Hey 40k Folks -

This could turn into show, but my goal here is an on-topic and insightful conversation around the following? I don't think our hobby is sinking. I don't think there is a majority of people who really believe this. I think that there is an angry and loud minority on the inter-tubes.

I don't understand what folks are so negative regarding the table top, fluff, and hobby. I do understand that people spend a lot of time building, painting, and reading about these models (whether fluff and/or rules). The time investment is immense, so any changes or threats to "the way I want it" or "they way it used to be" make for a hot subject.

This could be a change to the rules or just a bad string of games. Heck, even the case of my Deathwing a bad 2.5 years of games followed by a "bad" change.

The question still stands for me, is the people I choose to surround myself with see the game for what it is and adapt their tactics/ list building to meet the meta. We will experiment and get tabled or table someone - yet talk about the lists weaknesses against the meta/ off meta picks. And it is enjoyable. I am in a game that is constantly changing due to frequent model/ rule changes. I get decent play out of the lists I build and modify. I win and get ousted at tournaments with my DA, Nids, and Sisters.

Why are people so focused on the negative? Was just on a friendly DA Facebook group talking about a book got for X-Mas. A different member went on about how it was against the fluff - when really all I saw was just a lack of imagination on their part due to a sentence in a codex disagreeing with a well explained passage about why a company commander wasn't part of the inner circle. This lead to a number of bashing comment on the author. Why?

Why are people so negative, yet stick around? Why do people who seem to have nothing, but bad, to say about the hobby not just do something else? There are tons of different things to do with your time - why pick something that infuriates you?

People are passionate about the hobby and it brings out the vocal complaints when stuff isn't being done well. Unfortunately GW is a company that is not consumer friendly and outright ignores its customer base. So you have passionate people and a company that operates in a manner that is cold and passionless as GW's actions show little to no concern about quality of rules, fluff, or being fun. They just want to make models for people to buy. All that resentment and thus negativity spills over into other topics of discussion because it feels like our concerns and wants fall on deaf ears. Some people are better than others at keeping the negativity from spilling over.

That being said there are always a small minority that tend to be socially lacking and aren't able to be flexible in the least about things. In any area of interest you will find these kinds of people but when you have a community of disgruntle and passionate members then that negativity can possibly result in a feeding frenzy / negativity echo chamber of sorts.

If it can be debated on the internet then you will always find negative minded folk.

Unfortunate truth in today's world.

People focus on the negatives because there are a lot of negatives to focus on. 40k is an appallingly bad game with some decent models (though less and less with every new release) and great fluff (though less and less with every new release). But people keep coming back to it in the desperate hope that the things they enjoy about the hobby can make up for the bad parts. Whether or not this is true depends on the person, I guess.

It's easier to complain and be negative then be positive and constructive, people don't want to put the effort in and take the easy way out. Granted there are a few things about the game I'm disappointed with but as stated I tend to adapt and overcome, and often enjoy the challenge of facing new things that may or may not be considered too strong, silly rules ect.

Here is my opinion, as someone who plays/used to play sisters of battle, black Templar, and word bearers: GW is very inconsistent with how it treats its Lore and balance. They will shift things all over the place to sell a new product, and do halfassed digital books for things they consider dying. They will make a new model for space marines every month, but leave most other armies with monopose single option HQs and take away options from rulebooks because of said terrible models. Say hello to my Venom blade archon with clone field...which sits on my shelves since 5th edition.

Human nature. No one is immune.

The trouble, in one sentence or less:

People who hate losing way more than they like winning.

Anger isn't necessarily confined to the game, people will bring their unrelated agendas and personality quirks into 40k.

40k is very different than a videogame in that there is a strong element of social interaction, from rules interpretation to "balance" to expectations of etiquette. Demonizing GW can serve to triangulate friction, rather than blaming the party across the table, you can blame an impersonal 3rd party. In these respects making GW an acceptable and distant common enemy preserves peace within the 40k fanbase.

Exorbitant prices and corporate-driven agendas are more valid criticisms (like GW's frivolous lawsuits), but I don't you were talking about more mature and grounded behaviour.

-Games take several hours.

-The typical player may only get to play once a week or less, due to scheduling issues with other players etc.

This leads to players that don't get enough of the game to satisfy their tastes, and have spare time on the internets.

Now combine that with:

-tons of balance issues and legitimate complaints about the game, as well as severe issues with the company running the game.

And you have a recipe for a negative player-base.

 Peregrine wrote:
People focus on the negatives because there are a lot of negatives to focus on. 40k is an appallingly bad game with some decent models (though less and less with every new release) and great fluff (though less and less with every new release). But people keep coming back to it in the desperate hope that the things they enjoy about the hobby can make up for the bad parts. Whether or not this is true depends on the person, I guess.

Peregrine basically nailed it.

There's a lot of great stuff to 40k. Most people that are salty about 40k aren't really so much butthurt about losing, but rather that the quality of the experience they love so much is decreasing.

For me, the pricing, increasingly insane rules, and just as importantly, declining quality of background and changing style of imagery to mimic something you'd find in a MOBA videogame as opposed to the more classic "heavy metal" look are all problems that decrease the quality of the experience. I love the 40k universe, which is what keeps me at least minimally engaged, but, like many others, the direction of the last few years isn't what we'd like to see.

No different than Star Wars fans who loved the original movies and griped tremendously about the prequel trilogy. They loved the original movies, despite some of their flaws, and there were very real and very compelling complaints about the prequels (still haven't seen the new flick so I won't comment).

Also too many people out there treat 40k as a truly competitive game, so it's inbalance only multiplies the negative behaviour. Even just mentioning this i've seen people get really edgy and snappy.

However the painting section is bliss, and others see 40k for what it is, a social make your own path game.

I don't think our hobby is sinking. I don't think there is a majority of people who really believe this. I think that there is an angry and loud minority on the inter-tubes.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true, and the evidence suggests that your opinion is incorrect.

Why are people so negative, yet stick around? Why do people who seem to have nothing, but bad, to say about the hobby not just do something else? There are tons of different things to do with your time - why pick something that infuriates you?

Because there's a great IP buried under the tons of crap GW has foisted on it.

 Peregrine wrote:
People focus on the negatives because there are a lot of negatives to focus on. 40k is an appallingly bad game with some decent models (though less and less with every new release) and great fluff (though less and less with every new release). But people keep coming back to it in the desperate hope that the things they enjoy about the hobby can make up for the bad parts. Whether or not this is true depends on the person, I guess.

I see a lot of people on here and elsewhere saying the same thing, that 40k is 'appallingly bad', but it always makes me wonder.

What makes a bad game? What makes a good one? We can focus on just the game portion of the experience (so excising 66% of the overall experience), but we're still left with the problem of finding an objective metric by which to evaluate a fundamentally subjective experience.

Sure, you can make arguments that 40k's rules are confusing and unclear, the balance in between the armies is lacking, the game system doesn't know what it wants to be (small skirmish-level or huge mass-battle), and many other things, but those are all just potentially influential elements to the actual most important factor: is the game fun?

Tabletop Wargaming isn't an artform (remembering that we're just talking about the game, not the models here), it's sole purpose is to entertain. So the only important matter is whether the game is entertaining.

In order for 40k to be 'appallingly bad' in an objective sense, it would have to utterly fail at being entertaining, but given the fact that it is -still- the most popular tabletop wargame in an arena that's only getting more competitive, I think we can safely say it has not yet failed at being fun, at least for most people who play it.

Now, if you'd used a less hyperbolic phrase, such as 'poorly designed' or 'underdeveloped', I would've agreed with you wholeheartedly, but you didn't. You said "appallingly bad', attempting to make an objective assessment of a subjective experience. I'd suggest in future to watch how you phrase things if that wasn't your intention.


To respond to the OP - most of the time, people will only provide their opinion of something if it's negative. How many times have you received adequate (not absolutely groundbreaking or particularly stellar, just adequate) service at a restaurant and then gone onto the internet to tell anyone who'll listen? There are a lot of people who'd never leave a positive review but would leave a scathingly negative review if anything at all was wrong. That's the lens you need to view 40k discussions online from. There's a VAST silent majority out there perfectly happy to play the game and not say a thing against it.

I myself honestly don't see the point of being negative about it, the game is what it is and there's no catharsis to be had by going onto the internet and sharing your complaints. GW doesn't listen, and at best you'll just get an echo chamber of other disgruntled players who share your opinion and all the community gets is more negativity.

It's why it's so refreshing to see people making suggestions on how to make the game better - they've identified a problem, but instead of just complaining about it and doing nothing, they're actively working to fix the issue. When we have a problem at work, we're not allowed to tell the supervisor about it until we've thought of at least one way to potentially remedy it. I reckon all the various 40k discussion forums would improve dramatically if a similar rule was introduced.

Well, GW doesn't treat their player base nicely. They have mutated to a miniature making company selling their products to collectors. The gaming aspect has fallen behind. However, I think that most of their customers are players in the first place. Its a bad situation.

Some of the blame is on us too. Sure some of the new codices are really strong (looking at you eldar/tau/necrons) but we don't have to play super cheese all the time, it hurts the game. I play tau, but I started before it was this good, I had no idea what it was like when I rejoined 7thed. I played them because I liked them, and as such I don't bring cheese. I'm never going to bring stormsurges, no more than 1 Riptide, and avoid the new stealth cadre. I play with alot of friends, one of which is brand new to the game, played like 4 games, so what's the fun in bring cheese and smashing him? We all need the chill out a bit and do the same with our lists.

xana666 wrote:
Some of the blame is on us too. Sure some of the new codices are really strong (looking at you eldar/tau/necrons) but we don't have to play super cheese all the time, it hurts the game. I play tau, but I started before it was this good, I had no idea what it was like when I rejoined 7thed. I played them because I liked them, and as such I don't bring cheese. I'm never going to bring stormsurges, no more than 1 Riptide, and avoid the new stealth cadre. I play with alot of friends, one of which is brand new to the game, played like 4 games, so what's the fun in bring cheese and smashing him? We all need the chill out a bit and do the same with our lists.

