after playing the game from the release of the 3rd edition starter box until the start of 7th, I came finally back to the hobby and to this forum (always a watcher in the dark, never posting myself).
My memories are most likely tinted by time and nostalgia, but I can't remember to notice so much negativity back in the day just about everything.
When I take a look around, we - as a community - are better off than ever before:
- Every main faction got a Codex from the same edition (for the first time since 3rd edition!)
GW sits at 9 Codex releases per year with 8th edition. Compare this to the ~2 releases per year in 4th and 5th edition, where it wasn't even guaranteed that your faction would get up to date rules within the edition's life time.
- The model range is fantastic!
Back in the day we always hoped for but never dreamed of certain factions/models coming to life. Custodes, Genestealer, Nurglekin, Primarchs, AdMech, Deathwatch, Tzeentch, 30k, ...
- Social Media
Painting tutorials from fans and GW on Youtube, weekly streams on Twitch, high quality battle reports, Warhammer Community, GW themselves spreading rumours HOLY COW.
Listening to their Twitch stream while cracking open a fresh pot of paint and working on my models with people having a chat feels like I'm part of a community. It gives me a good feeling, because even though I have no nearby living friends who play the game, I do feel connected.
- Contrast and Texture paints, along with the design of model kits make the hobby super accessable. Personally, Contrast was the seller for me to return to the hobby.
- I know very well that GW is really hit or miss with their balancing, but the situation is better than it ever was before. The last Space Marine Codex got 6 supplements and at least as much playable, fun army lists out of it.
I don't want to hear that they are too strong relative to other factions like Grey Knights. I don't want to hear that people should only be allowed to play with the rules for which Chapter you painted your toy soldiers.
We got 6 Chapters promoting different units and Marine players are free to switch between them so they do not have to play the same mono list for the next 5 years. Great for them and I hope that all factions get a similar treatment in the future, because it will be healthy for the game and good for us players.
- Iron Hands have been regulated within WEEKS of their release. In recent editions you had to live with a broken codex until the next edition would alter the basic rules enough to neuter it or until the army would get a new codex. That's great.
- Sister of Battles are getting a complete relaunch. I can't believe it. The miniatures so far look great and even though I've never been fan enough to pick them up because metal, I really consider buying the Christmas box.
The army has been on life support since 3rd edition and it never really was a good time to start them. Metal, expensive, harder to convert and customise. Yet, people are stating their disappointment that the new range won't be available until next year.
Guys, come on! We get a very flavourful army back after more than a decade of neglecting them. Thank you GW for giving an army that must be at the bottom of sales a chance to come back.
Does the game have problems? Absolutely.
- Some models are legally allowed to drink alcohol in the US by now.
- Not all factions are equally powerful or have multiple, interesting builds available.
- Prices are only getting higher, for models and rules likewise.
- We lost Warseer along the way.
- Some models are only available in starter boxes.
- If you are not a loyalist Space Marine, you are lucky to get a new model every few years.
But despite all that, I would like everyone to take a more relaxed approach to the hobby. Some things are good, some are bad. Maybe for you personally more things are bad than they are good. I can totally understand that Grey Knight players are left in the dust since 5th edition. No release apart from that one Gathering Storm guy and mediocre to bad rules.
Trust me, we all would want it to be a better situation. But each of us personally can't change Games Workshop. What we can change, however, is how we are.
- If your army is having weak rules, ask your fellow players to not bring three immortal Leviathan Dreadnoughts. After all you both want to have fun.
- If your army is not getting much model support, consider picking up another army or another miniature game to keep things fresh. "What a great advice, pick up another army" I hear you say, but again: You can only change yourself, not GW. Nobody is happier at the end of the day if you stick with your Sisters of Battle since 3rd and start a complain thread everyday. You won't be happier doing that, so let it go and look for what would make you happier.
- Obviously, my advice does little for you if you are a die hard tournament player. I'm sorry to say this, but Warhammer 40k is a poor tournament game and always has been. Could it be a good one? Of course, but we are not there at the moment. So there is no use in complaining about poor playtesting or calling armies "trash tier" because they are not as broken as the current thing that is very broken.
At the end of the day we all want to have fun with our toy soldiers. And I feel we could improve the community if everybody would be a little bit less doom and gloom and drastic in their choice of words.
I, for one, look forward to grow my new collection in a time where Warhammer - with all it's flaws - is in a better state than it ever was before.
Thank you for reading the wall of text, I needed to get this off my chest
I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?
Vankraken wrote: I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?
Which aspects of 7th are missing that make the game totally unplayable for you?
I miss facings and somewhat templates (without them + auras blob armies became too prevalent; and flamers became weaker). I also liked some of the moving and shooting rules better before I guess.
I do not miss all the instant death rules, whole units running from a failed morale check, and only few factions having ability to charge from transports. Also that godawful psychic phase with dice pool and random powers.
Vankraken wrote: I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?
Which aspects of 7th are missing that make the game totally unplayable for you?
In general the tactical gameplay of using terrain, blast weapons having proper area of effect, AV system so you don't have pulse rifle spam being the most effective form of anti tank, special rules and mechanics built into units. Directional casualties suck for an Ork player but I like how it gives the shooter some decision making in inflicting casualties. The risk/reward of deep strikes is another major thing where taking the risk of a danger close deep strike to melta a tank or get in firing range of some backfield artillery units. I also find myself strongly disliking stratagems as they feel a bit too MTG like and don't cater to redundant units or MSU play styles. Also dislike the +1 and -1 to hit garbage as it isn't well implemented (-1 to hit hoses Orks but only an annoyance to space marines). Weapon profiles and their roles are far too bland and similar due to the lack of true cover mechanics, no blasts, the AP changes, no AV, and general reduction of mechanics and special rules.
The game is less unplayable and more along the lines of being boring as watching paint dry.
Shadenuat wrote: I miss facings and somewhat templates (without them + auras blob armies became too prevalent; and flamers became weaker). I also liked some of the moving and shooting rules better before I guess.
I do not miss all the instant death rules, whole units running from a failed morale check, and only few factions having ability to charge from transports. Also that godawful psychic phase with dice pool and random powers.
Facings and templates were fun for armies capable of exploiting them. For everyone else? Not so much. It'd be nice if flamers were better at taking on hordes and a couple other minor things, but I can't for the life of me imagine it would ruin the enjoyment of the game by not having them.
Vankraken wrote: I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?
Which aspects of 7th are missing that make the game totally unplayable for you?
In general the tactical gameplay of using terrain, blast weapons having proper area of effect, AV system so you don't have pulse rifle spam being the most effective form of anti tank, special rules and mechanics built into units. Directional casualties suck for an Ork player but I like how it gives the shooter some decision making in inflicting casualties. The risk/reward of deep strikes is another major thing where taking the risk of a danger close deep strike to melta a tank or get in firing range of some backfield artillery units. I also find myself strongly disliking stratagems as they feel a bit too MTG like and don't cater to redundant units or MSU play styles. Also dislike the +1 and -1 to hit garbage as it isn't well implemented (-1 to hit hoses Orks but only an annoyance to space marines). Weapon profiles and their roles are far too bland and similar due to the lack of true cover mechanics, no blasts, the AP changes, no AV, and general reduction of mechanics and special rules.
The game is less unplayable and more along the lines of being boring as watching paint dry.
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I get the feeling you've missed out on the bigger changes since the inception of this edition. When is the last time you played?
- I'll commensurate with you on terrain. I play ITC more, because terrain is often too easy to ignore.
- Blast weapons -- for me -- I can do without. Think of it this way : it prevented blobbing, but that did that really do? It just slowed the game down as people maximized their 2". The random shots now represents the variability of the templates.
- Pulse rifle spam is hardly good AV. It's good AV in a pinch, but that's about it, which is not any stronger than those S5 glancing AV11. It wasn't always easy to keep the sides of a predator away from them. Mathematically 10 shots then was about 0.84 glances or 25% of a vehicle's hull points. 10 shots now comes to 0.6 wounds, which is 5% of a vehicle's wounds. Obviously they would never have taken down AV12 or better, but for perspective these days it takes 36 fire warriors the entire game (at long range) to kill a tank.
- Directional casualties were cool, but again...for shooting armies and really tended to slow the game down.
- Deep striking mishaps were thematically cool, but really just aggravating. Even when you weren't near enemies you can land in terrain and die. What's even the point of using it other than random clutch drops that MIGHT kill something useful?
- Stratagems add so much for me. I think GW has become FAR better at making them than the earlier days. Have you seen the new marine ones?
- Orks get around modifiers ok these days (they don't even care about -2 or worse, anyway) - have you seen their new rules?
I'm generally positive about the state of GW today, and this year I've had a lot of fun with Age of Sigmar. I can work around most of GW's worst impulses (like $40-50 CAD character models I can easily convert out of $6 models and spare bits).
I grouse about the prices and the rules, but still (bafflingly) buy the models. What I have played of 8E I have enjoyed, but I find that my mindset about what I would play in the first place is so contrary to what everyone seems to want to do.
So much self-hate when it comes to this game, I wish I could sit back, relax and enjoy it - but I just can’t. I feel like my eyes have been opened too much to the flaws of heaven that I feel forced to dwell in hell.
Vankraken wrote: I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?
I'm sorry to read that the current rule set does not suit you. I remember reading rumours for 4th edition saying that Power Fists would not gain a bonus attack anymore for having a Bolt Pistol equipped and not being able to consolidate into a new close combat. How were my footslogging BTemplars supposed to fight my friends Carnifexes?
I liked 4th less than 3rd. Fifth was really good if your army got a Codex. Sixth was...okay I guess and with 7th I lost interest totally. Still got a complete Grey Knight and Imperial Guard army (beautifully painted by a paid artist) sitting at home. I feel you, really.
And I hope you can either have another look at the rules and see if they are more to your liking by now or that the next edition will spark your interest again. Take some time away from the hobby if it is not for you. GW got a track record for changing rules between editions enough to have the game feel very different with each iteration.
Your models will still be there when 9th rolls around or whever you give the hobby another chance.
Vankraken wrote: I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?
I'm sorry to read that the current rule set does not suit you. I remember reading rumours for 4th edition saying that Power Fists would not gain a bonus attack anymore for having a Bolt Pistol equipped and not being able to consolidate into a new close combat. How were my footslogging BTemplars supposed to fight my friends Carnifexes?
I liked 4th less than 3rd. Fifth was really good if your army got a Codex. Sixth was...okay I guess and with 7th I lost interest totally. Still got a complete Grey Knight and Imperial Guard army (beautifully painted by a paid artist) sitting at home. I feel you, really.
And I hope you can either have another look at the rules and see if they are more to your liking by now or that the next edition will spark your interest again. Take some time away from the hobby if it is not for you. GW got a track record for changing rules between editions enough to have the game feel very different with each iteration.
Your models will still be there when 9th rolls around or whever you give the hobby another chance.
That is if GW ever decides to make a 9th and fix the system in the first place, sofar we got nothing.
There are many things that I like about 8th, core rules wise. My only major gripe with early 8th was a lack of decent terrain rules.
I find the reliance on d6 shots to be unfun. I can live with it, but rolling to see how many rolls you get to roll is tedious.
But then, the “extras” started piling on. Buy the rulebook, Buy the Index, now buy the codex, now buy the supplement, now buy Chapter Approved, now buy the supplement, now buy the revised codex, now buy the expansion, now buy the next Chapter Approved, now buy the next Chapter Approved... in what, 3 years? Over $400 for rules? No thanks.
All these added factions? Good for them. I’m not personally interested in any of them, but huzzah for other people, I guess.
I’ve enjoyed some of the painting tutorials. I think the hobby outreach has been fantastic, particularly for low-effort hobbyists... like me.
It’s not really the best it’s ever been. Not for everyone. For some, yes. I’m glad you’re enthused about the hobby.
No. There are bad core mechanics (IGOUGO, morale being pointless, etc.) and there are core issues with internal and external balance. To say "no don't use your models so I can play fairly" is purely the same as "don't use your Tactical Marines because I don't like them" and we should not be doing the game designer's job.
8th improves a LOT if you just play with Cities of Death (Or whatever is called the expansion terrain based rules of the basic rulebook). Just use them without the stratagems. Grenades and Flamers become for example much better when they auto max-hit agaisnt units that have fortified their positions (For a +2 cover save)
Also threat destroyed vehicles as ruins and don't remove them from the table.
Galas wrote: 8th improves a LOT if you just play with Cities of Death (Or whatever is called the expansion terrain based rules of the basic rulebook). Just use them without the stratagems. Grenades and Flamers become for example much better when they auto max-hit agaisnt units that have fortified their positions (For a +2 cover save)
Also threat destroyed vehicles as ruins and don't remove them from the table.
Here's the issue, BRB has 1, one, page of terrain rules for a wargame.
That ain't working, so what does gw? Throw out another book with pricetag.
That is probably what irks me the most.
Galas wrote: 8th improves a LOT if you just play with Cities of Death (Or whatever is called the expansion terrain based rules of the basic rulebook). Just use them without the stratagems. Grenades and Flamers become for example much better when they auto max-hit agaisnt units that have fortified their positions (For a +2 cover save)
Also threat destroyed vehicles as ruins and don't remove them from the table.
Here's the issue, BRB has 1, one, page of terrain rules for a wargame.
That ain't working, so what does gw? Throw out another book with pricetag.
That is probably what irks me the most.
Galas wrote: 8th improves a LOT if you just play with Cities of Death (Or whatever is called the expansion terrain based rules of the basic rulebook). Just use them without the stratagems. Grenades and Flamers become for example much better when they auto max-hit agaisnt units that have fortified their positions (For a +2 cover save)
Also threat destroyed vehicles as ruins and don't remove them from the table.
Here's the issue, BRB has 1, one, page of terrain rules for a wargame.
That ain't working, so what does gw? Throw out another book with pricetag.
That is probably what irks me the most.
Cities of Death rules are in the BRB
Meh, still annoying But in my defense there are soooooo maaaaaaaannnnmnyyyyyy bloooooooodddddyyyy boooooooks now out there
a_typical_hero wrote: But each of us personally can't change Games Workshop ... You can only change yourself, not GW.
Virtually all of the high points that you've talked about in 8th are things that have been steady, major complaints from players for years. I seriously doubt we, as a group, wouldn't be where we are today if players took the approach you want. Telling people to just be quiet cheerleaders and buy more models is absurd.
Focus on improving the community by getting people to stop trashing different play styles or respecting each other better in disagreements, because that's the rep that haunts the 40k scene at most shops I've been to. No one cares about complaining with a little too much hyperbole on the internet about bad rules and slow model releases, that's par for the course in just about every hobby in existence these days.
Galas wrote: 8th improves a LOT if you just play with Cities of Death (Or whatever is called the expansion terrain based rules of the basic rulebook). Just use them without the stratagems. Grenades and Flamers become for example much better when they auto max-hit agaisnt units that have fortified their positions (For a +2 cover save)
Also threat destroyed vehicles as ruins and don't remove them from the table.
Here's the issue, BRB has 1, one, page of terrain rules for a wargame.
That ain't working, so what does gw? Throw out another book with pricetag.
That is probably what irks me the most.
