battalions advancing upon each other in the same city ruins. For one, you want need exceptional heroes; for the other, you want regimented discipline.
You can't write a tabletop game (one set of rules) that's simultaneously as efficient at moving 75-150 models as is efficient for commanding 10-20 models. I mean, that's just common sense.
If you want an "epic battle" go play Epic. Fifty infantrymen, ten bikes and three tanks is not an army. Specially not in a setting where Imperial Guard is said to deploy troops by the millions. 40k has never been more than a skirmish game, it just got incredibly more bloated and oversized than ever in its latest editions. 28mm scale is simply not suited for mass battle games, unless your gaming table is the size of a basketball court.
I do not play WM/H, but for the looks of it, it seems to be an skirmish game. A true skirmish game. What 40k was in 2nd edition. Unlike its current iteration which is an oversized and bloated skirmish game with too much special rules it can't handle well.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
...yet Warmahordes pulled a tie. 