I don't think it's fair to hold players responsible for the game's balance issues. A company is responsible for the quality of its product, not the consumer. As the saying goes, "hate the game, not the player".

xana666 wrote:
Some of the blame is on us too. Sure some of the new codices are really strong (looking at you eldar/tau/necrons) but we don't have to play super cheese all the time, it hurts the game.

Kinda hard to do sometimes though, isn't it?

I mean, back in fifth, all you had to say was 'I love the idea of airborne guard', or 'I love grey knights', and frankly, whatever you took had a really good chance of blasting whatever you wanted off the board. And regardless of your intent, you were tfg.

In sixth and seventh, it was 'I love saim hann eldar' and 'decurion'. Especially if your mate plays blood Angels or chaos.cI mean when your alternative to not play super cheese all the time is to essentially gut your own codex in terms of what's ok to field, put massive terms and conditions on what your opponents with allow you to play, and essentially tie yourself in a knot over it, then I really have to question the logic of this approach, it's a bit of a race to the bottom, frankly. What's the point in playing a game with really cool toy soldiers,when, at the end of the day, you're not actually allowed to play with your really cool toy soldiers.

If anything, this approach 'hurts the game' just as much, because there is a whole host of options you are now forbidden to field. The eldar player might as well shelf his whole army, and that's hardly fair either, is it?

///

It's human nature to focus on the bad things rather than the good - we're mentally geared to dominate and control the world around us (even if we're programmed to be less dominant when it comes to other humans) - and so focussing on the 'bad' things is focussing on the 'things that need fixing'.

With things like games, we can't ever have that control, so we get stuck in this continual "I need to fix this" thought loop that builds up toxic levels of frustration.

"I like this" -> "Actually, this could be better" -> "I ca't make it better" -> "This makes me angry." -> "Ah! I better get more humans to help me make it better" -> "None of us can make it better." -> "This makes us all angry." -> "This bit's cool though." -> "Actually, this bit could be better" -> -> ->

Because neckbeards, that's why.

Why are people so negative, yet stick around? Why do people who seem to have nothing, but bad, to say about the hobby not just do something else? There are tons of different things to do with your time - why pick something that infuriates you?

Can't sell my army to anyone, so am stuck with it. There is nothing good about playing IG. Because I invested 2 years of working in germany, I have two years less money to spend on other stuff. If I knew that IG is going to be fun to play for less then 6 months, and that in two years there are going to be cheaper and better systems to play I would save my many. Although If I had that typ of precognition powers, I would probably invest it in to lotto .

For most of us this is how we spend our free time and our (poorly managed) hobby budget on

It sucks when you don't have controll over "your" hobby or investment. If you want to see just how silly all is compare it with an other hobby. Lets say fishing. Amateur fishers would be outraged if city council adjusted the rules of fishing every few years forcing you to buy all new fishing gear or be forced to never catch a fish or fish alone ( this is why using metaphors sucks : P )

The mismatch of us thinking that it is our hobby and the company doing what it wants creates a lot of friction.
There are multiple solutions to this friction but most aren't truly satisfying.

-Changing your view on what is your hobby. From my hobby is 40k to collecting painting and playing with miniatures.
This works for a lot of us but it sucks when you just want to be able to play 40k in a store.

-Accepting the change 40k brings.
This is hard when you cant afford (both in time and money) to keep up with GWs changes,, and there might be some changes you just don't like at all such as the end times or age of sigmarification.

- Find a new hobby.
This might be the sanest thing to do. Sadly most of us are kinda addicted to it, this might not be what we live for bit it comes close for some of us.

 gmaleron wrote:
It's easier to complain and be negative then be positive and constructive, people don't want to put the effort in and take the easy way out.

 Rayvon wrote:
Because some people suck and feel the need to bring others down as well as themselves.

 Tigramans wrote:
Because neckbeards, that's why.

I always find it interesting how many people on these forums bleat about how everyone should be positive, constructive, polite etc., only to immediately dismiss any legitimate criticism of GW/40k with not just negativity but also bile, insults, condescension etc..

http://www.torrentoffire.com/7348/product-management-games-workshop-and-the-future

Even Torrent of Fire is looking to close the drapes on promoting 40k.

As I said in another thread on here a few days back. 40k in my neck of the woods has seen a substantial drop in players and many gaming clubs dropping it all together. Warmachine and Dropzone are the replacements, and the clubs seem happier. Clean rules and no rules debates to understand how the games work.

The 40k rules questions alone would go on for days and see people drop off social media, over simple things like D Weapons (how do they work). The rules aren't clean and it leads to frustration.

Deadnight wrote:

xana666 wrote:
Some of the blame is on us too. Sure some of the new codices are really strong (looking at you eldar/tau/necrons) but we don't have to play super cheese all the time, it hurts the game.

Kinda hard to do sometimes though, isn't it?

I mean, back in fifth, all you had to say was 'I love the idea of airborne guard', or 'I love grey knights', and frankly, whatever you took had a really good chance of blasting whatever you wanted off the board. And regardless of your intent, you were tfg.

In sixth and seventh, it was 'I love saim hann eldar' and 'decurion'. Especially if your mate plays blood Angels or chaos.cI mean when your alternative to not play super cheese all the time is to essentially gut your own codex in terms of what's ok to field, put massive terms and conditions on what your opponents with allow you to play, and essentially tie yourself in a knot over it, then I really have to question the logic of this approach, it's a bit of a race to the bottom, frankly. What's the point in playing a game with really cool toy soldiers,when, at the end of the day, you're not actually allowed to play with your really cool toy soldiers.

If anything, this approach 'hurts the game' just as much, because there is a whole host of options you are now forbidden to field. The eldar player might as well shelf his whole army, and that's hardly fair either, is it?

The attitude towards Eldar is why I sold them off (I rarely got in games but I was hella keen on viable Biel-tan) It's awful hard to get motivated and search the net for inspiration when there's naught but outright hatred towards <insert faction here>

Regarding 40k as a whole, I figure most people just want fun games where they don't need to worry about being tabled by the latest hotness or what-have-you. Bearing in mind I'd love to fight down a titan et al as a "Bring it on!" type of let's-see-how-long-I-last, but I certainly don't want that to be the case in ever single game. To each their own though, but compromise must happen between players and such.

Not sure if this makes much sense,I've been drinking as it's boxing day

 Tigramans wrote:
Because neckbeards, that's why.

Jup veterans that GW [MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius] too many times are more likely to be angy / negative.
Also the nature of annon internet usage. Here we can vent / spamm all our negative toughs as lord_poopy_farts_the_brave_2 without anyone ever knowing that it was really you and without any "real" social interaction.

 vipoid wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
It's easier to complain and be negative then be positive and constructive, people don't want to put the effort in and take the easy way out.

 Rayvon wrote:
Because some people suck and feel the need to bring others down as well as themselves.

 Tigramans wrote:
Because neckbeards, that's why.

I always find it interesting how many people on these forums bleat about how everyone should be positive, constructive, polite etc., only to immediately dismiss any legitimate criticism of GW/40k with not just negativity but also bile, insults, condescension etc..

Yeah, it's often the defenders of 40k/GW that turn casual disagreement in to a vitriolic exchange.

So often it comes down to people making negative comments about the game and then the retort comes instead of supporting the game, attacking the person who made the negative comment.

For me, it's because while I constantly get enticed by 40k, I realize every time that the game is utter trash if I would try to play it in the way I have to, which is pick-up games at a game shop/GW shop. Maybe it would be a different story if I had a club that played in a certain way, but I don't. I would be showing up on weekends at a game store, seeing if anyone wanted a game, and then having my enjoyment 100% dictated by if my opponent is a douchebag or not.

What makes a game good/bad? Good rules that actually try to be balanced for an enjoyable game, without favoring any one faction or trying to push stronger things to sell models (i.e. the opposite of what GW does), being well-written to avoid having rules discussions or house rules to fix glaring holes in the rules (i.e. the opposite of what GW does), and being able to be played equally well in both a competitive and casual manner without screwing both over (i.e. the opposite of what GW does).

There's negativity because GW is a company that basically says they don't care about their customers, because they feel their customers are fanboys who will buy anything that they put out just because it has "Citadel Miniatures" on the box, and therefore can ignore writing rules that work while peddling the fantasy that they actually have a game that works, instead of something that lets you bring out your miniatures from the cabinet from time to time. They compare themselves to Apple in the sense that they must feel that people are lining up to buy anything they put out, and will buy it based on the brand name alone, regardless of the actual substance. The company itself is delusional and it shows in virtually everything they do.

Why do people still post? Because there's hope. I played 40k last time in 2000, and I've thought about 5-6 times since then of coming back. Last weekend I went to a newly-opened Warhammer store and bought a box to start playing again, and then I started to read through the rules again and see what it would cost me to start playing, and came to the realization that there's no compelling reason for me to play again because I want to play a game first, and miniatures second, while GW's entire modus operandi is miniatures first and the game second. There's no actual game, it's just pushing a bunch of models around and rolling a bucketload of dice, and that doesn't even sound remotely fun, and since the miniatures alone aren't enough to get me to play, why bother when there are other games out there that don't have crappy rules? It would be another story if I really was "omg so kewl" with the miniatures and was a painter/modeller first and a gamer second, but I'm not. I ultimately want a game to play, not miniatures to collect. Until 40k goes back to that (which I doubt it ever will) then I really can't see how it's the right game choice for me, since I know I would get frustrated and ragequit the minute that my well thought out, fluffy army gets steamrolled by some WAAC netlist, since I have zero interest in playing 40k in any competitive fashion whatsoever, but there's no guarantee that I can play it in a casual, narrative and/or campaign style of play due to relying on pickup games and events (if any are even run, last time I was looking at game stores they never had any events other than tournaments, it was all just "show up and play" which is probably the worst way possible to even attempt to play a game like 40k).