Cities of Death rules are in the BRB
Meh, still annoying But in my defense there are soooooo maaaaaaaannnnmnyyyyyy bloooooooodddddyyyy boooooooks now out there
But I'll reitereate how much the tactical play of the game improves when vertical height has bonuses and maluses (Yeah reivers with graplink hooks become actually... quite ... ok they are still meh but much more usefull), when you have to decide between moving or remaining stationary to gain a substantial bonus for cover, using weapons that remove cover, the risk you have with flamers if you fortifie your units, etc...
Vankraken wrote: I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?
I'm sorry to read that the current rule set does not suit you. I remember reading rumours for 4th edition saying that Power Fists would not gain a bonus attack anymore for having a Bolt Pistol equipped and not being able to consolidate into a new close combat. How were my footslogging BTemplars supposed to fight my friends Carnifexes?
I liked 4th less than 3rd. Fifth was really good if your army got a Codex. Sixth was...okay I guess and with 7th I lost interest totally. Still got a complete Grey Knight and Imperial Guard army (beautifully painted by a paid artist) sitting at home. I feel you, really.
And I hope you can either have another look at the rules and see if they are more to your liking by now or that the next edition will spark your interest again. Take some time away from the hobby if it is not for you. GW got a track record for changing rules between editions enough to have the game feel very different with each iteration.
Your models will still be there when 9th rolls around or whever you give the hobby another chance.
That is if GW ever decides to make a 9th and fix the system in the first place, sofar we got nothing.
Oh GWwill eventually make a 9th edition.
Fixing the system though.? Come on, you know how this story plays out. They'll "fix" ABC, break XYZ, and change everything else.
Editions are just there to sell you new books and to monetize the veteran players. Atleast for gw.
Change my mind.
But I'll reitereate how much the tactical play of the game improves when vertical height has bonuses and maluses (Yeah reivers with graplink hooks become actually... quite ... ok they are still meh but much more usefull), when you have to decide between moving or remaining stationary to gain a substantial bonus for cover, using weapons that remove cover, the risk you have with flamers if you fortifie your units, etc...
I mean yeah obviously, but I ask you a question, shouldn't that be the base terrain rules? Instead of the measely 1 page ones?
I mean call me daft but in a wargame on a board terrain imo is kinda relevant?
Not Online!!! wrote: Editions are just there to sell you new books and to monetize the veteran players. Atleast for gw.
Change my mind.
But I'll reitereate how much the tactical play of the game improves when vertical height has bonuses and maluses (Yeah reivers with graplink hooks become actually... quite ... ok they are still meh but much more usefull), when you have to decide between moving or remaining stationary to gain a substantial bonus for cover, using weapons that remove cover, the risk you have with flamers if you fortifie your units, etc...
I mean yeah obviously, but I ask you a question, shouldn't that be the base terrain rules? Instead of the measely 1 page ones?
I mean call me daft but in a wargame on a board terrain imo is kinda relevant?
I can see why they didn't put them in the base rules, when they wanted to make them as thin as possible. At the same time, for me it speaks volumes how many people is agaisnt of using a couple extra rules that add so much to the game, and are even in the basic rulebook, just because they are "advanced rules".
So for me, many times the "I hate 8th terrain rules!" falls a little flat because many, many times I have seen people in my group that didn't wanted to use the advanced rules because they weren't "matched play", even after complaining about the lackluster basic terrain rules.
I always say that the "rule of three" and the detachment limit are also advanced rules, for tournaments, and aren't in the basic 12 pages of rules but alas... people is just so adverse to a little deviation from the norm.
Daedalus81 wrote: - Blast weapons -- for me -- I can do without. Think of it this way : it prevented blobbing, but that did that really do?
Punished deepstrike. Hard. Super-hard. I remember killing like 3 or 4 Grey Knight terminators (when those were still scary stuff) with a simple dominion unit with 4 flamethrowers, was epic!
I'm sorry to read that the current rule set does not suit you. I remember reading rumours for 4th edition saying that Power Fists would not gain a bonus attack anymore for having a Bolt Pistol equipped and not being able to consolidate into a new close combat. How were my footslogging BTemplars supposed to fight my friends Carnifexes?
I liked 4th less than 3rd. Fifth was really good if your army got a Codex. Sixth was...okay I guess and with 7th I lost interest totally. Still got a complete Grey Knight and Imperial Guard army (beautifully painted by a paid artist) sitting at home. I feel you, really.
And I hope you can either have another look at the rules and see if they are more to your liking by now or that the next edition will spark your interest again. Take some time away from the hobby if it is not for you. GW got a track record for changing rules between editions enough to have the game feel very different with each iteration.
Your models will still be there when 9th rolls around or whever you give the hobby another chance.
I heard this pep talk first time when 6th edition Tau codex came out and I hated the changes. "But it has so much new stuff, read the rules, try it out and maybe you'll like it". Well, I read the rules, played it few times and hated it. And still do and haven't played Tau since, and probably never will again as GW won't obviously roll back the clock and make the army back to my liking. If some people like it, good for them, but I don't and nobody can convince me otherwise.
It was very disappointing but I of course always knew that it could happen.
Oh well, I still have Space Hulk and BFG.
8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
dude, Rule Zero predates warhammer 40k. You HAVE heard of it yes?
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
dude, Rule Zero predates warhammer 40k. You HAVE heard of it yes?
Rule Zero is for games like D&D or Fate, where everyone is working together and there's a singular arbiter of rules (or at least someone who's invested with authority to have the final say on rules).
In addition, both D&D and Fate work out of the box, no mods needed. Can you change them? Sure. Can you change 40k to suit your tastes? Sure. But that's NOT an excuse to give a faulty product-ESPECIALLY in a competitive game.
I think there's a big difference between having legitimate criticisms about a product and being negative for the sake of negativity. And I've seen both on this site. You don't have to love everything about the game, or even most of the things. But you can frame your complaints in a way that doesn't come across as a toddler throwing a tantrum.
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
dude, Rule Zero predates warhammer 40k. You HAVE heard of it yes?
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
Out of interest, are there other areas of your life where you refuse to self regulate? I'm guessing you must just walk around the office leaving doors swing shut in people's faces, making yourself tea and not asking others if they want a cup, perhaps just belching or farting at your desk. I mean, there are no actual rules preventing you from doing these things, right?
If you want to spam the most powerful stuff and not feel bad - that's cool. Just do it in a competitive environment where everyone expects to come up against the hardest possible lists.
IME 8th is the best edition of 40k since the beginning. In the real world, there are tens of thousands of gamers who are having a great time with their mates. None of them read forums full of repeated whining. It honestly doesn't improve anyone's enjoyment.
If anyone is having a hard time figuring out how to have fun with their toy soldiers, I would recommend watching a selection of winters SEO or Tabletop Tactics youtube vids. That is 40k at it's best IMO.
I agree with a lot of OP; I feel really good about the game. One thing I really like that OP didn't mention is all of the minigames and the way they port directly into 40K.
Blackstone now has retinue character mechanics, and it has progressed to the point where players can more easily create their own scenarios- including the missions where retinue character are discovered. So pick a Blackstone character, and do retinue missions until you've recruited enough of a retinue that you can build a Kill Team.
Then switch. You already have the rules for the models you own (the original BSF character Kill Team rules are a free download). Once your Kill Team gets too big, switch to 40k.
And when your army outgrows 40k, Apocalypse is waiting. And even in your Apocalypse army, that damned Blackstone character who fought his or her way back from the far side of space is still there.
There's never been another edition where that was possible.
And I'm a campaign guy; I think I've been playing since 1989 or 90, and I don't think I've ever played a game that wasn't part of a larger story. The support we are getting to play the game that way is better than it has ever been.
I think that this thread also made the point that GW's rules are meant to be tools. There are more ways to play this game than any other game I've ever encountered. It can be hard to find a group of people who want to play the game the way you want it to be payed, and you may have to compromise; alternate play styles between your group members so that everyone gets to share their favourite version of the game at least once per rotation. It is that flexibility that gives the game its depth and complexity.
As for the whole multiple editions vs. material overload debate, both are strategies to keep GW's business alive; they have to either keep making new things or they have to release an edition- it's one or the other or the business dies.
You can argue that they should make plastics for all of the resins as a priority, or that they give the weakest factions the 2.0 treatment as a priority, and maybe you think that all of that should be done before something like a series of books and releases for a storyline campaign.
But the point is that it's all coming. You may not get it in the priority that you want; right now, I really feel for DE players who have watched all their super cool characters vanish, even if most of those characters were never given models in the first place. Many of those folks have recently expressed a lot of disappointment or even rage that this isn't what GW chose to give them in Blood of the Phoenix. On a certain level, I can understand that, but my point is that I do still think those characters are coming; if not them, then someone new to fill the void they left behind. I wouldn't be surprised if it arrives as a BSF character or a Kill Team.
What I can tell you is that if we do get a new edition, it will never happen. Nor will Tau ever get Alien Auxilia. The seven editions that came before this one are the reason we don't have them already.
I, for one, am ecstatic that GW has finally realized that edition longevity is the key to giving players the content they crave. I think that rules bloat is a fair price to pay for the possibility of getting everything I've ever wanted out of 40k. Sisters, GSC, many new Slaaneshi Daemons and multiple box sets for each? Just the beginning.
Someone posted the other day suggesting Asdrubael Vect and the Dias of Destruction updated with a new kit as a LOW choice. If the cost of that is no 9th edition (and it is), sign me up. And given the way GW has been conducted itself since 8th dropped, I'd say a they've already got substantial releases for every faction mapped out.
Many of us who want this content, and have wanted it for decades sometimes lapse into existential panic when we see people advocate for a 9th edition, because if it does, we have to go through at least the lifespan of 8th again before we can even begin to hope for better things again.
I have spent HUGE amounts of money this edition; my plan was to buy as much as I can, so that if they ever do release 9th edition, I will have everything I need from 8th to continue playing it for the rest of my life. I have 8 Codices + Urban Conquest, all the CA, all the Kill Team rules, every BSF box except the Ambull. I've also made substantial investments in GSC and Inquisition/ Sisters, and when the new sisters drop, I'm all in.
Anyway, I don't want to censor anyone, and I don't think OP does either. For my part, I like helping people be happy, so I try to point out silver linings or positive progress. It's also why I advocate that people find a group that isn't afraid to experiment with the various ways of playing the game and try it all on for size.
- Deep striking mishaps were thematically cool, but really just aggravating. Even when you weren't near enemies you can land in terrain and die. What's even the point of using it other than random clutch drops that MIGHT kill something useful?
I feel like this quote actually illustrates nicely the difference in opinion that I at least feel between 7th and 8th edition. There were a lot of mechanics in 7th edition (and prior but I am going to shorthand as 7th) that are like the deep strike rules where the risk is almost never worth the reward or rarely came into play or just caused arguments at some peoples tables. Why do some people miss them so much? I can't speak for everyone but for myself it's because I very much enjoyed all the crazy stuff that could happen in the game because that's what lead to the stories that I remember. I mean, obviously I tried to win but I was just as happy coming away with a loss with a great story about how a bad last ditch scatter caused my own basilisk to blow up my infantry squad or the lucky side armor shot immobilized my transport carrying my last obsec unit so they had to get out and try to wade through the fire to get to the objective.
Now for the record, I play 8th edition and I think it is actually a pretty good game. But that's all it is to me is a game. A lot of the things that actually made me want to put down models and play in prior editions are gone because the streamlining of the game has made it so that for the most part everything is easily calculable. I don't mean that I can predict who will win just by looking at the lists and I am not saying that terrain and movement don't matter and that there aren't meaningful decisions to be made on the battlefield but it just feels like there is so much more player control of outcomes that it becomes less worth actually going through the motions. Since everything is on a d6 it's trivial to know what my odds of success are in every situation and as the game scales the offensive power creep to 11 it becomes more reliable than ever because I am rolling buckets of dice that are likely to average out (either because I have buckets of attacks or rerolls on everything). I am pretty sure this is by design. GW seems to want to have a tournament game and I think in some degree they have accomplished that but what I think makes it a good tournament game is what I think makes it a bad narrative game because what GW have done is effectively removed anything that would require judgement calls at the table and replaced them with the hard objective d6.
So to answer the question, I would deep strike because I thought it was cool and thematic and I thought I could make it work and if it did work it was glorious and made for a good story and if it went horribly wrong it could also make for a good story. I can completely understand why people like the current system and hated the old system. If you were looking for a competitive game then it definitely wasn't for you because some of the time it felt like you were playing against the game as well as the opposing player but those are the sorts of things that drew me to 40K and kept me around when better games started coming up.
I play Tyranids, I've gotten 1 codex. Others have gotten multiple updates, Vigilus, etc. I've gotten mostly points increases and rules changes that have forced me to change my army not because I wanted to, but because I had to.
It's hard to have "Hobby Positivity" when the creator of the hobby doesn't care about some of their customers. No, sorry, not only do they not care, they have actively exploited those customers year after year.
Since GW gets to operate a legal "bait and switch" operation, it's in their best interest to put out completely unbalanced rules so that certain models will sell. Once they get a peak of those sales, they can nerf it a month or two later.
The local "meta" at your game shop you play at is affected for a few months as FoTM players buy up the latest and greatest in order to get every little advantage in this competitive game. Unfortunately, you can't buy a single thing from GW and expect that in a month it will be good because at any point a FAQ can come out and make what you just bought worthless.
It's a hobby where I seriously despise the company that creates it. They are a terrible, terrible company. 8th edition may have improved the release cycle a bit, but their releases are so Imperium/Chaos slanted that why do I want to play my Tyranids? Why does anybody want to play a Xenos race in this game where you get 1/10th the rules of your Imperium friends?
Codex creep == Pay to win. In other genres of games, most truly competitive people don't like pay to win.
So to answer the question, I would deep strike because I thought it was cool and thematic and I thought I could make it work and if it did work it was glorious and made for a good story and if it went horribly wrong it could also make for a good story. I can completely understand why people like the current system and hated the old system. If you were looking for a competitive game then it definitely wasn't for you because some of the time it felt like you were playing against the game as well as the opposing player but those are the sorts of things that drew me to 40K and kept me around when better games started coming up.
Totally valid, but I feel like there are tons of ways to create memorable moments if people step outside the strict matched play arena.
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I get the feeling you've missed out on the bigger changes since the inception of this edition. When is the last time you played?
- I'll commensurate with you on terrain. I play ITC more, because terrain is often too easy to ignore.
- Blast weapons -- for me -- I can do without. Think of it this way : it prevented blobbing, but that did that really do? It just slowed the game down as people maximized their 2". The random shots now represents the variability of the templates.
- Pulse rifle spam is hardly good AV. It's good AV in a pinch, but that's about it, which is not any stronger than those S5 glancing AV11. It wasn't always easy to keep the sides of a predator away from them. Mathematically 10 shots then was about 0.84 glances or 25% of a vehicle's hull points. 10 shots now comes to 0.6 wounds, which is 5% of a vehicle's wounds. Obviously they would never have taken down AV12 or better, but for perspective these days it takes 36 fire warriors the entire game (at long range) to kill a tank.
- Directional casualties were cool, but again...for shooting armies and really tended to slow the game down.
- Deep striking mishaps were thematically cool, but really just aggravating. Even when you weren't near enemies you can land in terrain and die. What's even the point of using it other than random clutch drops that MIGHT kill something useful?
- Stratagems add so much for me. I think GW has become FAR better at making them than the earlier days. Have you seen the new marine ones?
