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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Retailers detest Mantic because they detest crowdfunding (for good reason, of course).

Para Bellum can expand aggressively by giving great terms and massive freebies to retailers and players because they're seasoned capitalists and are fine with making a loss as long as they grow market share.

This is the opposite of my experience. My FLGS still has the same Conquest minis it had last year, and can’t seem to sell any brutes or abominations. But when we took my nephew there last week to spend Christmas money, there was an entirely new Mantic display with new minis. (Although they still had a lot of Armada stock that wasn’t moving.).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I’ll also add that I think the tournament data is really only useful for telling us what determined tournament gamers are into. Conflating them with wargaming as a whole is how you kill a Privateer Press-sized company.

I mean I have really no interest in AoS, Conquest or The Old World (sadly, because I loved old warhammer, but I'm really very unhappy about scale creep in miniature games and rebasing stuff).

KoW I think remains a good option for a regiment based game, but I think the extreme end of the competitive pool for KoW has some really weird stuff in it that is offputting to me. If I was gonna join a fantasy community, it would probably be for KoW because it doesn't care about base sizes and I could use any of my miniatures for it, but I'm more interested in maybe adapting Hail Caesar or something these days.

But I in no way think of myself as representative of the wargaming market in general. I dislike a lot of popular things and like a lot of things that get very little traction and my hang up about rebasing seems to be pretty specific to me, I've not come across many other people who are as annoyed by it.

I think KoW is currently trying a little too hard to present itself as as anti meta-chasing game, the latest book has pages and pages of 5 point cost adjustments plus absolutely insane gak like "remove units A and B from the army list; add unit C (identical to unit A and can be upgraded to unit B)"

That sounds kind of bonkers!

And like they were trying to fill their book with updates and ran out of ideas so wound up doing things that didn't actually do anything

I'm not sure tidying up an army list qualifies as "absolutely insane ".

I'm not a fan of the update books to be honest. I didn't really come with them to the latest edition, I was happy enough in 2e.

I am planning to give it a proper look, though.

Last Balance update was mainly about 2 things, removing default spells from wizards (and reduce their points accordingly) and adding Aura rules to Army Standard Bearer

consolidating unit entries that were split up before (adding the 2nd unit as upgrade again) and adjusting points for phalanx units both to correct past mistakes

this is a little more than just some points here and there for the sake of change

the books in general are more interesting because they add new armies, new background and new scenarios
point and rule changes themself are in the army builder anyway they don't need to fill the books with that (but do as some people like to have it printed instead of online only)

 DarkBlack wrote:
I'm not sure tidying up an army list qualifies as "absolutely insane ".

It's great when it's done in a reprint, it's insane when it's done in the form of errata. I'm having a hard time even coming up with anything more untidy than "cross out two units from the other book and add this one that's functionally the same". And they're doing this as a follow up to "everything you need in one book" 3.5 edition.

But since Mantic was perfectly happy to do truly minimalist balance patches in the past of just a few bullet points per faction, I'm guessing this is a response to some vocal players' outcry that the balance patch book isn't worth buying or something.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

It's great when it's done in a reprint, it's insane when it's done in the form of errata. I'm having a hard time even coming up with anything more untidy than "cross out two units from the other book and add this one that's functionally the same". And they're doing this as a follow up to "everything you need in one book" 3.5 edition.

I don't see how condolidating two nearly identical unit entries is as big a deal as you're making it out to be.
The web app list builder that actually gets used to make lists is what I was referring to with regard to tidiness.

But since Mantic was perfectly happy to do truly minimalist balance patches in the past of just a few bullet points per faction, I'm guessing this is a response to some vocal players' outcry that the balance patch book isn't worth buying or something.

The most recent book included a whole new faction, with lore, and new scenarios.
So already more than a "balance patch".

Which it needs to be because the rules are available in a web app already, so most players have the balance tweaks without the book.

Mantic has been around a little too long to keep acting like the cute little alternative. They haven't had a real bona fide hit yet, but both Deadzone and KOW have significant, if regional, fan bases. Both also carry the spirit of a GW game (necromunda/WFB) with updated, and IMO better, core mechanics.