I'll put it this way: This time last week I was planning out a Khorne Daemonkin army for an escalation league, thinking of how to make it fluffy and writing up a backstory for the army, two days ago I was scouring eBay for bits to customize my Chaos Lord, today I'm back almost 100% on Warmachine instead because 40k as a game doesn't appeal to me at all, and the miniatures alone aren't enough to justify the high price for a lousy game. I can easily afford it, but why would I when there are other games that I will get more enjoyment out of and where I can actually improve as a player?

Also, it's very telling that nearly all the pro-GW posts tend to devolve into name calling or just outright ignoring facts, while the anti-GW posts are usually well thought out and back them up. All the "Why is everyone negative?" posts tend to insult huge swathes of people and completely ignoring their viewpoints and what is often actual evidence beyond "I'm having fun, so it's great" which is the most common retort.

Are we salty, or are you drunk on the kool-aid?

Some of us simply remember better times and want things to go back to how they were. GW has made it clear that they do not wish to hearmfrom us, so here we are.

Those who were the most vocal and salty started playing Warmahordes and every time they've sighted a 40k game over other tables, they emidiately started patrolling round it and barking happilly how awful 40k is and how superior Warmachine rules are.

Ironically, after a few months they grew tired of warmachine cause they said that every game was the same and that tourney builds are boring but everything else is garbage and unplayable.

So, we've got no warmahordes running atm. Some are trying mantic now - they like it so far.

X-wing is about to be started too.

As for me, i somewhat agree that 40k has a lot of crappy rules and an awful lot of balacne issues and that it deserves a hefty lot of criticysm but it's still playable and is very capable of being interesting, tactical and fun.

I do think that a lot of things need improvement and that you need at least some houserules to make the game more enjoyable. And that all this problems can be easily overcome if GW was a bit more caring and insightful.

Wayne, I wouldn't say anyone here has drunk the kool aid (nome of the posters so far anyway) but are simply new to the game and don't have as much experience with other games or how GW treats us to be jaded yet.
Just look at whos on what side in this thread and then see when they joined the forum.

 koooaei wrote:
Those who were the most vocal and salty started playing Warmahordes and every time they've sighted a 40k game over other tables, they emidiately started patrolling round it and barking happilly how awful 40k is and how superior Warmachine rules are.

Ironically, after a few months they grew tired of warmachine cause they said that every game was the same and that tourney builds are boring but everything else is garbage and unplayable.

So, we've got no warmahordes running atm. Some are trying mantic now - they like it so far.

X-wing is about to be started too.

As for me, i somewhat agree that 40k has a lot of crappy rules and an awful lot of balacne issues and that it deserves a hefty lot of criticysm but it's still playable and is very capable of being interesting, tactical and fun.

I do think that a lot of things need improvement and that you need at least some houserules to make the game more enjoyable. And that all this problems can be easily overcome if GW was a bit more caring and insightful.

Haha that's kinda why I was looking back at 40k, but again I was all in on it a few days ago (money was a small concern, but alleviated now). Just I can't bring myself to pay that kind of money for a game that, judging from games I've watched both in person and online, is basically push stuff forward, roll buckets of dice, remove figures. There seemed to be zero tactical depth involved, and the fact the rules are so imbalanced makes me sick sometimes.

I easily have the cash reserves right now to go to the Warhammer shop and drop like $400 on 40k, the question is why would I?

Because I own enough models to put a down payment on a house, and have spent enough time on this game to have raised a child instead.

Despite that, this game has become pretty bad for me lately. The armies are more unbalanced than ever, and the online forums have become even worse, with clearly marked factions between competitive and casual at all costs players.

I never wanted to play other table top games, but 40k just doesn't do it for me like it used to. It's still my favorite in terms of fluff, and if the game was fixed I'd drop WMH in a heartbeat, but for now I can't make this game my main focus. I play necromunda to get my 40k, and play about 1 time a month.


As for why others hate it, everyone nailed it.

1) This hobby is expensive. Many of us have played for years and own a lot of models. When you have such a hefty cash investment, you get emotionally involved.

2) This hobby is time intensive. Games take a while, its not always easy to find one (lately) so you may have to drive, collecting and assembling an army takes a while too. From that time, you get invested as well.

If this game was like SSB4, where it's 60, a GC controller + adapter and a 7 minute session, I wouldn't care, despite me being a big SSB fan

3) The online community. The online community for this game was pretty great. There were always a few negative people or those who weren't realistic, but for the most part this community was a tight knit group of semi-competitive fluff nuts, and it was great. Lately it's been divided into semi/majority competitive and casual at all costs, with the two being unable to see eye-to-eye on anything. Most of the topics devolve into name calling or insults (oddly enough, from the casual crowd more often) whenever it becomes a stalemate.

 vipoid wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
It's easier to complain and be negative then be positive and constructive, people don't want to put the effort in and take the easy way out.

I always find it interesting how many people on these forums bleat about how everyone should be positive, constructive, polite etc., only to immediately dismiss any legitimate criticism of GW/40k with not just negativity but also bile, insults, condescension etc..

Posting only half of what I said in claiming that I'm dismissing issues with the game is not constructive. If you were to look at my entire post I even said there's certain things about the game that disappoint me and they could be changed I would be all for it. The only point I'm trying to make is that regardless of how much we complain about certain things, it's not going to change anytime soon. Better to suck it up and learn to deal with it until it's updated or as ITC has gone about things be constructive and tweak things to make them better. Complaining doesn't get you anywhere, especially in this case with GW, it does not mean I blindly support them.

bless, I love these discussions, they are very amusing.
They would be a lot shorter if people supported their opinions with evidence, but not nearly as fun to read.

 gmaleron wrote:
Posting only half of what I said in claiming that I'm dismissing issues with the game is not constructive.

Nor is claiming that any negative views are people just not wanting to put the effort in.

 gmaleron wrote:
If you were to look at my entire post I even said there's certain things about the game that disappoint me and they could be changed I would be all for it.

That doesn't alter or excuse the first part of your post.

 gmaleron wrote:
The only point I'm trying to make is that regardless of how much we complain about certain things, it's not going to change anytime soon. Better to suck it up and learn to deal with it until it's updated or as ITC has gone about things be constructive and tweak things to make them better. Complaining doesn't get you anywhere, especially in this case with GW, it does not mean I blindly support them.

Then try understanding that not everyone feels that way, and people deal with their frustrations in different ways. At the very least, why should we act as if everything is fine? Dakkadakka is not GW's marketing department and shouldn't act like it.

Saying that any negativity is just 'taking the easy way out' is both extremely insulting and dismissive of the many problems. Also, what about all the people who complain about the rules and take the time to make their own? I guess they're just taking the easy way out, too.

Discussing an issue with the game in a mature manner is one thing, having a nerd rage rant and demanding on reasonable changes is another. Not saying any one particular is guilty of this but I have seen a lot more of the latter rather than the former on here. My original post was not to upset individuals but there's no reason to be so sensitive about it I'm just calling it as I see it and unfortunately on here more people tend to go with this sucks it should be changed or to what I want rather than this sucks let's figure out a solution for everyone.

When the game's creator seems to feel there's an issue, it's fair to say there's probably an issue...

http://unpluggedgames.co.uk/features/blood-dice-and-darkness-how-warhammer-defined-gaming-for-a-generation/

Because 30k exists. It is a deeply flawed game with countless kinks and imperfections, and it is the Messiah of wargaming compared to 40k.

Some people are upset because the flavour is being sucked out the game. The history (characters dropped etc), the fluff contradicting the rules (for some models), the playstyle of certain models because they have unusable rules.

Sometimes simply because the game is unfair balance-wise in a big way.

Some of us still play occasionally, we've turned into thematic players who occasionally play to 'forge the narrative' while expecting our bad guys to be curb-stomped. We still like what the game story is and how the rules could be - but we are disenchanted.

Throw into that the ever increasing price gouging making the game even more inaccessible (currently £60 for x3 AoS knights on horse as an example) and you have a big barrier to entry or army building for many people.

Many of the *angry* grumpy gamers seem (to my eye at least) to be those who are competitive players, or a lot more competitive than me still at least - where I've give up hope, they still expect it to be competitive.


For competitive games, I've moved onto Saga, Lion Rampant, Frostgrave and am currently organising things to make a set for Canvas Eagles. They're balanced and fulfill that role for me now.

GW has an on the street presence while the other games I've mentioned you have to be deep into the rabbit hole of tabletop to find out about them. GW got me started but in many respects 40k is like a broken children's toy that I'm both fond of for the stories, but have outgrown when I want something competitive.

While this is full on opinion i find it strange how people prefer other games models over GW. But i am a tyranid fan. I just love turning up to game nights and people have different armies and models.

However this line of thought is reliant on people not succumbing to the power trips. A good friend plays Necrons and never does cheese so i am lucky there.

But i don't truly think anyone is truly happy with GW's attitude, they are less vocal as some people just hate being negative where as others are happy to voice critism.

 koooaei wrote:
Those who were the most vocal and salty started playing Warmahordes and every time they've sighted a 40k game over other tables, they emidiately started patrolling round it and barking happilly how awful 40k is and how superior Warmachine rules are.

Ironically, after a few months they grew tired of warmachine cause they said that every game was the same and that tourney builds are boring but everything else is garbage and unplayable.

So, we've got no warmahordes running atm. Some are trying mantic now - they like it so far.

X-wing is about to be started too.

As for me, i somewhat agree that 40k has a lot of crappy rules and an awful lot of balacne issues and that it deserves a hefty lot of criticysm but it's still playable and is very capable of being interesting, tactical and fun.

I do think that a lot of things need improvement and that you need at least some houserules to make the game more enjoyable. And that all this problems can be easily overcome if GW was a bit more caring and insightful.