- Orks get around modifiers ok these days (they don't even care about -2 or worse, anyway) - have you seen their new rules?
-Blast weapons made the battlefield as a whole matter more as to how close units where to each other. A lot of times when firing blast weapons, it was important to account for where misses could go so firing close to friendlies was risky while firing in congested areas meant that your misses could still hit other enemy units. It gave the feeling of artillery/bombs/etc blowing up stuff and also made the weapon far more reliant on battlefield conditions (unit concentrations, spacing, etc) than just the theorycraft numbers of how much damage on average this weapon does. 8th edition "blast" weapons shoot like machine guns with Ork RNG shots.
-The pulse weapon example is because of stacking + to wound modifiers that made spamming pulse rifle fire an effective anti Knight weapon. This ties into both the weaknesses of toughness only (anything can wound anything which is stupid) and 8th tendency to have stratagems and other bonuses result in weird situations. In general the feeling that you needed proper AT weapons to deal with an AV13 or AV14 vehicle (or flank around to the side or rear armor) was a compelling gameplay experience instead of throwing a lot of dice at a meatbox on treads (or these days mostly hovering on air).
-Directional casualties again made positioning matter more and factored into target priority and such outside of just number crunching damage outputs. Tying back into the battlefield conditions mattering more.
-Whats the point of using deepstrikes now? The point of them is to get into a position that you couldn't effectively get into while starting on the board and had that whole risk/reward aspect of making risky drops (and using your models to force more risky drops from your opponent). Once again the battlefield mattered and tied in strongly to AV firing arcs in addition to being a counter to hiding behind LOS or putting important characters in the back of unit blobs. Now the 9" bubble means your really not dropping behind the enemy unless they are really incompetent. No AV or directional casualties means getting a flank has little to no effect. (also terrain is basically being in area terrain or no bonus to your save so getting around cover isn't a factor really).
-Stratagems feel too much like a gimmick and again reminds me more of something from Magic (tap a CP and play *insert 40k equivalent to wild growth* to wound on 3s instead of 4s). In general 8th is barren on core gameplay mechanics and unit profiles (especially on older units) and instead relies on stacking bonuses from your subfaction and stratagems to do something "interesting". Stacking bonuses and modifiers feels artificial and clunky. I like my units being able to do their function based on the core and codex rules they have been given without needing to conjure some super power ability from Gork or sending in the logistical drone to give a Fire Warrior the only EMP grenade the army has.
-I don't think d6s are well suited for +1 and -1 modifiers they way 40k does it and i especially don't like modifiers when unit profiles vary as much as 40k's does unlike a game like bolt action where units generally hit on the same value but modifiers are designed around how movement and terrain. You don't have the Germans as an army hitting on 3+ base while the Italians are all hitting on 5+ base then trying to stack on flat modifiers for cover, terrain, etc. Seems like GW might of learned a bit from the stupidity of Eldar getting army wide minus to hit (and stacking it with other - to hit bonuses) but in general I dislike how the math of this stuff plays out.
The crux of the problem of 8th is that it lacks the feel of being a tactical game (as in movement, terrain, spacing, placement, directional shooting, area of effect, risk taking, etc) and its much more along the lines of throwing dice at the enemy and watching things poof out of existence. Even the morale system before was good (when stuff wasn't all fearless) where units would fall back and may rally. Multiple games i've had units that had fallen back return to play an impactful part of the game or made the conscious decision to inflict moderate casualties to multiple units in a turn to force as many morale checks as possible to better neutralize some of their army instead of just focus firing down each unit one by one. That also leads to the general lack of ways to diminish an enemy's ability to fight beyond removing models when before there was things like pinning, forcing jinks, blind, morale causing falling back, fear (again the rare Ork or CSM opponents lol), etc. The game now is much more "roll dice, remove units until one side has nothing else to remove" which is closer to the game Risk than I would like 40k to be.
GW so far hasn't done anything to help shore up any of these weaknesses and instead seems hell bent on pushing power creep and going the whole "layer bonus on top of bonus" route instead of fleshing out the core rules to have some more depth of mechanics. Then again from a design point of view they built themselves in a corner by having such a small base set of rules to work from that it would be difficult to build out the foundation of the game without making it complete unstable or requiring a complete redo of most units in the game.
Last game of 8th for me was probably a year ago but again I find myself enjoying playing 7th (which I've done since then to much enjoyment whenever the opportunity presents itself). Nothing in the past year has made me care to try 8th again as it still lacks what i crave from 40k.
dotcomee wrote: I play Tyranids, I've gotten 1 codex. Others have gotten multiple updates, Vigilus, etc. I've gotten mostly points increases and rules changes that have forced me to change my army not because I wanted to, but because I had to.
It's hard to have "Hobby Positivity" when the creator of the hobby doesn't care about some of their customers. No, sorry, not only do they not care, they have actively exploited those customers year after year.
Since GW gets to operate a legal "bait and switch" operation, it's in their best interest to put out completely unbalanced rules so that certain models will sell. Once they get a peak of those sales, they can nerf it a month or two later.
The local "meta" at your game shop you play at is affected for a few months as FoTM players buy up the latest and greatest in order to get every little advantage in this competitive game. Unfortunately, you can't buy a single thing from GW and expect that in a month it will be good because at any point a FAQ can come out and make what you just bought worthless.
It's a hobby where I seriously despise the company that creates it. They are a terrible, terrible company. 8th edition may have improved the release cycle a bit, but their releases are so Imperium/Chaos slanted that why do I want to play my Tyranids? Why does anybody want to play a Xenos race in this game where you get 1/10th the rules of your Imperium friends?
Codex creep == Pay to win. In other genres of games, most truly competitive people don't like pay to win.
I don't get how people still think GW deliberatly makes new releases OP when stuff like the Ork Buggies, the "new" Phoenix lords, the admech vehicle and other examples exist. In the same way that space marines (their best selling faction) until recently were not incredibly OP. The new codices are powerfull yes, but this is by chance and not by design.
GW just isn't good in external balance. It's Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
You do realize you still can love the game and the hobby yet be critical of GW and it's offerings ? Those aren't mutually exclusive ways to feel. It's the flawed view of society these days that only agreement and positive thoughts are good, and any criticism, no matter where it comes from is bad.
If people want an echo chamber of positive feelings I'd suggest, never go online, people with contrary opinions do exist. If you don't like bad feelings, just stick away from those topics.
I appreciate the view of positive things GW does. The quality of models however can sometimes be a matter of debate. The individual models can look better however they do lack ease of ability to set them up in unique fashion making some units and choices feel very samey. I don't like the ever rising price creep that keeps going up and up faster than ever before in some cases.
Some aspects and fluff kind of feels cheap and rushed sort of snooze. Though I'll say the game play balance is better than 6th-7th but that isn't hard to do and comparing it to those editions would make many of our past editions come out smelling like roses.
There is a lot to be happy for, but I'd say there is just about as much to dislike.
For me, I'm middle of the road. It's not great, it doesn't suck its about same o same o currently. With the bloat and glut of rules and releases rapidly making me feel this is going to end up just like 7th. For now though, there is still hope.
Find the pleasure and happy in the hobby but keep a critical eye as you do neither the game, your community or yourself favors by ignoring when things suck and not holding the company accountable.
To be honest, yes some always support, and some always hate, the truth, is somewhere in the middle. I just wish actual critical thinking of good and bad wasn't just labeled as toxic as all too easily happens.
dotcomee wrote: I play Tyranids, I've gotten 1 codex. Others have gotten multiple updates, Vigilus, etc. I've gotten mostly points increases and rules changes that have forced me to change my army not because I wanted to, but because I had to.
It's hard to have "Hobby Positivity" when the creator of the hobby doesn't care about some of their customers. No, sorry, not only do they not care, they have actively exploited those customers year after year.
Since GW gets to operate a legal "bait and switch" operation, it's in their best interest to put out completely unbalanced rules so that certain models will sell. Once they get a peak of those sales, they can nerf it a month or two later.
The local "meta" at your game shop you play at is affected for a few months as FoTM players buy up the latest and greatest in order to get every little advantage in this competitive game. Unfortunately, you can't buy a single thing from GW and expect that in a month it will be good because at any point a FAQ can come out and make what you just bought worthless.
It's a hobby where I seriously despise the company that creates it. They are a terrible, terrible company. 8th edition may have improved the release cycle a bit, but their releases are so Imperium/Chaos slanted that why do I want to play my Tyranids? Why does anybody want to play a Xenos race in this game where you get 1/10th the rules of your Imperium friends?
Codex creep == Pay to win. In other genres of games, most truly competitive people don't like pay to win.
I don't get how people still think GW deliberatly makes new releases OP when stuff like the Ork Buggies, the "new" Phoenix lords, the admech vehicle and other examples exist. In the same way that space marines (their best selling faction) until recently were not incredibly OP. The new codices are powerfull yes, but this is by chance and not by design.
GW just isn't good in external balance. It's Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
I stopped taking that post when the poster actually tried to argue that GW was somehow getting away with a "legal bait and switch"
- Every main faction got a Codex from the same edition (for the first time since 3rd edition!)
GW sits at 9 Codex releases per year with 8th edition. Compare this to the ~2 releases per year in 4th and 5th edition, where it wasn't even guaranteed that your faction would get up to date rules within the edition's life time.
that is true, although am not sure about the codex quality. In case of my army there is very little difference between playing with the index and the codex.
- The model range is fantastic!
Back in the day we always hoped for but never dreamed of certain factions/models coming to life. Custodes, Genestealer, Nurglekin, Primarchs, AdMech, Deathwatch, Tzeentch, 30k, ...
From what I understand the GK plastic line existed for a few edition. Now my models are mostly metal and I like how they look. I don't think we got more stuff to use this edition then voldus. And it is just a plastic termintor with a thunder hammer. Easy to build out of the terminator box.
- Social Media
Painting tutorials from fans and GW on Youtube, weekly streams on Twitch, high quality battle reports, Warhammer Community, GW themselves spreading rumours HOLY COW.
Listening to their Twitch stream while cracking open a fresh pot of paint and working on my models with people having a chat feels like I'm part of a community. It gives me a good feeling, because even though I have no nearby living friends who play the game, I do feel connected.
Now I don't watch twich, because it slows down too much to be enjoyable here. It is cool they engange players though, though the only time they did talk about my factions, they lied before first CA that it is somehow going to fix them. So I am biased. Good to hear it works for other people though.
- Contrast and Texture paints, along with the design of model kits make the hobby super accessable. Personally, Contrast was the seller for me to return to the hobby.
My stuff was already painted, but I guess if someone likes to paint, more paints would be a good thing.
- I know very well that GW is really hit or miss with their balancing, but the situation is better than it ever was before. The last Space Marine Codex got 6 supplements and at least as much playable, fun army lists out of it.
I don't want to hear that they are too strong relative to other factions like Grey Knights. I don't want to hear that people should only be allowed to play with the rules for which Chapter you painted your toy soldiers.
Maybe, although my problem is that I do play grey knight, so I can not not compare them to other stuff GW puts out.
Guys, come on! We get a very flavourful army back after more than a decade of neglecting them. Thank you GW for giving an army that must be at the bottom of sales a chance to come back.
I feel my army was very much neglected this edition. And from what was told me much later then I started, it seemed to be the case for some time now. So it doesn't look as if, at least in case of GK, anything changed much over other editions
But despite all that, I would like everyone to take a more relaxed approach to the hobby. Some things are good, some are bad. Maybe for you personally more things are bad than they are good. I can totally understand that Grey Knight players are left in the dust since 5th edition. No release apart from that one Gathering Storm guy and mediocre to bad rules.
Trust me, we all would want it to be a better situation. But each of us personally can't change Games Workshop. What we can change, however, is how we are.
I don't think many people would expect other players to change the game rules when playing vs or with GK. though not sure how this is suppose to change the fact that GK are unfun to play. specially if you bought them with money or can't switch to another army.
- If your army is having weak rules, ask your fellow players to not bring three immortal Leviathan Dreadnoughts. After all you both want to have fun.
Won't work. people here have 2000pts most of the time, few people have a few more points. If they drop 400-500pts, then we no longer are able to play a 2000pts game.
Spoiler:
- If your army is not getting much model support, consider picking up another army or another miniature game to keep things fresh. "What a great advice, pick up another army" I hear you say, but again: You can only change yourself, not GW. Nobody is happier at the end of the day if you stick with your Sisters of Battle since 3rd and start a complain thread everyday. You won't be happier doing that, so let it go and look for what would make you happier.
good advice if you have to money for it. If you don't have the money for it, being silent only causes two things. A GW things everything is okey, because no one is saying that something is bad. B because no one is buying the bad stuff, GW can decide to never update it, as there clearly are no players playing the army.
- Obviously, my advice does little for you if you are a die hard tournament player. I'm sorry to say this, but Warhammer 40k is a poor tournament game and always has been. Could it be a good one? Of course, but we are not there at the moment. So there is no use in complaining about poor playtesting or calling armies "trash tier" because they are not as broken as the current thing that is very broken.
I don't think tournament players have problems with the game. All of them seem to be general happy. But then again, I have never met a tournament player that could switch his army or could afford investing in to a new one. Maybe somewhere out there there is some necron tournament player, pulling his hair out right now. Who knows.
At the end of the day we all want to have fun with our toy soldiers. And I feel we could improve the community if everybody would be a little bit less doom and gloom and drastic in their choice of words.
Well that sounds a lot like healthy people not liking to hear, how sick one person is. I mean, I get why they don't want to hear it. It for sure ain't fun for them. But for the sick person nothing is fun. Same with w40k. If your stuck with a bad army, and GW is clearly ignoring your faction, what else is there to do?
I, for one, look forward to grow my new collection in a time where Warhammer - with all it's flaws - is in a better state than it ever was before.
good for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waaaghbert 781894 10613830 wrote:
I don't get how people still think GW deliberatly makes new releases OP when stuff like the Ork Buggies, the "new" Phoenix lords, the admech vehicle and other examples exist. In the same way that space marines (their best selling faction) until recently were not incredibly OP. The new codices are powerfull yes, but this is by chance and not by design.
GW just isn't good in external balance. It's Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
being deliberate about making some rules more powerful still sounds better, then GW saying they don't know how their own game is played and just slapping rules on models at random. The first one maybe isn't nice, but company life isn't nice to begin with, and it explains at least some stuff. Plus it gives hope that maybe in the future, when it is lucrative for GW to update the bad stuff they will do so. If they are just incompetent you could waste 5 years waiting for a new good rule set and never get it.
Jokes aside I enjoy 8th, my local group has both the competitive meta and a equally big casual group so I'm spoilt for choice.
That being said 8th has allowed for the most fun in 40k for over a decade simply by being easier than ever for us to house rule certain units and things in a narrative setting and allow some fantastic narrative missions.
People here saying "We're not game designers, don't do GW's job!"... Surely the desire is to have fun and if you see an issue and have a remedy your opponent is okay with, you do something about it? Hell modding a computer game makes an otherwise alright game into something you can sink hundreds more hours into (I'm looking at you Skyrim!)
40k is fun. For me. 40k is many things to everyone else and yes its as perfectly acceptable to hate on GW for how to does things as it is to like the way GW works, but I have to question what people want out of 40k, and why they seem incapable of accepting it may simply not be their preferred game if so much of it is as bad as I see talked about on the forum.