 DarkBlack wrote:

I don't see how condolidating two nearly identical unit entries is as big a deal as you're making it out to be.
The web app list builder that actually gets used to make lists is what I was referring to with regard to tidiness.

It's not consolidating anything until a printing comes out that doesn't have the two superfluous units.

 SgtBANZAI wrote:
Adding in to other reports of Mantic's popularity, I think there was an attempt by a lot of local WHFB players to switch over to KoW when The End Times happened, but I don't think there was a lot of enthusiasm in the long run. At least, I think that KoW is not widely played here right now. However, everybody, even old and disgruntled Fantasy fans, are now rushing in as fast as possible to rebase all of their armies, even those not consisting out of GW miniatures, to suit The Old World. "Dude, I have to, it's The Old World!".

This is what saddens me about wargaming in general. There's very few people that continue playing older editions of any game just for the simplicity of enjoying that edition. Though I want to try ToW, I'm not going to rebase my miniatures. I very much enjoy playing older editions of WHFB and I also enjoy playing KoW.

In my area (more northward), there is a good size tournament scene that travels outside of the state. There is a FLGS up further north from me that stocks a lot of Mantic product. But that's because there are people in that area that play KoW and various Mantic games. But in the immediate area where I live, it's almost unheard of. You might find a couple people that want to try it out but you never see people playing any Mantic games in stores.

Mantic back then (2nd edition KoW/early 3rd edition) would make jabs at GW and follow it up with a sale on Mantic products. Which at the time, was really cool. Because you get a bunch of Mantic product for cheap. Now, you rarely ever get any surprise sales. For me personally, the jabs were more lighthearted. Because you know that if GW decided to bring back WHFB a lot of people are going to flock back. I think a lot of people also wonder how it will affect the player base of their games. I'm talking about KoW, T9A, Oathmark, WAP. Even older editions of WHFB.

Grensche wrote:
Because you know that if GW decided to bring back WHFB a lot of people are going to flock back.

Correct. I have seen multiple posts by both former and current WHFB players lamenting the changes to rules, base sizes and armies from the TOW's previews, but still insisting that they are going to - no, they have to rebase all of their stuff, modify army compositions or even start a new army outright because their old units are not properly supported/have a dubious future/are probably very weak rules-wise at the moment. I've already encountered proclamations from different people that they fully intend to throw away/sell off their current armies they have been using for WHFB or WAP for many years until now and buy Bretonnian/Tomb Kings' starter boxes to start "officially supported" factions again. Even if they hate Bretonnia and Tomb Kings or have so much of their stuff it's effectively a useless purchase. I've also seen examples of people tearing down and cutting out their (sometimes very impressive looking) old bases and trays and quickly gluing together their models on cheap PVC and MDF with virtually no additional work to make them look better - anything to rebase hundreds of models as quickly as possible for the TOW's release date. People whine, moan, swear at GW and lament the amount of terrible misfortunes awaiting their unsuspecting models before they get to work on making them "rules legal", yet they still are fully commited to actually doing it. Whatever they've been playing is now getting put on an indefinite hold, it's all about TOW and "officiality" now. Some of them are questioned if they are going to check some other ruleset with their miniatures, and the answer is consistently along the lines of "Why would I want to? It's not GW, it's not official". To me it looks very unhinged.

With that being said, very similar pattern emerged when Legions Imperialis was announced. I was told by an acquaintance of mine about a fresh NetEpic recruit who has just finished printing their Imperial Guard army, then learned about GW's new announcement and said something like: "I'm really hoping GW is going to make a list to suit my drop troopers, otherwise IT'S SUCH A WASTE SINCE I'LL HAVE TO SELL IT OFF IT AND USE SOMETHING ELSE TO PLAY THE OFFICIAL RULESET".

The acceptance of these things in the broader community is a bit depressing to me, but I try not to yuck anyone's yum. It does annoy me though that when I started talking about the scale creep and changes in base size invalidating collections I was aggressively told 1) scale creep is not happening, 2) if it is happening it's a good thing, 3) it's happening but it doesn't matter because no one will ever enforce it and 4) it's actually trivial to rebase all your miniatures and bigger miniatures look better anyway, pretty much in order.

Some people were consistent with point 4, which I disagree with but respect, but the people who shifted the goalposts from 1-4 really annoyed me.