Shows what you know, I have never been interested in warmahordes at all

Although there are many good points that people have brought up in regards to reasons for their frustration with 40k, I think the issues are really boiling down to cost, and GW's attempts to make more and more money from the same experience.

This obviously starts with the constant price increases. We may have moved away from the yearly across-the-board increases, but now each new faction/kit comes with those prices incorporated, so you have an imbalance in prices between factions. But the question is why are we experiencing these year-on-year price increases on kits (way beyond inflation) in the first place? Kit quality has certainly improved, but the pricing between the kits never seems to be based on complexity or even material involved. And then you have blatant cost increases like the halving the dife avengers box- even the most die-hard GW fan has to admit that's purely a cash grab.

The codexes have become their own attempt to cash in on the experience as well. New books are released with no attempt to improve, merely to change. And what used to be a 4-year shuffling seems to have very quickly moved to a 2-year thing. Hell, the Imperial Knight book lasted one year!

And for all of these price increases, are people not still trying to play the same 1500pt game? (Although what's 1500pt now is significantly larger than its earlier iterations). People are paying more and more for the same thing, and it's chaffing more of the 40k crowd than previously.

You can see this with some of the positive changes too- the Battle at Calth is seen as a pretty good deal and the Horus Heresy stuff is becoming more popular for its attempt at balance and forward progression rather than just shake-up. But if GW doesn't commit to reversing the trends it's established over the last 10 years, I think things will only get worse for them and the community.

Just I can't bring myself to pay that kind of money for a game that, judging from games I've watched both in person and online, is basically push stuff forward, roll buckets of dice, remove figures. There seemed to be zero tactical depth involved, and the fact the rules are so imbalanced makes me sick sometimes.

This is my personal situation too. I'm somewhat insulated from balance issues because of the guys I would play, I'm somewhat insulated from prices as I'm not above "importing" my models for the Far East, but even by minimising these two fundamental issues, the game just wasn't fun for me anymore. 6th started to erode player choice in favour of random tables, 7th doubled down on this. My issues were magnified as I was primarily playing daemons, so the amount of bookkeeping required, much of which it was only fair to do in front of my opponent, meaning I couldn't just turn up ready to go, was excessive.

40K games seem to boil down to 1) move or don't. 2) shoot, what target? 3) assault or not, what target? Interspersed with long periods of inactivity while one's opponent has their go and bracketed by long periods setting up and packing away.

When one has no guarantee of a fair game, and there's very little one can do once the game starts (as so much is determined by list construction) I'm just not prepared to invest the time necessary to play when there's so many options without those drawbacks.

I think Accolade has explained one of the big factors for me personally. I just can't afford the combination of the higher prices with the rapid pace of making things I've bought redundant (codices) or ineffective (half my armies and units which then have to be replaced with models that are now effective thanks to the new codex)

I hate the idea of quoting myself, but I don't fancy retyping it all: In addition to this, it's the attitude of GW in general that gets to me.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Anecdotal - I got a few emails from games companies today. Out of them, 3 of the emails (such as Warlord Games) said a simple 'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy Holidays'.

The GW email said 'now you have your Christmas money, why not spend it on these' with a link to an imperial knight, archon on that flying beast and some dragon (smaug I think?) - some of their most expensive models.

Needless to say the difference in attitude between the smaller companies and GW was plain to see. It doesn't help with people's negative perception of GW.

I can't help but get the feeling that GW speaks to us like we are children / simpleton cash cows while other companies seem mature and relaxed. I visited Warlord, Perry and North Star and there was no pushing to sell things at all - they were 100% interested in the games we had played (including their competitors games which they also played and were fans of! I don't know many GW shops that would do that) and showing us the concept art and ideas for (in this case Beyond the Gates of Antares) the games they were producing - interested in our thoughts and what would be awesome to include.

TL/DR for the last part - Other companies appear to be gamers selling to gamers. The passion and respect is there. GW arent interested in the product, only the profit - they're salesmen

I have been enjoying playing 7th ed. I really have. I've been playing for about 14 or so years now and though I admit the game used to be much better, I'm still enjoying myself. However, I understand other people's experiences and opinions, and feel it to be awfully churlish to deride people's complaints, even their particularly angry complaints (how often do you see people complaining about others gushing over something they don't like on this forum?) to simply be 'hating', all because they hold different opinions. Seriously, I presume most of us are adults here? Maybe it's time to stop complaining about other people not liking the same toys as you.

The internal/external balance is gak and some of the rules could be fixed.

I've still enjoyed playing this edition so far, but let's not pretend the game doesn't need lots of fixing.

I shifted gears to 30k and have never looked back!

Is there a volkite resistent version of IG in 30k, I don't realy follow FW stuff?

Makumba wrote:
Is there a volkite resistent version of IG in 30k, I don't realy follow FW stuff?

What do you mean by volkite resistant? There's no 'armoured ceramite' rule that works on volkite. If you mean "gets saves against" then yes, the Solar Auxilia have 4+ armour saves, but so does the regular guard in 40k. And so does anyone in ruins. *shrug*

Heck you can get power-armoured IG in 30k if you run Survivors of the Dark Age imperial milita.

Clicked the topic, saw how long the OP was... Typed this and left.

Don't spam the forum

 Krug001 wrote:
Why are people so negative, yet stick around? Why do people who seem to have nothing, but bad, to say about the hobby not just do something else? There are tons of different things to do with your time - why pick something that infuriates you?

I have no idea. If GW decided to quit making 40k models and that historical models were their new thing, I'd bid them a fond farewell for my many years of fun, be sad for a bit, be happy that my wallet is going to be fatter, and then do something else.

 Tainted wrote:

xana666 wrote:
Some of the blame is on us too. Sure some of the new codices are really strong (looking at you eldar/tau/necrons) but we don't have to play super cheese all the time, it hurts the game. I play tau, but I started before it was this good, I had no idea what it was like when I rejoined 7thed. I played them because I liked them, and as such I don't bring cheese. I'm never going to bring stormsurges, no more than 1 Riptide, and avoid the new stealth cadre. I play with alot of friends, one of which is brand new to the game, played like 4 games, so what's the fun in bring cheese and smashing him? We all need the chill out a bit and do the same with our lists.

I don't think it's fair to hold players responsible for the game's balance issues. A company is responsible for the quality of its product, not the consumer. As the saying goes, "hate the game, not the player".

Oh you are so wrong. Tainted is correct and part of the problem is the players. Funny before 5th edition, there was not many Eldar and Tau players. Funny how 6th edition comes out not many Eldar and Tau players. Then all of a sudden a lot of Eldar and Tau players are out. Then there is not as many Eldar and Tau players again. What this mean is there are a lot of people out there than need to win with plastic toy soldiers. So yes it is players who are responsible for not going to "flavour of the month" and just fielding the "best units" even when it's a "balanced codex". What makes the codex balanced people will just ignore and go and use other codices to make their army better.

So yes the players are to blame.

Davor wrote:

 Tainted wrote:

xana666 wrote:
Some of the blame is on us too. Sure some of the new codices are really strong (looking at you eldar/tau/necrons) but we don't have to play super cheese all the time, it hurts the game. I play tau, but I started before it was this good, I had no idea what it was like when I rejoined 7thed. I played them because I liked them, and as such I don't bring cheese. I'm never going to bring stormsurges, no more than 1 Riptide, and avoid the new stealth cadre. I play with alot of friends, one of which is brand new to the game, played like 4 games, so what's the fun in bring cheese and smashing him? We all need the chill out a bit and do the same with our lists.

I don't think it's fair to hold players responsible for the game's balance issues. A company is responsible for the quality of its product, not the consumer. As the saying goes, "hate the game, not the player".

Oh you are so wrong. Tainted is correct and part of the problem is the players. Funny before 5th edition, there was not many Eldar and Tau players. Funny how 6th edition comes out not many Eldar and Tau players. Then all of a sudden a lot of Eldar and Tau players are out. Then there is not as many Eldar and Tau players again. What this mean is there are a lot of people out there than need to win with plastic toy soldiers. So yes it is players who are responsible for not going to "flavour of the month" and just fielding the "best units" even when it's a "balanced codex". What makes the codex balanced people will just ignore and go and use other codices to make their army better.

So yes the players are to blame.

So, players go for what's good. That's their nature. It's GW's fault that they made some units far superior to others, so the players go for those units and armies. If things were balanced, there wouldn't be major shifts to one codex or another. Oh...wait...perhaps that's intentional and GW does codex churn to sell more models.
So, yeah. GW's fault.

People are salty because 40K is an extremely expensive game with an extreme number of flaws that only take a modicum of effort to fix, yet never will be because the game-makers have made it explicit that they don't care.

Every time Games Workshop says "We're a models company, not a rules company... but give us $60 for our rules", it's basically a slap in the face to the consumer.

 koooaei wrote:
Those who were the most vocal and salty started playing Warmahordes and every time they've sighted a 40k game over other tables, they emidiately started patrolling round it and barking happilly how awful 40k is and how superior Warmachine rules are.

Ironically, after a few months they grew tired of warmachine cause they said that every game was the same and that tourney builds are boring but everything else is garbage and unplayable.

So, we've got no warmahordes running atm. Some are trying mantic now - they like it so far.

X-wing is about to be started too.

As for me, i somewhat agree that 40k has a lot of crappy rules and an awful lot of balacne issues and that it deserves a hefty lot of criticysm but it's still playable and is very capable of being interesting, tactical and fun.

I do think that a lot of things need improvement and that you need at least some houserules to make the game more enjoyable. And that all this problems can be easily overcome if GW was a bit more caring and insightful.

This is essentially what happened around here and after those players left our membership went up. And the WMH community is basically back to nonexistent because, guesssss what game is also dominated by zero fun netlists that basically exist to make your opponent hate their lives?

 vipoid wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
It's easier to complain and be negative then be positive and constructive, people don't want to put the effort in and take the easy way out.