TL;DR - Its okay to change rules and play in a way you and your opponent agree will be more fun, its just as okay to hate on GW as it is to defend them, Lighten up Dakka its a game focused on plastic men in the future.
40k is fun. For me. 40k is many things to everyone else and yes its as perfectly acceptable to hate on GW for how to does things as it is to like the way GW works, but I have to question what people want out of 40k, and why they seem incapable of accepting it may simply not be their preferred game if so much of it is as bad as I see talked about on the forum.
I want my army to function within the given rule set of 8th ed, and not feel worse then if lI burned my money. If I burned it I wouldn't have to go to the store every weekend to have 8 hours of no fun there, and then come back and get sick over how bad it feels all week.
40k is fun. For me. 40k is many things to everyone else and yes its as perfectly acceptable to hate on GW for how to does things as it is to like the way GW works, but I have to question what people want out of 40k, and why they seem incapable of accepting it may simply not be their preferred game if so much of it is as bad as I see talked about on the forum.
I want my army to function within the given rule set of 8th ed, and not feel worse then if lI burned my money. If I burned it I wouldn't have to go to the store every weekend to have 8 hours of no fun there, and then come back and get sick over how bad it feels all week.
That would be good, I think.
.. honest to god question.... why do you feel obligated to play if you're not having fun?is there something stopping you from taking a break for a few months?
I have no idea, I've never felt I couldn't ever win a game of war hammer though I have had really one sided fights for life spans of editions. Like Tau vs Nids in 4th edition. That rolling consolidation into fresh combats, I can still feel them now. Talk about wishing you'd invested in transports, those were the days.
I will say, in his defense, if crap sucks you don't want to just sit there and be silent. If people don't want to read about it, just gloss over the posts. Sitting there suffering in silence when you may love the game just feel awful for your one factions place in it really sucks and honestly as repeated as it is he's got every right to complain about it. It may be a downer to read over and over but at least it isn't your burden to feel.
40k is fun. For me. 40k is many things to everyone else and yes its as perfectly acceptable to hate on GW for how to does things as it is to like the way GW works, but I have to question what people want out of 40k, and why they seem incapable of accepting it may simply not be their preferred game if so much of it is as bad as I see talked about on the forum.
I want my army to function within the given rule set of 8th ed, and not feel worse then if lI burned my money. If I burned it I wouldn't have to go to the store every weekend to have 8 hours of no fun there, and then come back and get sick over how bad it feels all week.
That would be good, I think.
I'm afraid Karol going somewhere for 8 hours repeatedly where you know you're not having fun and actively feeling bad, I am sorry but you need to cut that out! that sounds like a massive negative impact on your wellbeing.
Unfortunately there is quite often disconnect with how GW has made an army work in the rules and how players 'Want' them to work, but that'll change eventually. Please don't feel Im ignoring your feelings, I respect that yes, if your army is weak it can feel awful to play 40k. I also think narrative and narrative campaigns are truly how the game was designed in mind with you crafting your own stories, characters and adding veteran rules and anyone who feels burnt out in matched play, try and write up some things with other people and the hobby juices will be flowing better than ever!
The hobby is what you make of it, just please don't punish yourself if you're having that little fun! It's not good for you or your opponents.
Not Online!!! wrote: That is if GW ever decides to make a 9th and fix the system in the first place, sofar we got nothing.
I think we can all agree that there will be updated rules in the future that affect all factions, outside of single Codexes. Might be 9th edition, might be addons similar to Cities of Death or Apocalypse. So there is a chance for people who dislike the current ruleset.
No. There are bad core mechanics (IGOUGO, morale being pointless, etc.) and there are core issues with internal and external balance. To say "no don't use your models so I can play fairly" is purely the same as "don't use your Tactical Marines because I don't like them" and we should not be doing the game designer's job.
This is not what I wanted to say and sorry if you took it like that.
What I would like people to change is their way of communicating and playing with each other:
Change "why should anybody ever play anything apart from Iron Hands, Ultramarines and White Scars are trash tier." to "I don't believe White Scar rules will cut it in a tournament environment." or "Even in casual play people will need to adapt their lists to Grey Knight players for them to have fun."
I see the first statement as hurtful for the hobby. You don't help the issue at hand and question all Space Marine players who do not play with the currently strongest ruleset for their choice. You can do that, but it is unnecessary. If your co-player wants to play Salamanders or Grey Knights or Tyranids or whatever, then it is their choice. If everybody would only play Iron Hands, games would be pretty dull, wouldn't they? Encouraging army diversity is good for the hobby.
You can stand there on the opposite side of the table and ponder "It is not my fault the rules are unbalanced. Your choice to play a sub-par faction," while you put down your Aeldari air force to a random pick up game. Chances are it won't be a very enjoyable game for the other guy and he won't play you again.
a_typical_hero wrote: But each of us personally can't change Games Workshop ... You can only change yourself, not GW.
Virtually all of the high points that you've talked about in 8th are things that have been steady, major complaints from players for years. I seriously doubt we, as a group, wouldn't be where we are today if players took the approach you want. Telling people to just be quiet cheerleaders and buy more models is absurd.
I never said that you should buy models and be quiet about the flaws of the hobby. My very first advice even is/was to talk to your co-player about what you bring to the table.
If it comes to a point where your general feeling about the hobby is negative, you should take a step back (sometimes to the point where you look for other miniature games).
I wholeheartedly agree/wish for that Games Workshop would/should listen to the community and change the game to the way we like. More balanced rules, equal support for factions and models, cheaper prices and so on.
The problem with this is that you can't force them. They might do it right now because the CEO got a different view at it than the last one, but it is not guaranteed. People are already stating that the current 8th edition is different from the start and that GW is going back to be "bad".
This is why I want to appeal to your personal view on the game. You can criticise it, but don't let the bad feeling get to you. Change yourself so you can enjoy your spare time, regardless of what a company in Nottingham does.
I heard this pep talk first time when 6th edition Tau codex came out and I hated the changes. "But it has so much new stuff, read the rules, try it out and maybe you'll like it". Well, I read the rules, played it few times and hated it. And still do and haven't played Tau since, and probably never will again...
Oh well, I still have Space Hulk and BFG.
I'm sorry to hear that the army changed so much that it is not enjoyable anymore for you. That sucks and in a perfect world that would not happen. It's good that you still have (or found) other parts of the hobby that you like to play!
---
I want to quote more and reply more specific to some people, but the answer is already getting very long, so I want to address a few things in general:
- Over time I did collect several armies and know how it feels if the army is not getting any support and the rules are weak. It sucks and made me stop playing / collecting for 4-5 years.
- GW is not consistent with their rules. Some new models have great rules, some have weak rules. I would not attest that there is a malice system behind it.
- I'm not telling anybody to shut up or only phrase positive statements. I'm with all of you who want better rules, cheaper prices, refreshed and new models for every faction and so on.
Warhammer 40k is (Vanilla) Space Marine centric and if you want to have regular new models and rules, then you should pick them up. Factions are unbalanced between each other and certain pairings will need work from both players to make the match enjoyable.
It sucks that you have to buy 6 supplements to have access to all the latest SM rules. For a lot of people the first Psychic Awakening was a let down rules wise. After the initial teasing we simply expected more. Still, Jain Zar is pretty cool and another Aspect finally got an updated kit.
I'm not blind to the things that are bad. I simply wanted to highlight what good things there are because they are easily taken as granted and for people to reflect on how they state their criticism and what they can do to make it better for themselves, without the need for GW to step in.
I want my army to function within the given rule set of 8th ed, and not feel worse then if lI burned my money. If I burned it I wouldn't have to go to the store every weekend to have 8 hours of no fun there, and then come back and get sick over how bad it feels all week.
That would be good, I think.
Karol, if this is genuinely how you feel then stop. Put your army up on eBay for what you paid for it, with international postage, and get rid of it. I'm sure someone will take it off your hands.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I have no idea, I've never felt I couldn't ever win a game of war hammer though I have had really one sided fights for life spans of editions. Like Tau vs Nids in 4th edition. That rolling consolidation into fresh combats, I can still feel them now. Talk about wishing you'd invested in transports, those were the days.
I will say, in his defense, if crap sucks you don't want to just sit there and be silent. If people don't want to read about it, just gloss over the posts. Sitting there suffering in silence when you may love the game just feel awful for your one factions place in it really sucks and honestly as repeated as it is he's got every right to complain about it. It may be a downer to read over and over but at least it isn't your burden to feel.
keep in mind I'm not going after him for feeling that way, just the way he says it, it sounds like he at least feels OBLIGATED I'm not even saying he should sell his army, but taking a break for a few months (maybe during which time Grey Knights will get some improvements) seems like a good idea.
I've always belived that if your hobby, be it 40k, a MMO, sports or stamp collecting, starts to feel like an obligation you HAVE to do, it's time to take a break.
@Karol
Please change something. Most here won't know you personally, but I'm confident that nobody wants you to drag yourself to an event every Saturday just to feel miserable.
I'm as annoyed by it as anyone honestly, it is much repetition of the same lamentations and if it was me, I'd probably have stepped away, sold out or just tried my best to make it good.
I can understand in part the obligation if he generally does like the game just feels his force sucks and can't win vs who all he plays against. That puts you in a pickle that you may not want to opt out but staying in sucks too. We can often be conflicted especially if we spent a good deal or time and/or money on the army. It isn't exactly the same cost as a video game that is a lemon.
Many of us however have many armies if one sucks we can bring out another one to get our fix or in the cases of some armies things aren't ever really that bad. Though even if he does that, does that mean he can't vent here about how he's been done wrong by GW ? I can't say I'd just sit there and say nothing about it, even if I kept trying to win as hard as that may be.
I think he can even see GW does positive things, just he's not feeling it for himself. If GW wasn't so amazingly lazy, they could figure out a way to make GK at least feel good to use which is really the minimum you should expect when they have sucked from index through codex to now and I don't think that'll even change this year at this rate.
It's hard for someone to be upbeat when you're being ignored and brushed under the rug to be forgotten of. I mean other than GW saying " Yeah, GW aren't that good " they don't seem to care and over look the fact not everyone can spend hundreds of dollars to get multiple armies as a safety net to enjoy the game.
This is not what I wanted to say and sorry if you took it like that.
What I would like people to change is their way of communicating and playing with each other:
Change "why should anybody ever play anything apart from Iron Hands, Ultramarines and White Scars are trash tier." to "I don't believe White Scar rules will cut it in a tournament environment." or "Even in casual play people will need to adapt their lists to Grey Knight players for them to have fun."
I see the first statement as hurtful for the hobby. You don't help the issue at hand and question all Space Marine players who do not play with the currently strongest ruleset for their choice. You can do that, but it is unnecessary. If your co-player wants to play Salamanders or Grey Knights or Tyranids or whatever, then it is their choice. If everybody would only play Iron Hands, games would be pretty dull, wouldn't they? Encouraging army diversity is good for the hobby.
You can stand there on the opposite side of the table and ponder "It is not my fault the rules are unbalanced. Your choice to play a sub-par faction," while you put down your Aeldari air force to a random pick up game. Chances are it won't be a very enjoyable game for the other guy and he won't play you again.
Yes and no.
You see, if GW games would be somewhat imbalanced only, then yes the attitude would indeed be an issue.
However we are in a moment of time, were some armies haven't seen even a codex and we are at version 2.0 for others with questionable rules design to the point that these literally unrefined lists stomped all over their competition.
What you do here, is , excuse me, strawmanning, because the statement, the rules of X are trash, can just as much be a blunt formulated fact as it can be hyperbole.
Secondly, Suguarcoting does nothing, GW from 7th shows that perfectly well, GW in 8th attempted to balance (actually the PR team attempted to regain fans of the series which were finally fed up enough to break ) and many of the veterans bought into that.
So, no, i don't feel like you got a point there, period. And ignoring Criticism, especially harshly formulated one, is a surefire way to stiffle any and all debate to the point that there will be no more debating and therefore no issue will get resolved and instead people will use pitchforks.
Yes and no.
You see, if GW games would be somewhat imbalanced only, then yes the attitude would indeed be an issue.
However we are in a moment of time, were some armies haven't seen even a codex and we are at version 2.0 for others with questionable rules design to the point that these literally unrefined lists stomped all over their competition.
What you do here, is , excuse me, strawmanning, because the statement, the rules of X are trash, can just as much be a blunt formulated fact as it can be hyperbole.
Secondly, Suguarcoting does nothing, GW from 7th shows that perfectly well, GW in 8th attempted to balance (actually the PR team attempted to regain fans of the series which were finally fed up enough to break ) and many of the veterans bought into that.
So, no, i don't feel like you got a point there, period. And ignoring Criticism, especially harshly formulated one, is a surefire way to stiffle any and all debate to the point that there will be no more debating and therefore no issue will get resolved and instead people will use pitchforks.
The thing is you do not need to formulate your opinion about something so blunt or in a hyperbolic way. I know the internet loves it and it feels if you do not express your opinion stark enough, you won't be heard.
Grey Knight rules are trash at the moment. Ok, we stated our unhappiness now lets look for ways to make it better. Games Workshop sure won't release a better ruleset for them next week, no matter how extreme I state my opinion or how many threads I open on Dakka or how often I bring it up randomly in every discussion on the board.
What we can do is engange with the people we are actually playing with and work it out. You played your Grey Knights against your friends new Iron Hands. Some units stand out as being overwhelming for you to handle. That's not great and there are two things you can do:
1. Open a thread on Dakka complaining about Iron Hands. How could GW let that slip through playtesting? Playtesters are a joke! Grey Knights are utterly trash!
2. Open a thread on Dakka saying you played against IH and it wasn't enjoyable at all. You state the problematic units and engage in a fruitful discusscion with others. What units should an IH player not bring or limit in a casual play against GK? What could you improve in your GK list when facing Iron Hands?
In both cases your statement is: Iron Hands are very powerful. Grey Knights are very weak. One will help the community, the other won't.
I don't agree with you that not using hyperbole or extreme statements is the same as sugarcoating criticism. You can respectfully disagree with things and people.
And I do not say we should ignore criticism. On the contrary. I advocate to state your critic in a constructive manner. For example by opening a thread like my second example.
40k is fun. For me. 40k is many things to everyone else and yes its as perfectly acceptable to hate on GW for how to does things as it is to like the way GW works, but I have to question what people want out of 40k, and why they seem incapable of accepting it may simply not be their preferred game if so much of it is as bad as I see talked about on the forum.
I want my army to function within the given rule set of 8th ed, and not feel worse then if lI burned my money. If I burned it I wouldn't have to go to the store every weekend to have 8 hours of no fun there, and then come back and get sick over how bad it feels all week.
That would be good, I think.
As echoed above, seriously, if you're not enjoying it, stop doing it. Is there anything forcing you into staying in the hobby? Do you "have" to go to the store every weekend, if it's such a strain on you?
There's nothing wrong about taking a break, and there's no shame in it either. Mental health is an important thing to manage, and if your post topics are anything to go by, the hobby is doing nothing but negative things for you. Therefore, even if just for a few months or years, step away from it. Sell your models, or keep them on a shelf somewhere until you feel ready to jump back in. Maybe paint some of them, maybe play some video games, or read some books, or just do anything non-GW related.
Basically, is it worth being involved in the hobby if you don't enjoy it? If all you (general) can talk about are negative things, is it not worth considering taking a break from 40k as a whole for a bit?