For that reason I am pretty much only interested in playing base agnostic games with a broader community, because I really don't appreciate this sort of stuff from companies which is blatantly only to drive sales.

I honestly kinda suspect the chief motivation behind the base changes is exactly this. GW knows the players will conform to the changes like the brand addicts they are, and forfeit their ability to return to the third party rulesets they might have been playing in the interim.

The end result will of course be that five years down the line every rank and flank game uses new GW sizes.

That is also my fear - that GW sets the trend for the industry and the scale increases overall. It's happened before with the shift from 25mm to 28mm and now you see the shift to 32mm (people sometimes try to make out it was always 32mm because they want to deny the shift for some reason). Same with Conquest being bigger than everything else. I've got a lot of stuff now I suppose and will just stick in the 28mm scale for the rest of my hobby. I probably have enough to last me for years. And I guess that's the point - if you could get me to shift scale and re-buy everything, you'd be on to a real winner.

Sad though, makes me feel out of date and disconnected from the modern game.

I think the 1 inch = 5 feet scale used in a lot of D&D and it's derivatives will hopefully keep a 28mm scene alive to some extent anyway.

D&D is for sure staying on a 1" grid, but there's been considerable scale creep, driven in part by 3d printing trending towards 35mm-ish for the sake of durability and detail on first generation machines.

For me so far it looks like I'm "staying" with KoW (haven't played in 3rd yet but we have plans to revisit it this year) and I'm very curious about Hobgoblin.

What honestly is the reason for people's inability to move beyond games workshop? Is it some kind of formative childhood experience where it was the first best thing? A "I couldn't afford an army before but now hoo boy!" kind of deal?

This cult like fanaticism is not unique to GW, you can certainly see it with Apple, Tesla, cryptocurrency... and probably stems from the same tribal instincts that drive people to fanatically align with sports teams, political parties or street gangs... a (misfiring) evolutionary strategy of being a blind follower to hopefully enjoy the crumbs from the table of your betters.

Or people generally prefer the superior quality of GWs miniatures and the market dominance of their rules (even if the rules are generally not the best) that makes it really easy to find a game?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Or people generally prefer the superior quality of GWs miniatures and the market dominance of their rules (even if the rules are generally not the best) that makes it really easy to find a game?

Not the people who take criticism of GW as a personal attack, no.

It's not like I'm saying every person who enjoys some GW product is a cultist, but there's definitely a percentage. The ones who barge into threads just to ad hominem anyone who complains, certainly. Exact same psychology as Musk fanboys.

like saying you prefer a Tesla for the superiority in design over other cars and the market dominance, although the cars are not the best, that makes it really easy to find charging stations

not like you can play any game you want with the miniatures you like
you must play GW games because you like the GW models is very good GW marketing, not more
there is a trend that you can only use the rules from the same company that made the models, hence why all the historical manufacturer now are coming up with their own rules, and people asking if it really is allowed to use Perry models for Black Powder instead of V&F

playing the games you like with the models you like and the people you like
finding someone playing the same game is not easier with GW (there is a reason for people saying those games are good if played with the right people, but finding those is not made easier) unless you go for events were the version of the game is the same for everyone joining

there is no point in using a game don't like, playing pick up games with people you don't like, just because you like those models

No model can entice me to play with the local 40k tourney grinders lol

But there's some wholesome HH players and we're also getting into AT together

As for KoW, any version of it is a better game than any version of WHFB. But I'm not gonna claim it's for everybody. Not if you like heavy detail, individual wargear options, competitive spellcasting (as in, the wizards competing directly vs enemy wizards on who gets to cast)...

Personally I value the freedom to make my army the way I want it on all levels from composition to model count to looks and I've found it very satisfying to collect a visually coherent and lore appropriate force from dozens of models lines.