 Rayvon wrote:
Because some people suck and feel the need to bring others down as well as themselves.

 Tigramans wrote:
Because neckbeards, that's why.

I always find it interesting how many people on these forums bleat about how everyone should be positive, constructive, polite etc., only to immediately dismiss any legitimate criticism of GW/40k with not just negativity but also bile, insults, condescension etc..

Indeed, I don't understand these threads. It's absolutely fine if you're enjoying 40K, but don't insult other players (the L2P element in the OP was particularly troll worthy) if they're not enjoying it.

My own feelings - I enjoy 40K played on a kitchen table amongst close friends. Outside of that I wouldn't play it - it's not designed for pick up games at clubs/shops or tournament play.
I'm switching to Bolt Action for pick up play and spending my hobby £'s there instead.

the_scotsman wrote:

This is essentially what happened around here and after those players left our membership went up. And the WMH community is basically back to nonexistent because, guesssss what game is also dominated by zero fun netlists that basically exist to make your opponent hate their lives?

Sounds like a player thing, and they sound like really bad players (and I mean attitude wise as well). It's a shame really - for what it's worth, wmh is so much more than just 'zero fun netlists' thst make people hate their lives. Frankly, if people are playing that way, they're doing it wrong, and they're not that clever or creative. And creative players, At th end of the day, ar the ones that go further and win games.

Bad attitudes and toxic players can destroy communities faster than bad games in my experience. Glad your rid of them though.

By the hobby, I presume you mean Teh HHHobby (i.e. Games Workshop.)

The hobby of table top games and wargames is in rude health. Speaking as a veteran of over 40 years experience, I can say there is an unprecedented amount of choice available in rules, figures and terrain. It's never been easier to find information, ideas and things to play with.

GW of course is in some decline. WHFB is dead. AoS has met with a very mixed reception, and we need a year or two to say if it is going to be a good success. 40K is still very popular, but GW's declining sales figures overall show that all is not well with the company.

Still, there are signs of change that give rise to hope. The return of Specialist Games perhaps shows that the management have come to understand some of their mistakes and are preparing to address them.

I think this 100% depends on your gaming group at your FLGS or at home at the table. If you play with a group of people that typically are there to have fun, then it doesn't really matter what the current power list or codex is.

If you have this group, then it is easy enough to ask for a competitive game, and then you see rock, paper, scissors start to show up.

IMO... 40k has some obvious rules issues, and that falls on GW not wanting to take responsibility. But the rest comes down to the players.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
If you play with a group of people that typically are there to have fun, then it doesn't really matter what the current power list or codex is.

I think I must have missed something - why doesn't this matter?

If anything, it seems like even more of a problem. At least if you're playing tournament/super-competitive lists, then you expect everyone to bring their absolute best stuff and nastiest tricks.

But, when you're only playing for fun and get tabled because your opponent's army is outright better than yours... doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing for fun?

 vipoid wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
If you play with a group of people that typically are there to have fun, then it doesn't really matter what the current power list or codex is.

I think I must have missed something - why doesn't this matter?

If anything, it seems like even more of a problem. At least if you're playing tournament/super-competitive lists, then you expect everyone to bring their absolute best stuff and nastiest tricks.

But, when you're only playing for fun and get tabled because your opponent's army is outright better than yours... doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing for fun?

Because, a group of friends that understand the power levels of the game aren't going to spam the most powerful units in the game when they want to have fun. My FLGS group stresses TAC lists, and fun. Our group has grown substantially over the past year despite the changes and power creeps of the new codecs. yeah there are times we want to try and destroy our opponents, and if we want that style game COMMUNICATION.

Show up to the store with multiple lists ready. Ask "hey who wants to play a fun game..1500, 1850, 2000?", "Anyone want to take on my latest WAAC Tau? Eldar?", "Anyone for some 2v2 or 3v3 today?"

Cheers!

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Because, a group of friends that understand the power levels of the game aren't going to spam the most powerful units in the game when they want to have fun.

But you're assuming that they're spamming them purely because they're powerful, when they could just as easily be using a lot of powerful units because those units are fluffy, or because they consider them fun. So, what you're really asking is for one player to take units out of his army to make it less flavourful and less fun, just so others are on even footing. I'm still not seeing why this is fine.

 vipoid wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

Because, a group of friends that understand the power levels of the game aren't going to spam the most powerful units in the game when they want to have fun.

But you're assuming that they're spamming them purely because they're powerful, when they could just as easily be using a lot of powerful units because those units are fluffy, or because they consider them fun. So, what you're really asking is for one player to take units out of his army to make it less flavourful and less fun, just so others are on even footing. I'm still not seeing why this is fine.

I don't know what to tell you... it completely comes down the group of people you play with. You can make a fluffy fun list with powerful units in a codex and still have fun games with people who run older armies. No one needs to sacrifice units they want to play, and no, I am not making any assumptions, as I am aware of the my own local meta.

If I had to break down the ~50 players we have in our group

10% Eldar
30% SM (this covers chapters and wolves, BA)
5% Necrons
10% Tau
5% GKs
10% Chaos
10% Demons
10% Nids
10% IG

I would say about half the group flops between all these categories, but generally I can show up expecting to play any one of these lists on a given Weekend.

I don't know what to tell you... it completely comes down the group of people you play with. You can make a fluffy fun list with powerful units in a codex and still have fun games with people who run older armies

But that kind of a means that someone who has an eldar army would have to buy a non eldar one.It doesn't realy matter what an eldar player takes, if he plays vs IG. It doesn't have to be jetbikes and WKs, aany combination will work. Specialy if the IG player goes for a for "fun" list too.

Makumba wrote:

I don't know what to tell you... it completely comes down the group of people you play with. You can make a fluffy fun list with powerful units in a codex and still have fun games with people who run older armies

But that kind of a means that someone who has an eldar army would have to buy a non eldar one.It doesn't realy matter what an eldar player takes, if he plays vs IG. It doesn't have to be jetbikes and WKs, aany combination will work. Specialy if the IG player goes for a for "fun" list too.

In competitive play in our group we see specific codec's with higher win percentages. At our last 1500 tourney, we had Necrons win over all, beating out both Eldar and Tau. I actually fought the winner in the final match with my Farsight Enclaves list.

In non-competitive play regardless of the power levels of the codecs, we have about a 50% win rate that varies more on player experience then power level of the codex. I am not arguing that some codecs are more powerful or not.

Given the following scenarios these will be the outcomes:

Veteran IG vs Veteran Eldar -> higher win percentage Eldar (but not exclusively)
Veteran IG vs New/Intermediate Eldar -> about 50% and more skewed toward the veteran player

It is completely plausible these outcomes are a result of when playing for fun, you tend to be more relaxed and make more mistakes.. but in either case, communication on what you are looking for is the only place to start balancing anything.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
If you play with a group of people that typically are there to have fun, then it doesn't really matter what the current power list or codex is.

I think I must have missed something - why doesn't this matter?

If anything, it seems like even more of a problem. At least if you're playing tournament/super-competitive lists, then you expect everyone to bring their absolute best stuff and nastiest tricks.

But, when you're only playing for fun and get tabled because your opponent's army is outright better than yours... doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing for fun?

Because, a group of friends that understand the power levels of the game aren't going to spam the most powerful units in the game when they want to have fun. My FLGS group stresses TAC lists, and fun. Our group has grown substantially over the past year despite the changes and power creeps of the new codecs. yeah there are times we want to try and destroy our opponents, and if we want that style game COMMUNICATION.

Show up to the store with multiple lists ready. Ask "hey who wants to play a fun game..1500, 1850, 2000?", "Anyone want to take on my latest WAAC Tau? Eldar?", "Anyone for some 2v2 or 3v3 today?"

Cheers!

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I agree, some codecs are simply more powerful; Even though this is the case, I have lost to CSM and Orks with new Tau as much as I have won. Both players are very good, and given the randomness of "type of game", "objective placement", "maelstrom card draw", there is never a completely clear winner.

I have also showed up with a fluffy list trying some new formations, played IG.. And a combination of me playing new stuff and my opponent making awful decisions, it was a landslide in my favor. This happens as you have all said, some codecs are just better. The second match was much closer, and in both games we both had fun.

All I am trying to say in the end, is that despite power level of codices.. you can mitigate the effects with simple communication in your local group.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I agree, some codecs are simply more powerful; Even though this is the case, I have lost to CSM and Orks with new Tau as much as I have won. Both players are very good, and given the randomness of "type of game", "objective placement", "maelstrom card draw", there is never a completely clear winner.

I have also showed up with a fluffy list trying some new formations, played IG.. And a combination of me playing new stuff and my opponent making awful decisions, it was a landslide in my favor. This happens as you have all said, some codecs are just better. The second match was much closer, and in both games we both had fun.

All I am trying to say in the end, is that despite power level of codices.. you can mitigate the effects with simple communication in your local group.

I agree with you, but keep in mind people often disagree with power levels of units or dexes.

For example, right now there is a thread that is several pages long detailing why mutilators are actually good, despite numerous claims and discussions pointing out why they are not.
The people who are claiming they are good are unable to provide much reasoning on why they feel the mutilators are good, but that doesn't stop them from insulting others and believing they are right.

There is another thread where someone believes that ork warbikes/space marine bikes are equal or better than scatlaser bikes. This is, again, despite numerous reasons being listed why that isn't the case, although at least that person has some arguments, faulty though they may be in many ways.

I've had people claim that other loadouts in cents are comparable in power to the grav cents, that the ghost ark is easy to destroy, and many other such claims that, to me and several other posters, seem to be very...bewildering.


If people can agree on the power level of every unit and dex, then you can work things out. In my experience, even in better balanced games (or better communities than 40k has) this is very difficult to do. Even the tier lists in 3.5 DnD caused huge upsets, with people constantly complaining that their favorite class should be moved up or down a tier despite a very well reasoned argument for their placement. In WMH, a much better balanced game than 40k, there is still issues of upset balance (though this is currently based around tier lists mainly, which are similar to formations oddly enough. Seems no one can get them right) and people who don't want to play against them or want them included in tournaments.