Not Online!!! wrote: And ignoring Criticism, especially harshly formulated one, is a surefire way to stiffle any and all debate . . .
That's not how conversation works. Points can be made without hyperbole, rudeness, etc.
If someone is going to be a constant ***hole, they should be prepared to not be engaged with. Not engaging ***holes does not automatically stifle debate.
I been thinking a bit, one of the reasons i have lost a lot of positivity is not GW but the way players have treat them at times.
When we had other games going, we had players that refused to even try them. No worry.
But then they bring these new GW games, Get people interested, even buying minis. Then 2 months latter they are done, Complaining again no one plays 40k with them. This is sorta 3 guys :( And its no fun.
They also recruit people into 40k all the time to never play with them.
I think the entire attitude surrounding GW is bad, they have done well to make themselves a Hobby of there own.
I think its fine, and this is more annoyance at attitudes i have encounter in the hobby.
GW Could be doing a lot better, but it may just be that they know that a avg product is all they need. and that makes me very sad :(
a_typical_hero wrote: What we can do is engange with the people we are actually playing with and work it out. You played your Grey Knights against your friends new Iron Hands. Some units stand out as being overwhelming for you to handle. That's not great and there are two things you can do:
1. Open a thread on Dakka complaining about Iron Hands. How could GW let that slip through playtesting? Playtesters are a joke! Grey Knights are utterly trash!
2. Open a thread on Dakka saying you played against IH and it wasn't enjoyable at all. You state the problematic units and engage in a fruitful discusscion with others. What units should an IH player not bring or limit in a casual play against GK? What could you improve in your GK list when facing Iron Hands?
In both cases your statement is: Iron Hands are very powerful. Grey Knights are very weak. One will help the community, the other won't.
I don't agree with you that not using hyperbole or extreme statements is the same as sugarcoating criticism. You can respectfully disagree with things and people.
And I do not say we should ignore criticism. On the contrary. I advocate to state your critic in a constructive manner. For example by opening a thread like my second example.
Agreed. Hyperbole and shouting "GW are trash!!" is simply not going to get any results. GW won't change. People won't take you seriously if you want to encourage people to leave the hobby and support other causes you might prefer. By actually discussing and coming to constructive conclusions, you can at least persuade other people with respectful discussion.
after playing the game from the release of the 3rd edition starter box until the start of 7th, I came finally back to the hobby and to this forum (always a watcher in the dark, never posting myself).
My memories are most likely tinted by time and nostalgia, but I can't remember to notice so much negativity back in the day just about everything.
When I take a look around, we - as a community - are better off than ever before:
- Every main faction got a Codex from the same edition (for the first time since 3rd edition!)
GW sits at 9 Codex releases per year with 8th edition. Compare this to the ~2 releases per year in 4th and 5th edition, where it wasn't even guaranteed that your faction would get up to date rules within the edition's life time.
- The model range is fantastic!
Back in the day we always hoped for but never dreamed of certain factions/models coming to life. Custodes, Genestealer, Nurglekin, Primarchs, AdMech, Deathwatch, Tzeentch, 30k, ...
- Social Media
Painting tutorials from fans and GW on Youtube, weekly streams on Twitch, high quality battle reports, Warhammer Community, GW themselves spreading rumours HOLY COW.
Listening to their Twitch stream while cracking open a fresh pot of paint and working on my models with people having a chat feels like I'm part of a community. It gives me a good feeling, because even though I have no nearby living friends who play the game, I do feel connected.
- Contrast and Texture paints, along with the design of model kits make the hobby super accessable. Personally, Contrast was the seller for me to return to the hobby.
- I know very well that GW is really hit or miss with their balancing, but the situation is better than it ever was before. The last Space Marine Codex got 6 supplements and at least as much playable, fun army lists out of it.
I don't want to hear that they are too strong relative to other factions like Grey Knights. I don't want to hear that people should only be allowed to play with the rules for which Chapter you painted your toy soldiers.
We got 6 Chapters promoting different units and Marine players are free to switch between them so they do not have to play the same mono list for the next 5 years. Great for them and I hope that all factions get a similar treatment in the future, because it will be healthy for the game and good for us players.
- Iron Hands have been regulated within WEEKS of their release. In recent editions you had to live with a broken codex until the next edition would alter the basic rules enough to neuter it or until the army would get a new codex. That's great.
- Sister of Battles are getting a complete relaunch. I can't believe it. The miniatures so far look great and even though I've never been fan enough to pick them up because metal, I really consider buying the Christmas box.
The army has been on life support since 3rd edition and it never really was a good time to start them. Metal, expensive, harder to convert and customise. Yet, people are stating their disappointment that the new range won't be available until next year.
Guys, come on! We get a very flavourful army back after more than a decade of neglecting them. Thank you GW for giving an army that must be at the bottom of sales a chance to come back.
Does the game have problems? Absolutely.
- Some models are legally allowed to drink alcohol in the US by now.
- Not all factions are equally powerful or have multiple, interesting builds available.
- Prices are only getting higher, for models and rules likewise.
- We lost Warseer along the way.
- Some models are only available in starter boxes.
- If you are not a loyalist Space Marine, you are lucky to get a new model every few years.
But despite all that, I would like everyone to take a more relaxed approach to the hobby. Some things are good, some are bad. Maybe for you personally more things are bad than they are good. I can totally understand that Grey Knight players are left in the dust since 5th edition. No release apart from that one Gathering Storm guy and mediocre to bad rules.
Trust me, we all would want it to be a better situation. But each of us personally can't change Games Workshop. What we can change, however, is how we are.
- If your army is having weak rules, ask your fellow players to not bring three immortal Leviathan Dreadnoughts. After all you both want to have fun.
- If your army is not getting much model support, consider picking up another army or another miniature game to keep things fresh. "What a great advice, pick up another army" I hear you say, but again: You can only change yourself, not GW. Nobody is happier at the end of the day if you stick with your Sisters of Battle since 3rd and start a complain thread everyday. You won't be happier doing that, so let it go and look for what would make you happier.
- Obviously, my advice does little for you if you are a die hard tournament player. I'm sorry to say this, but Warhammer 40k is a poor tournament game and always has been. Could it be a good one? Of course, but we are not there at the moment. So there is no use in complaining about poor playtesting or calling armies "trash tier" because they are not as broken as the current thing that is very broken.
At the end of the day we all want to have fun with our toy soldiers. And I feel we could improve the community if everybody would be a little bit less doom and gloom and drastic in their choice of words.
I, for one, look forward to grow my new collection in a time where Warhammer - with all it's flaws - is in a better state than it ever was before.
Thank you for reading the wall of text, I needed to get this off my chest
I've come back to the Hobby recently - and I think this is a great post! Thanks
flandarz wrote: I think there's a big difference between having legitimate criticisms about a product and being negative for the sake of negativity. And I've seen both on this site. You don't have to love everything about the game, or even most of the things. But you can frame your complaints in a way that doesn't come across as a toddler throwing a tantrum.
a_typical_hero wrote: The last Space Marine Codex got 6 supplements and at least as much playable, fun army lists out of it.
I don't want to hear that they are too strong relative to other factions like Grey Knights. I don't want to hear that people should only be allowed to play with the rules for which Chapter you painted your toy soldiers.
We got 6 Chapters promoting different units and Marine players are free to switch between them so they do not have to play the same mono list for the next 5 years. Great for them and I hope that all factions get a similar treatment in the future, because it will be healthy for the game and good for us players.
...
"I don't want to hear your problems, because Marines are having fun".
As a Chaos Marines player, the tone of the very first post in this thread has got me more angry at the hobby than ever before.
Not Online!!! wrote: And ignoring Criticism, especially harshly formulated one, is a surefire way to stiffle any and all debate . . .
That's not how conversation works. Points can be made without hyperbole, rudeness, etc.
If someone is going to be a constant ***hole, they should be prepared to not be engaged with. Not engaging ***holes does not automatically stifle debate.
Blunt is not rude.
Regarding blunt automatically as rude is rude.
Ever heard about Schultze von Thun.
Written language and it's uses have even more issues due to not beeing able to carry tone.
a_typical_hero wrote: The last Space Marine Codex got 6 supplements and at least as much playable, fun army lists out of it.
I don't want to hear that they are too strong relative to other factions like Grey Knights. I don't want to hear that people should only be allowed to play with the rules for which Chapter you painted your toy soldiers.
We got 6 Chapters promoting different units and Marine players are free to switch between them so they do not have to play the same mono list for the next 5 years. Great for them and I hope that all factions get a similar treatment in the future, because it will be healthy for the game and good for us players.
...
"I don't want to hear your problems, because Marines are having fun".
As a Chaos Marines player, the tone of the very first post in this thread has got me more angry at the hobby than ever before.
Ahh, beautifull. so There it is, the cat's out the bag now.
The thing is you do not need to formulate your opinion about something so blunt or in a hyperbolic way. I know the internet loves it and it feels if you do not express your opinion stark enough, you won't be heard.
Grey Knight rules are trash at the moment. Ok, we stated our unhappiness now lets look for ways to make it better. Games Workshop sure won't release a better ruleset for them next week, no matter how extreme I state my opinion or how many threads I open on Dakka or how often I bring it up randomly in every discussion on the board.
You know what, first, if that is supposed to be a cheap stab at Karol, which by his own admission has social issues and needed to go to a psychologue, then you seriously have lowered your barely existing argument to 0 allready.
Secondly: Telling someone how he has to feel and talk is quite frankly arrogant at best and questional at worst.
So you allready tick 2 stereotype boxes.
What we can do is engange with the people we are actually playing with and work it out. You played your Grey Knights against your friends new Iron Hands. Some units stand out as being overwhelming for you to handle. That's not great and there are two things you can do:
1. Open a thread on Dakka complaining about Iron Hands. How could GW let that slip through playtesting? Playtesters are a joke! Grey Knights are utterly trash!
2. Open a thread on Dakka saying you played against IH and it wasn't enjoyable at all. You state the problematic units and engage in a fruitful discusscion with others. What units should an IH player not bring or limit in a casual play against GK? What could you improve in your GK list when facing Iron Hands?
In both cases your statement is: Iron Hands are very powerful. Grey Knights are very weak. One will help the community, the other won't.
Who made you the arbiter of what helps and what helps not?
Also contextualise this with your remark on space marine dexes and we get a clear picture that you are infact either A a troll or B a arrogant beeing.
I don't agree with you that not using hyperbole or extreme statements is the same as sugarcoating criticism. You can respectfully disagree with things and people.
And I do not say we should ignore criticism. On the contrary. I advocate to state your critic in a constructive manner. For example by opening a thread like my second example.
First: Telling me what to do or not and then steeping on a personal level is hillarious.
Secondly: Beeing blunt about something is not Equal beeing Hyperbolic about something. Vier-seiten Modell and such, but maybee you just slept during your education.
Thirdly; Considering you didn't even have an introduction thread, and this is your only one and the only one were you really posted i find it quite funny to the point that i honestly consider marking this thread and your account as a troll.
I am not at all angry at the hobby. I am really excited about getting back into wargaming, making terrain, building armies and the whole lot.
I am also excited to be getting back into the 40K universe as a setting, planning on using it for a roleplaying game campaign soon, and homebrewing the setting a bit to make it more what I want it to be.
I have not bought a 40K mini since Dark Vengeance 6th edition, so I am very excited to be picking up start collectings and kits for all the great Xenos minis released since then.
GW still makes the best sci fi minis available on the mass market, and their sci fi setting is a hodge podge of lots of things I really love anyway.
But I am not using their rules ecosystem or buying any of the current (inferior) setting material at all. I am perfectly happy working with what I have, taking my favourite bits and discarding the stuff I do not like, and plan to use free rules to represent my miniatures in wargames and roleplaying games. This has opened up a lot of creativity and freedom for me because I am free to use minis from other ranges, alter things to make them fit what I want a bit more, and so on.
Currently I only have one prospective opponent outside my regular RPG group, but I am pretty confident that once I have all my scenery made and a few fully painted forces ready, other people will be more than happy to jump in and try the game with me.
So I am filled with optimism and excitement about my hobby, and GW settings and minis make up part of that. I decided I did not like how the rules are being managed and implemented and it was trivially easy to find alternatives for free once I broke myself of the "I gotta use GW stuff or no one will play with me" mindset.
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I get the feeling you've missed out on the bigger changes since the inception of this edition. When is the last time you played?
- I'll commensurate with you on terrain. I play ITC more, because terrain is often too easy to ignore.
- Blast weapons -- for me -- I can do without. Think of it this way : it prevented blobbing, but that did that really do? It just slowed the game down as people maximized their 2". The random shots now represents the variability of the templates.
- Pulse rifle spam is hardly good AV. It's good AV in a pinch, but that's about it, which is not any stronger than those S5 glancing AV11. It wasn't always easy to keep the sides of a predator away from them. Mathematically 10 shots then was about 0.84 glances or 25% of a vehicle's hull points. 10 shots now comes to 0.6 wounds, which is 5% of a vehicle's wounds. Obviously they would never have taken down AV12 or better, but for perspective these days it takes 36 fire warriors the entire game (at long range) to kill a tank.
- Directional casualties were cool, but again...for shooting armies and really tended to slow the game down.
- Deep striking mishaps were thematically cool, but really just aggravating. Even when you weren't near enemies you can land in terrain and die. What's even the point of using it other than random clutch drops that MIGHT kill something useful?
- Stratagems add so much for me. I think GW has become FAR better at making them than the earlier days. Have you seen the new marine ones?
- Orks get around modifiers ok these days (they don't even care about -2 or worse, anyway) - have you seen their new rules?
-Blast weapons made the battlefield as a whole matter more as to how close units where to each other. A lot of times when firing blast weapons, it was important to account for where misses could go so firing close to friendlies was risky while firing in congested areas meant that your misses could still hit other enemy units. It gave the feeling of artillery/bombs/etc blowing up stuff and also made the weapon far more reliant on battlefield conditions (unit concentrations, spacing, etc) than just the theorycraft numbers of how much damage on average this weapon does. 8th edition "blast" weapons shoot like machine guns with Ork RNG shots.
-The pulse weapon example is because of stacking + to wound modifiers that made spamming pulse rifle fire an effective anti Knight weapon. This ties into both the weaknesses of toughness only (anything can wound anything which is stupid) and 8th tendency to have stratagems and other bonuses result in weird situations. In general the feeling that you needed proper AT weapons to deal with an AV13 or AV14 vehicle (or flank around to the side or rear armor) was a compelling gameplay experience instead of throwing a lot of dice at a meatbox on treads (or these days mostly hovering on air).
-Directional casualties again made positioning matter more and factored into target priority and such outside of just number crunching damage outputs. Tying back into the battlefield conditions mattering more.
-Whats the point of using deepstrikes now? The point of them is to get into a position that you couldn't effectively get into while starting on the board and had that whole risk/reward aspect of making risky drops (and using your models to force more risky drops from your opponent). Once again the battlefield mattered and tied in strongly to AV firing arcs in addition to being a counter to hiding behind LOS or putting important characters in the back of unit blobs. Now the 9" bubble means your really not dropping behind the enemy unless they are really incompetent. No AV or directional casualties means getting a flank has little to no effect. (also terrain is basically being in area terrain or no bonus to your save so getting around cover isn't a factor really).