For example, KoW dwarfs are allowed to field earth elementals, so I'm using some oversized 54mm dwarfs and a Bones storm giant painted as animated ancestor statues.

 kodos wrote:
like saying you prefer a Tesla for the superiority in design over other cars and the market dominance, although the cars are not the best, that makes it really easy to find charging stations

thats... an awful analogy. Tesla doesn't have market dominance (except maybe in the realm of EVs, which itself are still just a fraction of the market), nor is the design really anything special, whereas GWs minis are hands down the best plastic kits and the most widely played games on the market.

not like you can play any game you want with the miniatures you like
you must play GW games because you like the GW models is very good GW marketing, not more

...the point is that GW games are the most commonly played. I can go to basically any hobby store and find a pick up game of 40k at a minimum, if not also Age of Sigmar. If I want to play Bolt Action, or Flames of War/Team Yankee, or god forbid dropfleet commander, I have to put a lot more effort into finding somewhere and someone to play.

there is a trend that you can only use the rules from the same company that made the models, hence why all the historical manufacturer now are coming up with their own rules, and people asking if it really is allowed to use Perry models for Black Powder instead of V&F

You kinda got it backwards. The companies that had rules are coming up wiht miniatures to support them, rather than the other way around. The reason for that is selling rules doesn't make you any money, whereas selling miniatures does.

playing the games you like with the models you like and the people you like
finding someone playing the same game is not easier with GW (there is a reason for people saying those games are good if played with the right people, but finding those is not made easier) unless you go for events were the version of the game is the same for everyone joining

This is laughably, hilariously, indisputably false. GW - and 40k especially - is the dominant market leader by a very very very very large margin. No other game comes anywhere close to having as large of a playerbase or as being as commonly played. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

there is no point in using a game don't like, playing pick up games with people you don't like, just because you like those models

As opposed to buying models you like but never being able to play because nobody else in your area plays those games? Because I do that too. I got tens of thousands of dollars sunk into very expensive miniature paperweights of models I love for games that nobody plays. Its awesome man, just having all these minis sitting around collecting dust because nobody in my area plays these games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

As for KoW, any version of it is a better game than any version of WHFB

Thats... an opinion...

. But I'm not gonna claim it's for everybody. Not if you like heavy detail, individual wargear options, competitive spellcasting (as in, the wizards competing directly vs enemy wizards on who gets to cast)...

How about just wanting a game where you actually remove casualties from your units and the effectiveness/capability of your units degrades as you take casualties (and no, nerve tests are not the same thing), and where you don't stand there doing nothing for the entirety of your opponents turn watching them act with absolute impunity?

chaos0xomega wrote:
How about just wanting a game where you actually remove casualties from your units and the effectiveness/capability of your units degrades as you take casualties (and no, nerve tests are not the same thing), and where you don't stand there doing nothing for the entirety of your opponents turn watching them act with absolute impunity?

Fair, but also fair to say units don't degrade in WHFB until the final 5, maybe 10 dudes, either. And I think modern KoW has a rule that your attacks are halved if you have more "damage" than your unit size but somehow avoided breaking. The second part, eh, absolute IGOUGO is a valid turn sequence, we lived with it in 40k from 3rd to 7th I think.

chaos0xomega wrote:

How about just wanting a game where you actually remove casualties from your units and the effectiveness/capability of your units degrades as you take casualties (and no, nerve tests are not the same thing), and where you don't stand there doing nothing for the entirety of your opponents turn watching them act with absolute impunity?

yeah, some people like to play mass-skirmish games
Rank&File is not for everyone and Warhammer Fantasy and their games based on that are special that way as no other games goes with formation based mass-skirmish

and standing there doing nothing is a problem only if the turns are too long, which is a problem with Warhammer Fantasy or 40k
a game were 6 turns take 2 hours with both having the same amount of time you have 1 hour down time in the worst case (but you don't do nothing in your turn) while if the game takes 4 hours to reach turn 3 you can watch your opponent 3 hours really doing nothing

but than there are also a lot of people who don't like that and actually want an R&F game without all the skirmish games single model mechanics

chaos0xomega wrote:

 kodos wrote:
like saying you prefer a Tesla for the superiority in design over other cars and the market dominance, although the cars are not the best, that makes it really easy to find charging stations

thats... an awful analogy. Tesla doesn't have market dominance (except maybe in the realm of EVs, which itself are still just a fraction of the market), nor is the design really anything special, whereas GWs minis are hands down the best plastic kits and the most widely played games on the market.

similar as GW does not have market dominance in the model industry but only in wargaming which is a fraction of the market and their design is not anything special either
they are making scale models for gaming which makes them the best looking and most detailed gaming models because the others are producing for gaming and not for display

chaos0xomega wrote:

...the point is that GW games are the most commonly played. I can go to basically any hobby store and find a pick up game of 40k at a minimum, if not also Age of Sigmar. If I want to play Bolt Action, or Flames of War/Team Yankee, or god forbid dropfleet commander, I have to put a lot more effort into finding somewhere and someone to play.

and people come back talking about their awful experience from that or that the game is too expensive because they need to buy a full 2k army to play, and are told that GW games are fun and you can start small, you just need to find the right people with the right mindset and this is not the games fault but the players not putting effort in searching the right players (who play the same way with lower points etc)

just get a 2k tournament net-list, buy the models for it and you can start playing everywhere, except if you did not check the local scene first and somehow no one plays AoS in public but just 40k

there is a trend that you can only use the rules from the same company that made the models, hence why all the historical manufacturer now are coming up with their own rules, and people asking if it really is allowed to use Perry models for Black Powder instead of V&F

You kinda got it backwards. The companies that had rules are coming up wiht miniatures to support them, rather than the other way around. The reason for that is selling rules doesn't make you any money, whereas selling miniatures does.

SgtBANZAI wrote:
...and buy Bretonnian/Tomb Kings' starter boxes to start "officially supported" factions again. Even if they hate Bretonnia and Tomb Kings or have so much of their stuff it's effectively a useless purchase.

That is tragically ironic.

Da Boss wrote:The acceptance of these things in the broader community is a bit depressing to me, but I try not to yuck anyone's yum.

Agreed.

lord_blackfang wrote:I honestly kinda suspect the chief motivation behind the base changes is exactly this. GW knows the players will conform to the changes like the brand addicts they are, and forfeit their ability to return to the third party rulesets they might have been playing in the interim.

The end result will of course be that five years down the line every rank and flank game uses new GW sizes.

Agreed with you on the first part, but not sure of the second.
Mantic at least seem to have made a point of NOT following GW and doing their own thing.

kodos wrote:...and people asking if it really is allowed to use Perry models for Black Powder instead of V&F

I'm surprised and dismayed the hear that mentality creeping into historical wargaming.

My experience with historical is that people take ownership of their hobby. You have to, because a lot of it is left up to you.
Rules are a book published as such and which minis you use and what they look like is up to you. How historical do you want to be? Quality or quantity?
The only "comformation" is to your gaming group (do that your armies are compatible) or the conventions that have arisen to make games easier. Which, due to purpose, don't change much.
(I got into wargaming with Ancients)

Which is why people going along with things like buying models to use in one game in a genre seems ridiculous to me.
I'm used to expecting an army to be usable in a until the paint wears off.
The rules I play will probably change, but my minis don't.

chaos0xomega wrote:

there is a trend that you can only use the rules from the same company that made the models, hence why all the historical manufacturer now are coming up with their own rules, and people asking if it really is allowed to use Perry models for Black Powder instead of V&F

You kinda got it backwards. The companies that had rules are coming up wiht miniatures to support them, rather than the other way around. The reason for that is selling rules doesn't make you any money, whereas selling miniatures does.

In the context of historical wargaming, there are many companies that make miniatures with no rules. You're typically expected to figure out which miniatures to use for historical games yourself, because you're interested in history.

playing the games you like with the models you like and the people you like
finding someone playing the same game is not easier with GW (there is a reason for people saying those games are good if played with the right people, but finding those is not made easier) unless you go for events were the version of the game is the same for everyone joining

This is laughably, hilariously, indisputably false. GW - and 40k especially - is the dominant market leader by a very very very very large margin. No other game comes anywhere close to having as large of a playerbase or as being as commonly played. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

I think you've missed the point here.
It's not about pick up games, it's about finding the kind of game/opponent that you actually want to play.
Ever try to find a narrative game of 40k?

there is no point in using a game don't like, playing pick up games with people you don't like, just because you like those models

As opposed to buying models you like but never being able to play because nobody else in your area plays those games? Because I do that too. I got tens of thousands of dollars sunk into very expensive miniature paperweights of models I love for games that nobody plays. Its awesome man, just having all these minis sitting around collecting dust because nobody in my area plays these games.

The point is that models shouldn't be tied to game systems.
You can use those models to play something else.
The converse of which is you can play a game with other models.
Get the models you like and use them in whatever game you like.