In my own group, we have one person who feels that his army is very weak no matter what he plays.
In mordenheim/fantasy, he plays skaven.
In 40k, he plays necrons.
In DnD 3.5, he played a Cleric.
In WMH, he plays cryx.

How do you debate something like that? Most of these choices are, if not the best, easily one of the best choices available in their games.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

All I am trying to say in the end, is that despite power level of codices.. you can mitigate the effects with simple communication in your local group.

And what we're saying is that, this shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Players shouldn't be expected to have to try balance the rules because the writers cant be bothered. Let alone in a game that charges stupidly high prices for said rules.

Furthermore, this mitigation you're proposing is almost always going to be vastly harder to agree on than you're making out. Amazing as this might sound, most 40k groups do not possess a single hive-mind that always agrees with itself about everything. In fact - as these forums demonstrate - people disagree about a good deal of things with regard both what they consider 'fun' and what they consider over-/under-powered (and to what degree). Assuming that every player in every group will always agree to any and all proposed changes to the army they want to play would seem to show considerable ignorance of both the problem and of players in general. As, for that matter, would your continued shouting of 'COMMUNICATION'. As if no one in any group other than yours has a functional mouth.

But, I guess COMMUNICATION just solves every disagreement ever. hence why every political debate ever ends with both sides agreeing completely on what the solution should be.

Of course IMO as always.

GW PAST:

Excellent Fluff. Which, made people want to buy models and play the game. Even if it was a twisted and blended version of great Sci-Fi books.

Great rule sets. Which, also helped keep the game alive and build it into the titan it is today. could go anywhere in the world and play the same game with strangers.

FAQ that was quick to answer and clear up confusion

Models; great for the time, some still great today. Many may look outdated but still look great on the table.

Customer knowledge, they knew their customer base.

Customer service was awesome, hell you could call in get rules clarifications and be certain it was correct no matter who you got on the line.

Range of games and support was excellent

GW Now

Fluff has become clunky, much of it has errors that doesn't mesh with other codices it referenced. Some Codices have gone in a completely different direction for fluff and it is opinion to which was better. (example: Necrons)

Rules set. Power creep and Power nerfing gone wild. The power gamer (aka TFG) loves the new stuff. The guy who bought forgeworld (units or super heavies) and never got to play them in a normal 40k game because he did know how to organize APOC games, loves it. Most people who prefer to play games where codices are all on equal footing (or as close as possible for a complex game) are frustrated and confused. Game is now designed to be played with your close friends in mind. i.e. house rules and builds etc. YMMV if you go to a new venue, they might be like minded they may all be WAAC types.

FAQ...what FAQ for the longest time there was none and now it what is there is of very little use.

Models many of the plastics are now industry standards some of the other are WTF, debacles like SMAUG are all too common, many improvements but equally as many failures.

No customer research. knowledge of, is leaps of faith or guess work, player tend to be hobbyists and collectors at the same time and I'm betting players are still the majority, but unless research is done they will never know.

Customer service is still awesome, credit where credit is due.

Ranges, loss of some of the best games in the industry. Many are supposed to make a return, but I'm not holding my breath.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I can't count on a single hand the number of times I've given serious thought to getting back into the game, come up with a really cool fluffy army I want, maybe even bought a unit or two, and then abandoned the idea when I stopped and actually looked at how practical it was to field that army on the table.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I agree, some codecs are simply more powerful; Even though this is the case, I have lost to CSM and Orks with new Tau as much as I have won. Both players are very good, and given the randomness of "type of game", "objective placement", "maelstrom card draw", there is never a completely clear winner.

I have also showed up with a fluffy list trying some new formations, played IG.. And a combination of me playing new stuff and my opponent making awful decisions, it was a landslide in my favor. This happens as you have all said, some codecs are just better. The second match was much closer, and in both games we both had fun.

All I am trying to say in the end, is that despite power level of codices.. you can mitigate the effects with simple communication in your local group.

I don't deny this, but for me the problem is not having a "local group" and relying 100% on pickup games i.e. driving down to the game shop, seeing who else turns up, asking if they want a game, and often not really knowing them to know if they play WAAC Tau with 3x Stormsurges and 6x Riptides (or whatever) or if they're the weird but funny fluffy Ork player who yells "WAAAAAAGH" every time he charges and talks to me as though he really is his Warboss, complete with plushie Squig pet. If I turn up with a fluffy army, the WAAC Tau player will stomp me into the ground, while the Ork player might make for an enjoyable game. The problem is that shouldn't be the case; my enjoyment should not be wholly dependent on who my opponent is.

That's why I can't play 40k again, not because I don't want to (lord knows; search my post history you'll find going back to 2006 every so often I ask about starting 40k again), but because there is no "local group" to join, it's all pickup games and seeing who is available to play, and that doesn't give a fun experience if you get unlucky with an opponent or have to rely on hoping you don't get the jerk being the only person to come to the shop that day, or else GG hope you're ready to waste several hours on an unfun game.

That's my problem, beyond the fact that as I said before I watched a 40k game and it looked insanely boring with neither player acting like they were enjoying it, and comparing it the next day to a 12-person Warmachine tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I can't count on a single hand the number of times I've given serious thought to getting back into the game, come up with a really cool fluffy army I want, maybe even bought a unit or two, and then abandoned the idea when I stopped and actually looked at how practical it was to field that army on the table.

Me too. Every time. Going back possibly to 2006. I think last year or thereabouts I had the awesome, awesome idea to do an all Termie army, based around the then-new Strike Force Ultra box. I had fluff and everything, even allowing for future expansion of a Tempestus force and a Knight (elite forces backing them up). Then I saw how bad an all-Termie army would do, and shelved the idea because it would have been total garbage on the table, despite being awesomely fluffy.

That's bullgak.

Grizzyzz wrote:IMO... 40k has some obvious rules issues, and that falls on GW not wanting to take responsibility. But the rest comes down to the players.

vipoid wrote:And what we're saying is that, this shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Players shouldn't be expected to have to try balance the rules because the writers cant be bothered. Let alone in a game that charges stupidly high prices for said rules.

Furthermore, this mitigation you're proposing is almost always going to be vastly harder to agree on than you're making out. Amazing as this might sound, most 40k groups do not possess a single hive-mind that always agrees with itself about everything. In fact - as these forums demonstrate - people disagree about a good deal of things with regard both what they consider 'fun' and what they consider over-/under-powered (and to what degree). Assuming that every player in every group will always agree to any and all proposed changes to the army they want to play would seem to show considerable ignorance of both the problem and of players in general. As, for that matter, would your continued shouting of 'COMMUNICATION'. As if no one in any group other than yours has a functional mouth.

But, I guess COMMUNICATION just solves every disagreement ever. hence why every political debate ever ends with both sides agreeing completely on what the solution should be.

I think you misunderstand me. As I stated in my first post ^ 40k has obvious rules issues which I pegged to GW. No where did I say that players assume the responsibility of writing there own rules and making lists of what they are allowed to take. I don't think anyone here can disagree with me that (in most gaming groups), you can walk up and ask what type of game they want to play. That is pretty much the extent of the communication I have talked about. This prevents Fluff lists playing WAAC lists most of the time. When I say the "rest falls on the players" it comes to more than communication, but sportsmanship and veterancy. If you have a player who is an ass when winning or losing, no one has fun. If you play someone who is winning but is being an excellent sport, and giving tips/advice or otherwise not rubbing it in your face, you can still have fun. The players no matter how good or bad a set of rules or a game is have to make the best of what is available.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I don't deny this, but for me the problem is not having a "local group" and relying 100% on pickup games i.e. driving down to the game shop, seeing who else turns up, asking if they want a game, and often not really knowing them to know if they play WAAC Tau with 3x Stormsurges and 6x Riptides (or whatever) or if they're the weird but funny fluffy Ork player who yells "WAAAAAAGH" every time he charges and talks to me as though he really is his Warboss, complete with plushie Squig pet. If I turn up with a fluffy army, the WAAC Tau player will stomp me into the ground, while the Ork player might make for an enjoyable game. The problem is that shouldn't be the case; my enjoyment should not be wholly dependent on who my opponent is.

That's why I can't play 40k again, not because I don't want to (lord knows; search my post history you'll find going back to 2006 every so often I ask about starting 40k again), but because there is no "local group" to join, it's all pickup games and seeing who is available to play, and that doesn't give a fun experience if you get unlucky with an opponent or have to rely on hoping you don't get the jerk being the only person to come to the shop that day, or else GG hope you're ready to waste several hours on an unfun game.

That's my problem, beyond the fact that as I said before I watched a 40k game and it looked insanely boring with neither player acting like they were enjoying it, and comparing it the next day to a 12-person Warmachine tournament.

So this is a thing for a lot of people I am sure, and that is sad to hear.. especially because I started 40k just after moving back from Tampa (where I will probably end up again in a few years) =D .. maybe when that happens we can play some fun games sometime.

But yeah I see where you are coming from. Without a group that you know and know who plays what generally it would be very difficult to show up and find a manageable game. That said.. not sure even a balanced rule set would fix this though. As someone just mentioned even in WMH they find some tier lists just more powerful even though in general the game seems to be more balanced. Plus a bad player is going to be a bad player regardless of what rules he has.

Cheers!

Veteran IG vs Veteran Eldar -> higher win percentage Eldar (but not exclusively)
Veteran IG vs New/Intermediate Eldar -> about 50% and more skewed toward the veteran player

It is completely plausible these outcomes are a result of when playing for fun, you tend to be more relaxed and make more mistakes.. but in either case, communication on what you are looking for is the only place to start balancing anything.

And what happens if the IG player is not a veteran?How relaxed can he be. I also doubt communication is going to give him.

and giving tips/advice or otherwise not rubbing it in your face, you can still have fun.