-Stratagems feel too much like a gimmick and again reminds me more of something from Magic (tap a CP and play *insert 40k equivalent to wild growth* to wound on 3s instead of 4s). In general 8th is barren on core gameplay mechanics and unit profiles (especially on older units) and instead relies on stacking bonuses from your subfaction and stratagems to do something "interesting". Stacking bonuses and modifiers feels artificial and clunky. I like my units being able to do their function based on the core and codex rules they have been given without needing to conjure some super power ability from Gork or sending in the logistical drone to give a Fire Warrior the only EMP grenade the army has.
-I don't think d6s are well suited for +1 and -1 modifiers they way 40k does it and i especially don't like modifiers when unit profiles vary as much as 40k's does unlike a game like bolt action where units generally hit on the same value but modifiers are designed around how movement and terrain. You don't have the Germans as an army hitting on 3+ base while the Italians are all hitting on 5+ base then trying to stack on flat modifiers for cover, terrain, etc. Seems like GW might of learned a bit from the stupidity of Eldar getting army wide minus to hit (and stacking it with other - to hit bonuses) but in general I dislike how the math of this stuff plays out.
The crux of the problem of 8th is that it lacks the feel of being a tactical game (as in movement, terrain, spacing, placement, directional shooting, area of effect, risk taking, etc) and its much more along the lines of throwing dice at the enemy and watching things poof out of existence. Even the morale system before was good (when stuff wasn't all fearless) where units would fall back and may rally. Multiple games i've had units that had fallen back return to play an impactful part of the game or made the conscious decision to inflict moderate casualties to multiple units in a turn to force as many morale checks as possible to better neutralize some of their army instead of just focus firing down each unit one by one. That also leads to the general lack of ways to diminish an enemy's ability to fight beyond removing models when before there was things like pinning, forcing jinks, blind, morale causing falling back, fear (again the rare Ork or CSM opponents lol), etc. The game now is much more "roll dice, remove units until one side has nothing else to remove" which is closer to the game Risk than I would like 40k to be.
GW so far hasn't done anything to help shore up any of these weaknesses and instead seems hell bent on pushing power creep and going the whole "layer bonus on top of bonus" route instead of fleshing out the core rules to have some more depth of mechanics. Then again from a design point of view they built themselves in a corner by having such a small base set of rules to work from that it would be difficult to build out the foundation of the game without making it complete unstable or requiring a complete redo of most units in the game.
Last game of 8th for me was probably a year ago but again I find myself enjoying playing 7th (which I've done since then to much enjoyment whenever the opportunity presents itself). Nothing in the past year has made me care to try 8th again as it still lacks what i crave from 40k.
Thanks for taking the time to write that all out. I do feel like the nostalgia glasses are guiding the perspective a bit.
For example -- while units could flee and then rally it was so, so unlikely to be impactful. Most times those units were severely wounded or too far out to make it back before the end of the game. Typically they would just be a hindrance for kill points if you could get them behind cover.
Directional casualties were fun for the person doing the shooting. It was completely unfun for the one being shot. Why? Because you've completely removed their agency. Armies that moved faster had the flexibility to exploit it better. That's literally all it ever was.
The same thing with facings (when people stopped arguing which facing they were in) -- what did facings do? It forced my tanks into a corner from which they would never move. That's not engaging. Would I support some directional bonus to wound or AP? Yes - as long as it's not something that causes large disagreements.
These random blasts you talk about applied to the crappier armies with bad BS. The armies with the multi-blast shots and good BS didn't see the crazy scatter, but they also didn't see tons of hits unless the opponent was bad.
The common thread for all these things - one army is stronger and more capable of exploiting the rules.
You speak about modifiers and stratagems in terms of stacking rules. What were spells like invisibility doing? How were death stars in 7th operating? Rules stacking - I put this character in to make the unit fearless and this one in to make the unit 3++ etc etc. So, the dynamic didn't change. Just the application of much of that stacking is placed behind a cost now, which creates a better opportunity for balance.
- In the near future Black Templars will have a stratagem to prevent fall back. One could get into combat and use regular fists to keep the unit alive. On their turn you force them to stay and finish them off freeing you up to go deeper with a fresh unit on your turn.
- Incursors can lay mines and make part of the battlefield really hard to get through.
- I have to lend consideration to putting fire down into their backfield to open up a spot for me to land deepstrikers.
- Some armies can redeploy models effectively creating a feint
- I can exploit bad positioning by warp timing a defiler and dropping a considerably large mortal wound bubble
While I enjoyed 7th it was never a playground for tactical genius. In my opinion, anyway. Could 8th improve? Absolutely, but it's the most fun I've had with 40K despite the agony of losing terminators to gretchin in 2nd edition.
"I don't want to hear your problems, because Marines are having fun".
As a Chaos Marines player, the tone of the very first post in this thread has got me more angry at the hobby than ever before.
I don't think you got my tone right, then.
Please read my other posts in this thread as well. I'm not telling anybody to shut up and swallow their problems.
You know what, first, if that is supposed to be a cheap stab at Karol, which by his own admission has social issues and needed to go to a psychologue, then you seriously have lowered your barely existing argument to 0 allready.
Secondly: Telling someone how he has to feel and talk is quite frankly arrogant at best and questional at worst.
So you allready tick 2 stereotype boxes.
I am not stabbing at anyone and been using Grey Knights as an example for a weak army since my first post. I apologise to Karol if he feels being picked out here.
Me trying to give advice and suggesting how you can improve your situation when you are not happy about some part of the hobby is a far stretch from telling you how you have to feel and talk.
"If you want people to have a serious discussion with you, you should not jump up and down, wave your hands and scream at them". How is that arrogant or questionable? I'm sorry, I can't follow your logic here.
Who made you the arbiter of what helps and what helps not?
Also contextualise this with your remark on space marine dexes and we get a clear picture that you are infact either A a troll or B a arrogant beeing..
I'm not the arbiter and never claimed authority about it. I'm trying to give advice for some and remind people that there are good things about the hobby, too.
Why do you see me as a troll or arrogant when I'm simply happy that a part of the playerbase got several interesting, powerful supplements? Everybody should get that treatment and I don't see why I should overshadow a great release with "but my Chaos Marines suck by comparison, so you should not have fun rules either!".
Sorry, I don't get your logic here, again.
First: Telling me what to do or not and then steeping on a personal level is hillarious.
Secondly: Beeing blunt about something is not Equal beeing Hyperbolic about something. Vier-seiten Modell and such, but maybee you just slept during your education.
Thirdly; Considering you didn't even have an introduction thread, and this is your only one and the only one were you really posted i find it quite funny to the point that i honestly consider marking this thread and your account as a troll.
I honestly have no idea why you would say such things. It does not feel like you are discussing in good faith. Once again, I simply want to offer some advice to people who might need to hear it. I don't recognise where I did get personal with you.
Your last passage does feel like I ticked some of your boxes indeed, so feel free to don't engage in a discussion with me any further.
Sorry to be offtopic....but this here is exactly where the often quoted Four-Side-Model of Schulze von Thun is shown.
You said something which -for you- was quite clear and has only one way of getting understood. Others receive it differently and use their Appeal-Ear to filter most of your message and get the idea, that you are telling them what to do.
I don't think anyone means any harm here. No one's a troll, no one is stabbing at anyone
For example -- while units could flee and then rally it was so, so unlikely to be impactful. Most times those units were severely wounded or too far out to make it back before the end of the game. Typically they would just be a hindrance for kill points if you could get them behind cover.
Ehhh, that depended quite a bit on the army no?
While I enjoyed 7th it was never a playground for tactical genius. In my opinion, anyway. Could 8th improve? Absolutely, but it's the most fun I've had with 40K despite the agony of losing terminators to gretchin in 2nd edition.
You can say that, yes, and it is true ,but i would state 7th had less problems with the core mechanics (beyond the psy cough invisible cough) and had more an issue with the rather extensive add ons for rules and formations. In a way that probably is why supplements atleast to me seem frankly like a deja vu.
I think I echoed this in the Knights thread, but this seems super appropriate, too.
8th edition is a great framework. Look at it is just that: a system that is expected to be built upon. Everything is basic and vanilla, and the core is quickly forgotten beneath the layering of additional books... but at the end, it is just options put atop a core framework.
This circles back to Rule 0, "don't be a jerk", or whatever you want to sum up the golden rule of gaming.
GW gave you a framework to work within. You're given this with the intention of you meeting up with friends, and even strangers, and being able to pull out models and engage in a fun game (fun being a very objective term). And this is where the social contract comes into play. You and your opponent DEFINE the terms of the game, you can redefine ANY aspect of the game. If the terrain is too bad for you? Add options on top of it (we've added Hardened Cover, which gives +2 instead of +1, and +1 of that Cover cannot be ignored). I dislike what GW has done with my favorite force? I've designed a new one and ran it through all of my friends and highlighted what I've done to make OUR experiences better (my friends so not actually enjoy running rough-shot over their opponent's, they want to win, but not at the expense of the other player). Regardless, if there is something about the rules set that you and your friends don't like? Change it.
That being said... when you go to tournaments and you play at competition level... you sign away your rights to have that creative say. You are agreeing to play the game as the TO intends, for better or for worse. That's where the game really starts to fall apart. When the social contract is ignored, when we get away from the golden rule of "this is a framework in which the goal is for BOTH of us to have fun... if there's something WE don't like, WE don't have to use it" then you are putting yourselves at the mercy of the dark overlords at GW, who are probably designing things with "Well, they can figure it out" in mind when they make some of these rules (the whole RAI argument).
Competitive players abandon RAI and think it is a failing of the parent company to not have a legal team and English majors on board to translate the rules and their intentions into iron-clad bindings. I really don't think it is something GW concerns themselves with, they expect their players to take some freedoms with their product and use it the way that the consumers want to ensure the consumers have a good time.
I'm actually not sure when GW was expected to write those iron-clad rule sets where there was no wiggle room at all for the consumers, I see a lot more evidence to suggest the opposite. Even my GW rep looks at the way we play, the extra rules and options we've incorporated, and the fun my crew has in our games and tells me: that's what GW wants. I've showed him my custom codex and told him it was something I was playing with for funsies, but will never ask to bring it into his store... and he called me nuts, and he'd love to see a patron's custom work played out, and that taking that creative license was what GW really wants to see from the community... not bickering and arguing over rules as if we were victims to bad writing.
Anyways, my 2 cents. I could go on for days, but at the end of the day, this conversation doesn't help my club have a better time... but hopefully it'll help a few of the more negatively-slanted voices get covered up by some one saying the system is good for those who just... embrace it for what it is.
The last Space Marine Codex got 6 supplements and at least as much playable, fun army lists out of it.
I don't want to hear that they are too strong relative to other factions like Grey Knights. I don't want to hear that people should only be allowed to play with the rules for which Chapter you painted your toy soldiers.
We got 6 Chapters promoting different units and Marine players are free to switch between them so they do not have to play the same mono list for the next 5 years. Great for them and I hope that all factions get a similar treatment in the future, because it will be healthy for the game and good for us players.
a_friendly-Hero.
So how is this then not to be considered as arrogant?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am not stabbing at anyone and been using Grey Knights as an example for a weak army since my first post. I apologise to Karol if he feels being picked out here.
Me trying to give advice and suggesting how you can improve your situation when you are not happy about some part of the hobby is a far stretch from telling you how you have to feel and talk.
"If you want people to have a serious discussion with you, you should not jump up and down, wave your hands and scream at them". How is that arrogant or questionable? I'm sorry, I can't follow your logic here.
The thing is you do not need to formulate your opinion about something so blunt or in a hyperbolic way. I know the internet loves it and it feels if you do not express your opinion stark enough, you won't be heard.
Grey Knight rules are trash at the moment. Ok, we stated our unhappiness now lets look for ways to make it better. Games Workshop sure won't release a better ruleset for them next week, no matter how extreme I state my opinion or how many threads I open on Dakka or how often I bring it up randomly in every discussion on the board.
Hypocritic much?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why do you see me as a troll or arrogant when I'm simply happy that a part of the playerbase got several interesting, powerful supplements? Everybody should get that treatment and I don't see why I should overshadow a great release with "but my Chaos Marines suck by comparison, so you should not have fun rules either!".
Sorry, I don't get your logic here, again.
You beeing happy to what is in essence the biggest mistake GW has done and is just doing again. Further, considering that Unrefined lists of those supplements literally broke the competitive balance in a strangle hold is no issue according to you?
It is also not valid to point out allready that the basic premise of csm 2.0 is not the same of C.SM 2.0 allready and on top there are now supplements furthering the imbalance in the system on top of that is not valid, because it is just "HYPERBOLE AND COMPLAINING" according to you. That is , why you are consdiered here Arrogant.
Additionally, if you think CSM will get anything, after beeing "updated" (to 1.1 if we are generous) will not get any update anymore beyond what will be in PA 2, which is just a bunch of stratagems and relics so far. So the same core issues that the CSM dex has and the C:SM had, will remain for one faction, whilest the other one just get's bonus on top of bonus is absurd.
And that is by far not the only issue that GW has produced recently, cough Eldar box Cough.
And yes it's nice and fancy that the hobby is compounded by multiple aspects: Thank god it is that way, but the rules are certainly not a high point regardless how you turn it.
after a slap on the wrist from the Mods, I'll try to reiterate my view
I think for me anger is the wrong word, but GWs position circa 2010-2012(ish) was very much 40k or nowt and as 7th was getting messy I wandered off into the wilds of t'other games
This of course comes with its own perils as GW logistics put most other companies to shame as you can either go to a store or intertubes something and get it a few days later, rather than having to wait months for restocks or dive into the hell of FB trades or Ebay
A few years of wobbly money reports and some new blood at the top meant GW started to make games with varying degrees of time and money commitments, but as I'd already picked up others games in similar genres I've skipped buying back in
dotcomee wrote: I play Tyranids, I've gotten 1 codex. Others have gotten multiple updates, Vigilus, etc. I've gotten mostly points increases and rules changes that have forced me to change my army not because I wanted to, but because I had to.
I was once in same place, lamenting how my outdated army doesn't get an upgrade. Then it finally did, and after reading the Codex, I wished that it hadn't.
I heard this pep talk first time when 6th edition Tau codex came out and I hated the changes. "But it has so much new stuff, read the rules, try it out and maybe you'll like it". Well, I read the rules, played it few times and hated it. And still do and haven't played Tau since, and probably never will again...
Oh well, I still have Space Hulk and BFG.
I'm sorry to hear that the army changed so much that it is not enjoyable anymore for you. That sucks and in a perfect world that would not happen. It's good that you still have (or found) other parts of the hobby that you like to play!
For now. I suspect BFG is next to be ruined. I can already see how it will happen. Facings and Weapon battery tables removed, Deathstar-sized mega-battleships...
Also I have bunch of unpainted Dark Angels which I had big plans for before 8th edition was released. Now with no longer any reason to paint them, they're just gathering dust. Of course I can always sell them...
- Over time I did collect several armies and know how it feels if the army is not getting any support and the rules are weak. It sucks and made me stop playing / collecting for 4-5 years.
I don't think I won a single game in 7th edition with my Deathwing. Might have achieved a tie somewhere. Still I (most of the time) had at least fun playing. With current ruleset, I no longer had fun even when I was winning.