The way in which GW has somehow convinced people that game x models can only be used in game x is baffeling to me.
Nevermind that GW can apparently decree that certain models are no longer game x models and people replace them!
You own the physical object, how you use it is up to you.
It's your hobby. Do it they way you like.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

As for KoW, any version of it is a better game than any version of WHFB

Thats... an opinion...

An opinion shared by most of the KoW player base (presumably Mantic fans in general).

. But I'm not gonna claim it's for everybody. Not if you like heavy detail, individual wargear options, competitive spellcasting (as in, the wizards competing directly vs enemy wizards on who gets to cast)...

How about just wanting a game where you actually remove casualties from your units and the effectiveness/capability of your units degrades as you take casualties (and no, nerve tests are not the same thing), and where you don't stand there doing nothing for the entirety of your opponents turn watching them act with absolute impunity?

Even historical wargames rules have moved away from casualty removal. It's laborious and does not represent reality.
Rolling saves isn't being involved.

chaos0xomega: I think your points about preferences in games and so on are all fine, but I just wanted to say that in Europe 40K is very popular but medieval fantasy games are also very popular and WFB used to be a bigger game than 40K in Europe sometimes. I think the US market is much more into Sci Fi. I don't think it's as clear cut in Europe, though to be fair, that's also subject to change. It's also a bit harder to measure because higher rents and smaller shops mean less gaming space generally and most gaming happens in small clubs rather than in shops.

I think you can see this a little in what manufacturers in these regions produce - I think US is much more Sci Fi focused and there are many more small fantasy producers in Europe.

I think historicals are always their own thing, usually small clubs in both places.

Grunk wrote:
What honestly is the reason for people's inability to move beyond games workshop? Is it some kind of formative childhood experience where it was the first best thing? A "I couldn't afford an army before but now hoo boy!" kind of deal?

Some geniunely think that GW's models and rules are clearly superior, some don't want to bother with less active community where they have to put additional resources in to get a game going, some are stuck playing GW's games because no one will play anything else. Or they are assured no one will play anything else. At this point it's a self fueling cycle: GW is so dominant everyone kind of has to play GW, no matter the reason or if they really have to, it's enough for anyone to have an impression that everyone plays only GW games. GW's motto is "More Warhammer, more often" - they are everywhere in the wargaming scene and even beyond, they want to make you think and breathe Warhammer even if you are off the table, so they have a massive support structure with more books, videogames and online discussions than pretty much any other tabletop franchise, it's not even close. This cycle in my experience leads to some people being locked into the GW bubble and not realizing they can find something else. I've seen at least two people who proclaimed they're dropping yet another GW's system because they think it's trash, only for them to switch to, I don't know, Killteam or Necromunda. "40K's is completely ruined for me this edition, and AOS is a poorly balanced mess, nevermind how they butchered my favourite Necromunda, I guess the only way out for me is to start a Warcry warband and see how it goes".

I don't know if this is the exact reason why, but from my personal experience GW's fanbase has the biggest amount of people taking any criticism of their favourite company as personal attacks. However, this can also be simply because GW's fanbase is so huge in the first place, it's easier to run into these people.

 SgtBANZAI wrote:

I don't know if this is the exact reason why, but from my personal experience GW's fanbase has the biggest amount of people taking any criticism of their favourite company as personal attacks. However, this can also be simply because GW's fanbase is so huge in the first place, it's easier to run into these people.

I think its just a scale thing. I don't think people who play GW games are any way distinctly "different" to those who play other game systems and the vast majority of those seriously into the hobby are or have played multiple game systems over time. The bigger community is going to have more people involved with it, which means more of the good and more of the bad all together.


I think also there's a bit of an internet bias in complaining about GW stuff, which it also gets for being big and long lived. So sometimes there's a bit of the bitter element that's in there because people come onlin eto chat about their game and hobby and they get their enjoyment "attacked" more often because being big and long lived, there's also a bigger jaded population around attacking/insulting/criticising. Heck in general Dakka forums are oft regarded as being a somewhat negative/jaded atmosphere a times.



But yeah I don't think those who play GW games are any different. They are just people playing and engaging with something they like in the hobby wargame market.