Because getting told you should buy another army and that you wasted your money on buying your army, is like totaly enhance the fun. It will just skyrocket, compering to someone who will just beat you and look for another opponent.

Makumba wrote:

Veteran IG vs Veteran Eldar -> higher win percentage Eldar (but not exclusively)
Veteran IG vs New/Intermediate Eldar -> about 50% and more skewed toward the veteran player

It is completely plausible these outcomes are a result of when playing for fun, you tend to be more relaxed and make more mistakes.. but in either case, communication on what you are looking for is the only place to start balancing anything.

And what happens if the IG player is not a veteran?How relaxed can he be. I also doubt communication is going to give him.

No explanation needed, you can reverse the statements and see the results.

Makumba wrote:

and giving tips/advice or otherwise not rubbing it in your face, you can still have fun.

Because getting told you should buy another army and that you wasted your money on buying your army, is like totaly enhance the fun. It will just skyrocket, compering to someone who will just beat you and look for another opponent.

Then that is not following what I said about sportsmanship.

Cheers!

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I don't think anyone here can disagree with me that (in most gaming groups), you can walk up and ask what type of game they want to play. That is pretty much the extent of the communication I have talked about. This prevents Fluff lists playing WAAC lists most of the time.

Possibly then you've misunderstood my point, too.

Let me put it another way - there often isn't a clear or meaningful distinction between a fluffy list and a WAAC list. Especially with stuff like the Decurion and other super-formations - which let people field armies that are both fluffy and very powerful. In many cases, WAAC is more likely to just determine the 'trimmings' (for example, whether a list buys some stuff for its characters or leaves them bare to squeeze in one more unit). Hence, communicating that you don't want to play WAAC lists isn't very helpful. e.g. a fluffy DE list is still going to be vastly weaker than a fluffy Eldar list. Hell, even a WAAC DE list will probably struggle to beat most fluffy Eldar lists. And, then you have stuff like IK lists and whether armies that consist of 4-5 super heavies can be considered 'fun'.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I agree, some codecs are simply more powerful; Even though this is the case, I have lost to CSM and Orks with new Tau as much as I have won. Both players are very good, and given the randomness of "type of game", "objective placement", "maelstrom card draw", there is never a completely clear winner.

I have also showed up with a fluffy list trying some new formations, played IG.. And a combination of me playing new stuff and my opponent making awful decisions, it was a landslide in my favor. This happens as you have all said, some codecs are just better. The second match was much closer, and in both games we both had fun.

All I am trying to say in the end, is that despite power level of codices.. you can mitigate the effects with simple communication in your local group.

I don't deny this, but for me the problem is not having a "local group" and relying 100% on pickup games i.e. driving down to the game shop, seeing who else turns up, asking if they want a game, and often not really knowing them to know if they play WAAC Tau with 3x Stormsurges and 6x Riptides (or whatever) or if they're the weird but funny fluffy Ork player who yells "WAAAAAAGH" every time he charges and talks to me as though he really is his Warboss, complete with plushie Squig pet. If I turn up with a fluffy army, the WAAC Tau player will stomp me into the ground, while the Ork player might make for an enjoyable game. The problem is that shouldn't be the case; my enjoyment should not be wholly dependent on who my opponent is.

That's why I can't play 40k again, not because I don't want to (lord knows; search my post history you'll find going back to 2006 every so often I ask about starting 40k again), but because there is no "local group" to join, it's all pickup games and seeing who is available to play, and that doesn't give a fun experience if you get unlucky with an opponent or have to rely on hoping you don't get the jerk being the only person to come to the shop that day, or else GG hope you're ready to waste several hours on an unfun game.

That's my problem, beyond the fact that as I said before I watched a 40k game and it looked insanely boring with neither player acting like they were enjoying it, and comparing it the next day to a 12-person Warmachine tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Yeah but the game is so unbalanced that someone who wants a fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar army with loads of Jetbikes is automatically head and shoulders above the guy who wants to play a fluffy non-Deathwing Terminator army. That's the problem. The bad rules hurt casual/narrative/fluff players MORE than the WAAC crowd because the fluffy gamers are the ones that get screwed over when the units they like are bad or overpoweringly good. The WAAC crowd usually has no problem picking a FOTM army to win, the fluff players are the ones who want to play mostly CSM because they're doing Red Corsairs or something like that or footslogging Orks and end up getting beaten soundly because the units they want to field, units that are fluffy and fit their theme, are lackluster because reasons.

I can't count on a single hand the number of times I've given serious thought to getting back into the game, come up with a really cool fluffy army I want, maybe even bought a unit or two, and then abandoned the idea when I stopped and actually looked at how practical it was to field that army on the table.

Me too. Every time. Going back possibly to 2006. I think last year or thereabouts I had the awesome, awesome idea to do an all Termie army, based around the then-new Strike Force Ultra box. I had fluff and everything, even allowing for future expansion of a Tempestus force and a Knight (elite forces backing them up). Then I saw how bad an all-Termie army would do, and shelved the idea because it would have been total garbage on the table, despite being awesomely fluffy.

That's bullgak.

So if there isn't a local group, then make one! Make a Facebook group, Google hangout, or Meetup page (my American club uses all three) and call it Wayne's Warhammer or the <City> Area Wargames Club or whatever. Get phone numbers, email addresses, and names. Sometimes having a community means someone went through the effort of making a community.

 vipoid wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I don't think anyone here can disagree with me that (in most gaming groups), you can walk up and ask what type of game they want to play. That is pretty much the extent of the communication I have talked about. This prevents Fluff lists playing WAAC lists most of the time.

Possibly then you've misunderstood my point, too.

Let me put it another way - there often isn't a clear or meaningful distinction between a fluffy list and a WAAC list. Especially with stuff like the Decurion and other super-formations - which let people field armies that are both fluffy and very powerful. In many cases, WAAC is more likely to just determine the 'trimmings' (for example, whether a list buys some stuff for its characters or leaves them bare to squeeze in one more unit). Hence, communicating that you don't want to play WAAC lists isn't very helpful. e.g. a fluffy DE list is still going to be vastly weaker than a fluffy Eldar list. Hell, even a WAAC DE list will probably struggle to beat most fluffy Eldar lists. And, then you have stuff like IK lists and whether armies that consist of 4-5 super heavies can be considered 'fun'.

Fair point, I was viewing fluff and WAAC as both list and player. Once you separate the distinction yes you are correct.

*EDIT* I suppose I am a bit spoiled in how I can find games covering a spectrum of fun -> competitive with a variety of player experiences. =D I also have 2 GW stores and 2 FLGS in my area, which I have been told is uncommon.

 Psienesis wrote:

I don't think our hobby is sinking. I don't think there is a majority of people who really believe this. I think that there is an angry and loud minority on the inter-tubes.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true, and the evidence suggests that your opinion is incorrect.

Why are people so negative, yet stick around? Why do people who seem to have nothing, but bad, to say about the hobby not just do something else? There are tons of different things to do with your time - why pick something that infuriates you?

Because there's a great IP buried under the tons of crap GW has foisted on it.

This isn't really a good argument. If a company other than GW didn't support the customers and/or listen to feedback then people would simply stop going to that business. No one is sticking around spending thousands of dollars and countless hours just cause the IP is so strong. If people don't care for the game or the way its going its a solid time and reason to bail out. But for every person on here who CONSTANTLY complains about the company you should be aware it doesn't seem like they are changing their tune any time soon. I agree the game isn't very "balanced" but of course I have never seen a game other than say chess where every side is perfectly balanced. I find when I sit down to play a game with my friends we enjoy it immensely. We understand what the others are playing and enjoy the experience none the less.

 Icelord wrote:
If a company other than GW didn't support the customers and/or listen to feedback then people would simply stop going to that business. No one is sticking around spending thousands of dollars and countless hours just cause the IP is so strong. If people don't care for the game or the way its going its a solid time and reason to bail out.

Are you at all familiar with the 'sunk cost fallacy'?

If not, it might surprise you to hear that many people aren't willing to just drop something that they've already invested a great deal of time and/or money into - precisely because they've already invested so much time, money and/or effort into it. Instead, many people will actually continue investing money - in the hope that it will eventually get better and be worth it in the end. You could view it as an attempt to salvage the time and money they've already invested into the hobby.

It's similar to how many people, having bought a cinema ticket, will feel obliged to watch a film to the end - even if they're not enjoying it, since they've already spent the money.

The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

But you're assuming that people always think logically and never emotionally, which is itself fallacious. We're not Vulkans, after all.

Also, I'm not sure what you're even saying. Yes, it's wrong - but most people think that way regardless. That's the whole point. Yes, if you stop enjoying 40k it would be most logical to just cut your losses and leave the hobby. But, a lot of people don't think like that - because they don't want to have wasted all the time and money they already put into the hobby.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

It is not. I am observing the exact thing happen here. 40k is all but dead. Our Tyranid player admit everything's ruined for him, but he is still looking to continue to some degree simply because he's already spent such large amounts of money on his army.

Ashiraya wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

It is not. I am observing the exact thing happen here. 40k is all but dead. Our Tyranid player admit everything's ruined for him, but he is still looking to continue to some degree simply because he's already spent such large amounts of money on his army.

vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

But you're assuming that people always think logically and never emotionally, which is itself fallacious. We're not Vulkans, after all.

Also, I'm not sure what you're even saying. Yes, it's wrong - but most people think that way regardless. That's the whole point. Yes, if you stop enjoying 40k it would be most logical to just cut your losses and leave the hobby. But, a lot of people don't think like that - because they don't want to have wasted all the time and money they already put into the hobby.

Humans being irrational does not excuse irrational behavior. It neither makes it 'right' nor 'sensible', merely understandable.