I was once in same place, lamenting how my outdated army doesn't get an upgrade. Then it finally did, and after reading the Codex, I wished that it hadn't.
So be careful what you wish for.
I guess if you are long enough in the hobby then you are bound to have this happen to you. The most fun part about my 5th Grey Knights army for me were the Henchmen led by Coteaz.
I don't think I won a single game in 7th edition with my Deathwing. Might have achieved a tie somewhere. Still I (most of the time) had at least fun playing. With current ruleset, I no longer had fun even when I was winning.
On the small chance that you haven't heard about it, yet. Do you know Vassal? It is an online program with which you can simulate a game of Warhammer 40k (among other systems).
Maybe it is a way for you to be able to play with other people around the globe who want to play older editions.
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
Out of interest, are there other areas of your life where you refuse to self regulate? I'm guessing you must just walk around the office leaving doors swing shut in people's faces, making yourself tea and not asking others if they want a cup, perhaps just belching or farting at your desk. I mean, there are no actual rules preventing you from doing these things, right?
If you want to spam the most powerful stuff and not feel bad - that's cool. Just do it in a competitive environment where everyone expects to come up against the hardest possible lists.
IME 8th is the best edition of 40k since the beginning. In the real world, there are tens of thousands of gamers who are having a great time with their mates. None of them read forums full of repeated whining. It honestly doesn't improve anyone's enjoyment.
If anyone is having a hard time figuring out how to have fun with their toy soldiers, I would recommend watching a selection of winters SEO or Tabletop Tactics youtube vids. That is 40k at it's best IMO.
There are rules, actually. Nobody for the most needs to self regulate because in healthcare we already have outlined rules and regulations that we don't need to adjust. As it turns out, I don't need to do HR's job because they're competent at their jobs overall. Can you say the same for the same company that released Super Doctrines or 7th Edition Scatterbikes or Lash Princes?
If that's really the best argument you have, you never had a leg to stand on to begin with. Come up with something better and maybe I'll reply.
If tone of content is a concern of yours, you might try 40konline. Dakka has a bit of a Wild West feel to it, that I like but some people don’t.
If you prefer a more... regimented... approach to conversation, that site might work better for you.
And if the same old mods are there, tell’em GBT sends his best. And then yell “psych!” While you dance about, all prickish-like. They’ll appreciate it.
Not Online!!! wrote: And ignoring Criticism, especially harshly formulated one, is a surefire way to stiffle any and all debate . . .
That's not how conversation works. Points can be made without hyperbole, rudeness, etc.
If someone is going to be a constant ***hole, they should be prepared to not be engaged with. Not engaging ***holes does not automatically stifle debate.
Blunt is not rude.
Regarding blunt automatically as rude is rude.
Ever heard about Schultze von Thun.
Written language and it's uses have even more issues due to not beeing able to carry tone.
Blunt is not necessarily rude. But being rude is rude, and being hyperbolic is being hyperbolic. Acknowledging that tone is difficult to convey through writing ought to make for more careful writing, not less. But this is the internet with it's anonymity, and I think it's safe to say that there are many actors who write with less care than they probably act in person.
Purifying Tempest wrote:
8th edition is a great framework. Look at it is just that: a system that is expected to be built upon. Everything is basic and vanilla, and the core is quickly forgotten beneath the layering of additional books... but at the end, it is just options put atop a core framework.
This circles back to Rule 0, "don't be a jerk", or whatever you want to sum up the golden rule of gaming.
I'd agree with this. I started to dabble in 40k back in 6th, played a few games of 7th, but 8th made me dive in.
Can't stress the rule 0 enough. Yes, it's original intent was for RPG's, but when you are gaming overall it is a good rule to go by. Dont be TFG, right?
Purifying Tempest wrote:
I'm actually not sure when GW was expected to write those iron-clad rule sets where there was no wiggle room at all for the consumers, I see a lot more evidence to suggest the opposite. Even my GW rep looks at the way we play, the extra rules and options we've incorporated, and the fun my crew has in our games and tells me: that's what GW wants. I've showed him my custom codex and told him it was something I was playing with for funsies, but will never ask to bring it into his store... and he called me nuts, and he'd love to see a patron's custom work played out, and that taking that creative license was what GW really wants to see from the community... not bickering and arguing over rules as if we were victims to bad writing.
I can second this outlook from multiple GW stores. Even at The Citadel, they will give responses like this.
Overall I think 8th is in a great place, but 40k is going to be an ever evolving product. If there is ONE thing I could get GW to change its going to be the constant book buying. It's gotten FAR too much. Core book, Index, Dex 1.0, Dex 2.0, Vigilus 1, Upcoming PA, and Yearly CA book? Dude!
Finally - Thank you to the OP for this thread. I think while you might have ruffled some feathers the intent was good, and some of it needed to be said.
Hey, I had fun with the game for a while. I'm not angry with "the hobby." I'm frustrated with GW's practices and the state of 40k. More strategic depth and fair prices and I'll jump back in.
EDIT: As a side note, I do get tired of people complaining about the age of some of the models. Most of them still look great,(Eldar especially) some others need retooling, and yes, a few could stand to be replaced with a new version. But stop it with the whining about "this sculpt is old, I want new ones just to have new ones!"
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
Out of interest, are there other areas of your life where you refuse to self regulate? I'm guessing you must just walk around the office leaving doors swing shut in people's faces, making yourself tea and not asking others if they want a cup, perhaps just belching or farting at your desk. I mean, there are no actual rules preventing you from doing these things, right?
If you want to spam the most powerful stuff and not feel bad - that's cool. Just do it in a competitive environment where everyone expects to come up against the hardest possible lists.
IME 8th is the best edition of 40k since the beginning. In the real world, there are tens of thousands of gamers who are having a great time with their mates. None of them read forums full of repeated whining. It honestly doesn't improve anyone's enjoyment.
If anyone is having a hard time figuring out how to have fun with their toy soldiers, I would recommend watching a selection of winters SEO or Tabletop Tactics youtube vids. That is 40k at it's best IMO.
There are rules, actually. Nobody for the most needs to self regulate because in healthcare we already have outlined rules and regulations that we don't need to adjust. As it turns out, I don't need to do HR's job because they're competent at their jobs overall. Can you say the same for the same company that released Super Doctrines or 7th Edition Scatterbikes or Lash Princes?
If that's really the best argument you have, you never had a leg to stand on to begin with. Come up with something better and maybe I'll reply.
Your work has a rulebook telling you to offer to make people a drink, not to fart in the office and to hold doors for colleagues?! That seems... unlikely
Anyway, my whole point was that everything in your life requires some self regulation. Just don't be TFG and apply it to toy soldiers as well, then you can't go wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to write that all out. I do feel like the nostalgia glasses are guiding the perspective a bit.
For example -- while units could flee and then rally it was so, so unlikely to be impactful. Most times those units were severely wounded or too far out to make it back before the end of the game. Typically they would just be a hindrance for kill points if you could get them behind cover.
Of course, in 8th morale is even less meaningful. I recently accompanied my friend in 40k tournament and watched all his 5 games. Over those 5 games, I think I saw ONE model removed from the board as a result of morale roll.
Great thing about morale in earlier editions was how descriptive the rule was. For example: And They Shall Know No Fear. What does it mean? Well, Marines will never flee. They might get confused for a while after suffering losses, or they might tactically retreat, but they never panic and run off. But in the 8th? Marines are cowards, just like everyone else. They are slightly less likely to run off, but might do it anyway. Then Stubborn and Fearless. Whilst most of the time those rules had strong positive effect, they weren't all great. Fearless units were stupid. They stayed in the fight even when it would have been better to flee, could not go to ground and so on. None of that exists any more. Units and their behaviours are essentially identical.
You speak about modifiers and stratagems in terms of stacking rules. What were spells like invisibility doing? How were death stars in 7th operating? Rules stacking - I put this character in to make the unit fearless and this one in to make the unit 3++ etc etc. So, the dynamic didn't change. Just the application of much of that stacking is placed behind a cost now, which creates a better opportunity for balance.
Stacking effects was something which already began to go wrong with 40k in 6th and 7th edition with massively powerful psychic powers, effect bubbles and so on. In the 8th this all became worse. Command points are clunky and artificial system. Effect stacking is not battlefield tactics. If I want to play Combohammer, I'd play MtG.
On the small chance that you haven't heard about it, yet. Do you know Vassal? It is an online program with which you can simulate a game of Warhammer 40k (among other systems).
Maybe it is a way for you to be able to play with other people around the globe who want to play older editions.
Yes I know Vassal, not interested the slightest. If I want to play such a game on a computer, I'd play Steel Panthers.
I personally think morale in 7th was worse. Anything meaningful was immune as no one would risk an expensive unit on that risk. Anything that lost in combat was outrun by the faster army barring lucky rolls.
Combos make your army function, but they dont play the game for you. There is a lot to be had in the missions played.
Daedalus81 wrote: I personally think morale in 7th was worse. Anything meaningful was immune as no one would risk an expensive unit on that risk. Anything that lost in combat was outrun by the faster army barring lucky rolls.
Combos make your army function, but they dont play the game for you. There is a lot to be had in the missions played.
Morale had a better framework, but too much ignored it.
ewar wrote: Your work has a rulebook telling you to offer to make people a drink, not to fart in the office and to hold doors for colleagues?! That seems... unlikely
Anyway, my whole point was that everything in your life requires some self regulation. Just don't be TFG and apply it to toy soldiers as well, then you can't go wrong.
Okay. So, let's take two players, new to the hobby, and introduced at an official GW.
Let's call one Jeremy. Jeremy finds the Iron Hands cool-the black is neat, and the thought of cybernetic Space Marines is awesome!
The other, Matt. Matt finds the Grey Knights cool-the silver and grey looks great, and pyschic, Daemon-killing Marines is awesome!
They both get invested, and buy a good chunk of models. Let's say they drop about $400 to get a 500-800 point army. Matt has a few more points, because Jeremy had to buy a supplement. But, when they play, it's not fun. Jeremy consistently whomps Matt's Grey Knights. He's just so much more powerful, it's not fun.
So I feel like a large part of this overwhelming feeling of negativity stems from a lot of the "news" sources. Look at the constant complaining about Iron Hands that has gone on for weeks for a prime example of that (only to refuse to talk about the FAQ and how it helped tone down some of the issues they wouldn't stop talking about).
On Dakka the issue I usually see is that once someone starts the complaint train, about four more threads about the same topic end up being started for no reason other than to try and jump on the bandwagon.
Basically this stuff needs to stop. There is a valid way to critique things, and that isn't it. There is also a valid way to let GW know that you want things to change, but it seems too many people want to complain and not just email GW's FAQ team to get their attention on what is and isn't working in the game.
GW has shown they are more than willing to hammer down anything that sticks out too far, but that approach makes it hard to see what isn't working as well and needs to be adjusted up. That's where emailing GW would be a useful way of providing feedback by laying out what isn't working and why it doesn't work.
Now I'm not saying that the community shouldn't outline what isn't working and why, or even argue if it is or isn't a problem, but this hyperbole of every perceived problem being the death of gaming as we know it is insane. Especially when talking about competetive play. I'm going to nick a post from B&C that I think highlights this issue in how it relates to competetive play:
Prot wrote:I wanted to let some time pass before chiming in with personal opinion.
First off, what is the question? Are we questioning "Marines" period? Are we talking about one or more of the supplements? I think it's a big difference. Marines generally speaking, I'd say absolutely not over powered.
Please remember as I write this that even though I've been an ultra player a long time, I play Chaos Space Marines a lot, and AdMech, and Custodes most often.
At first I think my answer would have been different because I was doing a LOT better with my Ultra's. But then I realized two things: 1. My opponent's weren't used to me using so many options, and they are now learning to adapt. That's huge. 2. And this is a weird one... I was so used to having such a crappy army that severely struggled competitively (I never took Guilliman to a tournament, even in his hay day.) I simply was not used to having anything really... .work in my army! Seriously, I played almost pure Primaris all the time, and I was used to fighting tooth and nail to eek out the odd win against seriously competitive stuff.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I watched some of SoCal and I heard some complaining; "This isn't fun to play against". I heard one player say of marines. (I won't say the guy, but I know some of you know who I'm speaking of).
Here's my piece of advice to anyone going to an ITC event. If you are going for 'fun', the be prepared for some seriously big losses that will put in the 'fun' bracket, where you will definitely enjoy yourself more. However, if you're going to an ITC event with any sense of really competing, take fun, and throw it in the toilet. You (as a person) can be fun, and of course 'fair', but your list is there to kick teeth in.
Marines can kick some teeth in, and some people are having a problem with it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let me ask you guys this:
Have you played against Tau drone armies? Ork blobs with fistfulls of smashaguns? How about Deldar Airshow? How about GSC coming out of nowhere and satchel bombing your tank(s) then disappearing?
How are any of those 'fun'? Who's having fun? The guy with all the jets flying in circles, roasting characters, and avoiding interacting with you?
If you are going with Marines to an event, and you want to win, you have to plan for exactly that kind of interaction, and gameplay style from your opponent's army. This is what it takes for any army to compete, not just Marines.
Did they go too far? I don't know, but if anything sticks out right now it is definitely IH / IH successors.
And honestly, I agree with his statements: competitive play isn't about "fun" it's about "winning". Complaining that a game you're playing with the sole purpose of winning lacks "fun" is missing the point of why you're playing, and if you want more fun, maybe don't play competitively.
I mean I'm sure Karol can tell you how "fun" a pure competitive environment is to play in if you don't believe me.
And honestly, I agree with his statements: competitive play isn't about "fun" it's about "winning". Complaining that a game you're playing with the sole purpose of winning lacks "fun" is missing the point of why you're playing, and if you want more fun, maybe don't play competitively.
I mean I'm sure Karol can tell you how "fun" a pure competitive environment is to play in if you don't believe me.
Woah, there. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I play games competitively because the challenge, having fun prizes to "fight" for, and yes, winning, are fun. Let's stop demonizing casual or competitive people just because we see them as belonging to a different group.
However we are in a moment of time, were some armies haven't seen even a codex
outside of sisters, whom are coming in november I can't think of a single army thats not gotten a codex.
All fw index factions.
Infact some even haven't seen an index?
those factions have never had a codex so why the feth would you expect GW to put out a codex for them? They're not GW supported armies anymore (and never really where) , they're at best legacy armies. It sucks for people who have made a big investment into R&H or Eldar Corsairs, or DKK or any of the other FW armies, but that's the reality.
And honestly, I agree with his statements: competitive play isn't about "fun" it's about "winning". Complaining that a game you're playing with the sole purpose of winning lacks "fun" is missing the point of why you're playing, and if you want more fun, maybe don't play competitively.
I mean I'm sure Karol can tell you how "fun" a pure competitive environment is to play in if you don't believe me.
Woah, there. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I play games competitively because the challenge, having fun prizes to "fight" for, and yes, winning, are fun. Let's stop demonizing casual or competitive people just because we see them as belonging to a different group.
You can have fun in winning, but the focus of tournament play isn't fun, it's winning. Especially stuff like the ITC where the point is to win so much you rank above everyone else.
I'm not saying you can't have fun playing tournaments, I'm saying the nature of tournaments make them focus on winning over fun.
Winning *is* fun. Separating winning from fun is absurd.