And yes, I understand the sunk cost fallacy and its effect on people. I suffered from it myself all through 5th edition when they broke Armoured Company. But people should be willing to recognize that it is a fallacy, that they're hurting themselves, and lashing out on the internet because they can't overcome their fallacious irrationality is not acceptable.

We're salty because we care.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Humans being irrational does not excuse irrational behavior. It neither makes it 'right' nor 'sensible', merely understandable.

And yes, I understand the sunk cost fallacy and its effect on people. I suffered from it myself all through 5th edition when they broke Armoured Company. But people should be willing to recognize that it is a fallacy, that they're hurting themselves, and lashing out on the internet because they can't overcome their fallacious irrationality is not acceptable.

What I don't understand is why you seem to be aiming this at me.

It wasn't as if I said "Wow, this 'sunk cost fallacy' sounds amazing! Everyone should live their lives by it." or anything of the sort.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The sunk cost fallacy is a fallacy, though - it is wrong.

I would drop w40k, If I could sell my IG army. I can't, no one wants to buy IG.

Then that is not following what I said about sportsmanship.

But it is. What can an eldar player tell an IG player? Sorry I bought a good army and you bought a bad one.Even in your example the only time a IG player maybe has a so-so chance at a game, is when he is a very good general with a tournament IG list and the opposing one is a bad eldar player. And even then a good eldar list can carry him through.

File off the aquilas and use it as a 30k Imperial Militia army using the original Cadian gear STCs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
File off the aquilas and use it as a 30k Imperial Militia army using the original Cadian gear STCs.

What if you don't want to play 30k? What if you find 90% power armour v power armour the cure for insomnia? What if you think the whole game is besmirching the mythology of 40k?

 Grimtuff wrote:
What if you find 90% power armour v power armour the cure for insomnia?

I always love how you phrase things.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
File off the aquilas and use it as a 30k Imperial Militia army using the original Cadian gear STCs.

What if you don't want to play 30k? What if you find 90% power armour v power armour the cure for insomnia? What if you think the whole game is besmirching the mythology of 40k?

Then you're silly, because 0% of the games I have played have been power armour vs power armour.

I play Ordo Reductor and Solar Auxilia.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
File off the aquilas and use it as a 30k Imperial Militia army using the original Cadian gear STCs.

What if you don't want to play 30k? What if you find 90% power armour v power armour the cure for insomnia? What if you think the whole game is besmirching the mythology of 40k?

Then you're silly, because 0% of the games I have played have been power armour vs power armour.

I play Ordo Reductor and Solar Auxilia.

And you know this is typical how?

Oh, I don't think it's typical.

But when I tell someone to play Imperial Militia and Cults I can guarantee 0% of their games will be power-armour vs power armour, because their army doesn't have power armour.

So it would be typical for them, of course, if they take my advice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If other people enjoy PA vs PA that's fine, whatever. I have ways of ensuring that doesn't happen, if I don't like it, by choosing what army I play.

Revolutionary, I know.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
File off the aquilas and use it as a 30k Imperial Militia army using the original Cadian gear STCs.

What if you don't want to play 30k? What if you find 90% power armour v power armour the cure for insomnia? What if you think the whole game is besmirching the mythology of 40k?

Then you're silly, because 0% of the games I have played have been power armour vs power armour.

I play Ordo Reductor and Solar Auxilia.

Remind me of the fluff that has Guard v. Guard? Traitor Guard, right? Still, the issue is 30k sounds boring, because it's basically Imperial vs. Imperial in some form or another.

 Krug001 wrote:
Hey 40k Folks -

Why are people so negative, yet stick around? Why do people who seem to have nothing, but bad, to say about the hobby not just do something else? There are tons of different things to do with your time - why pick something that infuriates you?

We are trying to help those who still think GW is 'the hobby', maybe 25 years ago when the choice was 40k or nowt that might have been true, but now with the magic of the interwebs and more games and rulesystem choices than ever I'm afraid the a clunky ruleset that doesnt know what it is supposed to be anymore just won't cut it, well that and GW just has the sort of face you never get tired of punching...

OMG!

GW is Geoff!!

To more respond in a slightly on topic way, I've an itch to spend some Chrimbo money on Dreadball.

Interested?

If you want evidence that GW is sinking, don't take our word for it. A quick glance over the last 5 financial reports will tell you all you need to know. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend the only evidence for the failure of 40k is a bunch of whining on internet forums, there's not much point engaging you in further debate. Quality of rules is up for debate, numbers in a financial report are black and white. It's not just my personal opinion that GW is losing money.

 Toofast wrote:
If you want evidence that GW is sinking, don't take our word for it. A quick glance over the last 5 financial reports will tell you all you need to know. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend the only evidence for the failure of 40k is a bunch of whining on internet forums, there's not much point engaging you in further debate. Quality of rules is up for debate, numbers in a financial report are black and white. It's not just my personal opinion that GW is losing money.

To be fair, GW isn't loosing money. Sales revenue is going down year on year but they're still making a profit.

Bartali wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
If you want evidence that GW is sinking, don't take our word for it. A quick glance over the last 5 financial reports will tell you all you need to know. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend the only evidence for the failure of 40k is a bunch of whining on internet forums, there's not much point engaging you in further debate. Quality of rules is up for debate, numbers in a financial report are black and white. It's not just my personal opinion that GW is losing money.

To be fair, GW isn't loosing money. Sales revenue is going down year on year but they're still making a profit.

Which, if not addressed, will simply continue going down and theyn they WILL be losing money and the game will die....

I'm annoyed about them adding slowed things like centurions (I can't be the only one who thinks moar armour over power armour looks ridiculous). I haven't read much of the new fluff so I'm still running on the old fluff and my imagination. This is probably why I still love 40k so much. I don't see the rules as a big long-term problem. The sooner GW dies, the sooner "real" game designers can start working on the game again (an ip this strong will always have a buyer).

That said, players ought to take command of their gaming life. If their isn't a gaming club in your area THEN START ONE! The WHFB crew in my area have taken ownership of the game and are tweaking the 8th ed rules to perfection. Yea they can't go to another city and expect the players there to be on the same page, but honestly, how often do you play in another city? This game was started by people who wrote "home brew" games and that's where it should end up. Back in the players hands.
*gets down from soap box*

 Kavish wrote:
That said, players ought to take command of their gaming life. If their isn't a gaming club in your area THEN START ONE!

This is a lot easier said than done. In the US at least, most people don't WANT a "club" they want a shop to go to, that's why FLGSes are so prevalent here. If it's not something they can buy in a store and go down to a store every weekend or so, they aren't interested. I've looked around in my area for historical games, Infinity, Bolt Action, Kings of War, Frostgrave, etc. basically various things I'm interested in and would like to try out, and the general attitude I've gotten is that people go to a store, feel it's their "home" (to the point of trash talking other stores or treating people who frequent those stores as outsiders), and will only ever consider playing things that store can stock else they feel like they are "betraying" the store owner by not giving him money. Trying to round up people and say hey let's form a club and rent a room once a month to play lots of games is going to get you looked at like you are stupid and/or crazy, because there's XYZ Games where everyone goes on weekends to play, and people aren't interested in expanding from their own cliques.

That's what I've seen, anyways. The US game store mentality is very cliqueish. Try to pitch a new game, and you're likely to be told by the store owner to feth off because he's not wanting to stock it (and sometimes not even let you play it in his shop because he can't/won't stock it), and bringing it up to the players will often get you told to feth off for trying to push your "pet game" on everybody else. I've had it happen when I asked some Warhammer Fantasy (back when it was alive) players about Kings of War, which I was interested in. I've gotten told that nobody is interested when I bring up things like Infinity or Bolt Action, and historical gaming would never get traction in a store because it would likely be hard for the shop to buy the figures in most cases (some exceptions like FoW exist but then again no shop I've seen in the area, and there are like 3 I've been to that are open and 2 that closed last year, have anyone playing FoW at all), and daring to suggest that people buy them elsewhere gets you told to feth off for not wanting to support the shop.

The gaming club exists basically like a secret society - you need to know someone who can get you an "in" with the club, or else you'll never hear about it existing. I'm sure they are out there, but I don't know anyone who knows anyone, and like I said trying to form it without having like a bunch of people already willing to do it is a monumental effort for likely little gain because it's easier to just play what everyone else plays at the local game shop.

Well for everyone who doesn't want to play 40k but is stuck with models.. check out Frostgraive (I think that is how you spell it). Its a small skirmish style game, but the IP writes rules.. they don't have their own model line. A few people at my FLGS were play testing it yesterday, looked like fun.

 Toofast wrote:
It's not just my personal opinion that GW is losing money.

Games Workshop is not loosing money. I don't care how business say it, when you are making Profit, you are not loosing money. You are making money. I don't know how or when not making as much profit as the year before is loosing money. Loosing money is when you are in the negative, in the red. GW is in the black and making profit. Not as much profit as it did before, but profit in the millions non the less.

Yes the profit is shrinking year to year and if GW doesn't change soon, then GW can be in the red then they would be loosing money. For the last 10 years profits are going down, there is no debate about that.

Now we can say GW is loosing sales. GW doesn't sell as much as they use to. People are not buying as much as they use to. And yes one of the reasons why GW is making a profit is because of all the cost cutting measurements they did. Now I believe they have cut down to the bone. So they can't make a profit anymore because I believe there is nothing to cut now. What else is left to cut?

Still GW is not loosing money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Bartali wrote:
Which, if not addressed, will simply continue going down and theyn they WILL be losing money and the game will die....

That has been said for over 15 years now. GW will be dead by 2010. It's almost 2016 and GW is still making millions in profit. I guess for a publicly traded company not enough, but almost any other game company there, they would love to have GW profits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
Well for everyone who doesn't want to play 40k but is stuck with models.. check out Frostgraive (I think that is how you spell it). Its a small skirmish style game, but the IP writes rules.. they don't have their own model line. A few people at my FLGS were play testing it yesterday, looked like fun.

Will check it out. Thank you for mentioning it.