One can pursue winning without pursuing fun, but everyone enjoys winning. Winning a prize with substantial value would be fun. Having to work for it might not be fun (ie playing an army you don’t enjoy, because you’re more likely to win with it) but working to attain a desired result can be fun.
greatbigtree wrote: Winning *is* fun. Separating winning from fun is absurd.
One can pursue winning without pursuing fun, but everyone enjoys winning. Winning a prize with substantial value would be fun. Having to work for it might not be fun (ie playing an army you don’t enjoy, because you’re more likely to win with it) but working to attain a desired result can be fun.
Winning is fun, but what about when you don't win in an event that prioritizes the act of winning over everything else? Probably don't have any fun.
And honestly, I agree with his statements: competitive play isn't about "fun" it's about "winning". Complaining that a game you're playing with the sole purpose of winning lacks "fun" is missing the point of why you're playing, and if you want more fun, maybe don't play competitively.
I mean I'm sure Karol can tell you how "fun" a pure competitive environment is to play in if you don't believe me.
Woah, there. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I play games competitively because the challenge, having fun prizes to "fight" for, and yes, winning, are fun. Let's stop demonizing casual or competitive people just because we see them as belonging to a different group.
You can have fun in winning, but the focus of tournament play isn't fun, it's winning. Especially stuff like the ITC where the point is to win so much you rank above everyone else.
I'm not saying you can't have fun playing tournaments, I'm saying the nature of tournaments make them focus on winning over fun.
Except some casual lists are better than others. What can someone running a fluffy Imperial Guard army do against a GK player? If you're already fluffy, how are they supposed to tone down?
And honestly, I agree with his statements: competitive play isn't about "fun" it's about "winning". Complaining that a game you're playing with the sole purpose of winning lacks "fun" is missing the point of why you're playing, and if you want more fun, maybe don't play competitively.
I mean I'm sure Karol can tell you how "fun" a pure competitive environment is to play in if you don't believe me.
Woah, there. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I play games competitively because the challenge, having fun prizes to "fight" for, and yes, winning, are fun. Let's stop demonizing casual or competitive people just because we see them as belonging to a different group.
You can have fun in winning, but the focus of tournament play isn't fun, it's winning. Especially stuff like the ITC where the point is to win so much you rank above everyone else.
I'm not saying you can't have fun playing tournaments, I'm saying the nature of tournaments make them focus on winning over fun.
And that is a problem with some games, and gamer culture. I find tournaments fun. Playing games, in any context, should be fun.
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
Out of interest, are there other areas of your life where you refuse to self regulate? I'm guessing you must just walk around the office leaving doors swing shut in people's faces, making yourself tea and not asking others if they want a cup, perhaps just belching or farting at your desk. I mean, there are no actual rules preventing you from doing these things, right?
If you want to spam the most powerful stuff and not feel bad - that's cool. Just do it in a competitive environment where everyone expects to come up against the hardest possible lists.
IME 8th is the best edition of 40k since the beginning. In the real world, there are tens of thousands of gamers who are having a great time with their mates. None of them read forums full of repeated whining. It honestly doesn't improve anyone's enjoyment.
If anyone is having a hard time figuring out how to have fun with their toy soldiers, I would recommend watching a selection of winters SEO or Tabletop Tactics youtube vids. That is 40k at it's best IMO.
There are rules, actually. Nobody for the most needs to self regulate because in healthcare we already have outlined rules and regulations that we don't need to adjust. As it turns out, I don't need to do HR's job because they're competent at their jobs overall. Can you say the same for the same company that released Super Doctrines or 7th Edition Scatterbikes or Lash Princes?
If that's really the best argument you have, you never had a leg to stand on to begin with. Come up with something better and maybe I'll reply.
Your work has a rulebook telling you to offer to make people a drink, not to fart in the office and to hold doors for colleagues?! That seems... unlikely
Anyway, my whole point was that everything in your life requires some self regulation. Just don't be TFG and apply it to toy soldiers as well, then you can't go wrong.
You're missing the grand point on purpose I imagine.
The point is, when things are laid out correctly, there aren't issues, period.
And honestly, I agree with his statements: competitive play isn't about "fun" it's about "winning". Complaining that a game you're playing with the sole purpose of winning lacks "fun" is missing the point of why you're playing, and if you want more fun, maybe don't play competitively.
I mean I'm sure Karol can tell you how "fun" a pure competitive environment is to play in if you don't believe me.
Woah, there. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I play games competitively because the challenge, having fun prizes to "fight" for, and yes, winning, are fun. Let's stop demonizing casual or competitive people just because we see them as belonging to a different group.
You can have fun in winning, but the focus of tournament play isn't fun, it's winning. Especially stuff like the ITC where the point is to win so much you rank above everyone else.
I'm not saying you can't have fun playing tournaments, I'm saying the nature of tournaments make them focus on winning over fun.
Except some casual lists are better than others. What can someone running a fluffy Imperial Guard army do against a GK player? If you're already fluffy, how are they supposed to tone down?
Considering about half the Guard book is underwhelming units, I'd point at those. That or play down on points. Those are the easiest ways to adjust things.
And honestly, I agree with his statements: competitive play isn't about "fun" it's about "winning". Complaining that a game you're playing with the sole purpose of winning lacks "fun" is missing the point of why you're playing, and if you want more fun, maybe don't play competitively.
I mean I'm sure Karol can tell you how "fun" a pure competitive environment is to play in if you don't believe me.
Woah, there. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I play games competitively because the challenge, having fun prizes to "fight" for, and yes, winning, are fun. Let's stop demonizing casual or competitive people just because we see them as belonging to a different group.
You can have fun in winning, but the focus of tournament play isn't fun, it's winning. Especially stuff like the ITC where the point is to win so much you rank above everyone else.
I'm not saying you can't have fun playing tournaments, I'm saying the nature of tournaments make them focus on winning over fun.
And that is a problem with some games, and gamer culture. I find tournaments fun. Playing games, in any context, should be fun.
I find challenging games fun, because I enjoy the challenge. That isn't how everyone has fun, and when you make winning the only means of having fun then there are going to be a lot of negative feelings running around.
We can pretend competitive play doesn't have this problem, but it's been an issue for a long time. There is a lot of fun, fluffy games at the lower tables, but you usually get stomped by someone's "gotta win to have fun" list first.
@Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.
And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)
I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.
And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.
greatbigtree wrote: @Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.
And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)
I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.
And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.
I feel like you're failing to understand something very critical to my point here. I'm not saying that trying to win is the problem. I'm not even saying competitive play is the problem. I'm saying that the issue is that people who play unfun lists to win better than others, have little to no ground to stand on when complaining about how the game isn't fun. You made your bed, lie in it.
So how is this then not to be considered as arrogant?
I really can't see how what I wrote is arrogant? If you would actually care to read what I wrote in this thread, instead of trying to intepret my tone and possible intent, then you might understand my position better. You "calling me out" or basically saying "gotcha" when somebody cites my very first post of this thread on the third page of the discussion shows me that you did in fact NOT read my post carefully.
Hypocritic much?
Again, I don't see it? I never use the word "must" or something along the line. Where do I dictate others their feelings and words? That you are mainly attacking my wording instead of my topic shows me that you are not interested in having a discussion.
Please write me a private message if you want to continue on talking this part. Maybe if we switch to German we can clear this up.
Off topic: I would appreciate if a native speaker from an English speaking country could contact me via private message as well to explain to me how I can improve my wording for the topic I want to convey and not make it sound like what Not Online!!! accuses me of.
You beeing happy to what is in essence the biggest mistake GW has done and is just doing again. Further, considering that Unrefined lists of those supplements literally broke the competitive balance in a strangle hold is no issue according to you?
I stated in my first post that imho40k is a bad tournament game. So I neither want to give any advice for the problems in the competitive scene nor do I see it as an argument against what I said.
It is also not valid to point out allready that the basic premise of csm 2.0 is not the same of C.SM 2.0 allready and on top there are now supplements furthering the imbalance in the system on top of that is not valid, because it is just "HYPERBOLE AND COMPLAINING" according to you.
You are free to state it that Chaos Marines are in a worse state than Loyalists. And guess what? I agree. Chaos has - personally speaking - never been as interesting as in their 3.5 Codex. The whole time in this thread I try to encourage that instead of just complaining about it that you do something about your negative feeling within your own capability.
This dismissive form to address me together with you questioning my education has been the only personal "attack" so far in this thread. I'm not interested in discussing this topic with you anymore, as you showed no basic respect towards me. Have a good day.
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you want to say. I never complained about a slow game. Did you want to reply to a different topic maybe? If not, then please express yourself again differently. I could not follow.
If tone of content is a concern of yours, you might try 40konline. Dakka has a bit of a Wild West feel to it, that I like but some people don’t.
If you prefer a more... regimented... approach to conversation, that site might work better for you.
And if the same old mods are there, tell’em GBT sends his best. And then yell “psych!” While you dance about, all prickish-like. They’ll appreciate it.
I did not know this forum before, but if I ever happen to drop by, I'll send your regards
---
On a more serious note though: Language does carry weight. More than some might think or care to admit. If you join a group of people, over time you will pick up their slang and eventually mindset as well.
Transfer this to our belovedhated hobby where a newcomer discovers a forum where he signs up to engage in the latest discussion about new releases or to tinker his army list or share pictures from the latest conversion project.
What he finds is a vocal minority(?) telling him the army he picked is "trash" and "bottom tier". Supported by bitter statements of people who can't be happy for fellow hobbyists if another faction got something nice.
What do you think how he will feel about his choice? Does anybody believe the passion of the newcomer will rise? That he goes to the next fantasy store and buys more figures (which enables GW to keep producing this game for all of us, mind you...)? That he will try to get other people into the hobby because the online experience was so great?
On the other side how would he feel if he could find a guideline for his army against which factions he can play without a problem? Including advice for him and his co-player how to make it a fun game (point adjustments, unit recommendation, ...) for both of them.
Except some casual lists are better than others. What can someone running a fluffy Imperial Guard army do against a GK player? If you're already fluffy, how are they supposed to tone down?
Depends on how far you are willing to compromise. Give the Grey Knight player more points for example. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not! But it is something that might work for some until Grey Knights get their next rules update.
a_typical_hero wrote: Depends on how far you are willing to compromise. Give the Grey Knight player more points for example. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not! But it is something that might work for some until Grey Knights get their next rules update.
Why do we have to provide a handicap to Grey Knights? Shouldn't we be able to have a fun game without modifying the rules?
If the rules were free, then you could say "You get what you pay for." But they're not free. Not even close.
greatbigtree wrote: @Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.
And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)
I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.
And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.
I feel like you're failing to understand something very critical to my point here. I'm not saying that trying to win is the problem. I'm not even saying competitive play is the problem. I'm saying that the issue is that people who play unfun lists to win better than others, have little to no ground to stand on when complaining about how the game isn't fun. You made your bed, lie in it.
Aaaaand there it is! I find some lists personally unenjoyable to play against, therefore, based on my subjective view of "fun," the people who play those lists are bad. Stop it. This is also precisely why I tend to gravitate towards army lists, decks, or whatever playing piece composition or strategy exists in a given game, that some, perhaps many, would find "unfun." To get reactions, because it is just so easy to push the buttons of this particular, complain-the-moment-something-doesn't-go-their-way "type" of gamer.
Not every list, deck or whatever is something that every person will enjoy playing against, or even enjoy playing with. Each individual enjoys different things. This is a part of life we must all accept and deal with. As I already said, stop demonizing people that enjoy games in a different manner than you do.This goes for everyone, myself included.
Casual Vs. competitive does not, has not, and never will, accomplish anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
greatbigtree wrote: @Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.
And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)
I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.
And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.
Thank you for this. I play to win as well. I find games the most enjoyable when all players involved are trying their hardest to win.
greatbigtree wrote: @Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.
And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)
I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.
And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.
I feel like you're failing to understand something very critical to my point here. I'm not saying that trying to win is the problem. I'm not even saying competitive play is the problem. I'm saying that the issue is that people who play unfun lists to win better than others, have little to no ground to stand on when complaining about how the game isn't fun. You made your bed, lie in it.
Aaaaand there it is! I find some lists personally unenjoyable to play against, therefore, based on my subjective view of "fun," the people who play those lists are bad. Stop it. This is also precisely why I tend to gravitate towards army lists, decks, or whatever playing piece composition or strategy exists in a given game, that some, perhaps many, would find "unfun." To get reactions, because it is just so easy to push the buttons of this particular, complain-the-moment-something-doesn't-go-their-way "type" of gamer.
Not every list, deck or whatever is something that every person will enjoy playing against, or even enjoy playing with. Each individual enjoys different things. This is a part of life we must all accept and deal with. As I already said, stop demonizing people that enjoy games in a different manner than you do.This goes for everyone, myself included.
Casual Vs. competitive does not, has not, and never will, accomplish anything.
Quit re-framing my argument into a casual versus competitive one. That's dishonest and frankly a load of bull. I've stated multiple times that the issue isn't competetive play, it's a vocal minority of players who choose to play the game in the least fun manner they can who also complain about how the game isn't fun. We hear it on competetive podcasts and see it from sites like Spikey Bits who push for people to play the game for the sake of winning over everything else, but then in the same breath will complain that the game isn't as fun as it should be.
This is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed, not swept under a rug and ignored. Our hobby is being dragged down by people who make a big stink for the sake of views and clicks with little to no regard for the actual health of the game, the health of the hobby, or how the narrative they're pushing of "this is the best way to play, and you should always play this way" hurts the game as a whole.
I am all for a proper tournament scene that tests skill and even possibly becomes a professional gaming avenue. I'm not for this push to make the game only about pasting each other as hard as we can and then complaining that the game lacks balance when you intentionally try to make it unbalanced.
If there is a venn diagram of the competitive players playing un-fun lists and complaining about the game not being fun then I would imagine the cross-section is pretty small.
I rarely find that it's un-fun to play any sort of list. I think, perhaps, where it becomes less fun is when your strong list totally rolls over your opponent's weak list. There is no challenge and as such it is boring.
Daedalus81 wrote: If there is a venn diagram of the competitive players playing un-fun lists and complaining about the game not being fun then I would imagine the cross-section is pretty small.
I rarely find that it's un-fun to play any sort of list. I think, perhaps, where it becomes less fun is when your strong list totally rolls over your opponent's weak list. There is no challenge and as such it is boring.
I called them a vocal minority for a reason. The problem is said minority tend to be the loudest voices since they're among the more prominent members of the community (Spikey Bits and the crew of FLG being common offenders).
I personally find certain lists boring to play with, but I enjoy challenge enough to make even an unfair game interesting (usually by playing the mission and trying to kill their most important models).
greatbigtree wrote: @Clockwork: Losing is less fun than winning. Stubbing your toe is less fun than getting your *censored* *censored*. I agree that some situations are less fun than others.
And since winning is more fun than losing, it would be reasonable to say someone that’s not trying to win is not trying to have fun. (Strawman? Yes.)
I play to win, and a win in a game that meaningfully pits my wits against my opponent’s is the most fun. Losing such a game can *also* be fun, but I would have more fun if I won.
And such a game would be most fun if neither player had to pull their punches. If we both were able to give our best effort, that would be the sweetest victory.
I feel like you're failing to understand something very critical to my point here. I'm not saying that trying to win is the problem. I'm not even saying competitive play is the problem. I'm saying that the issue is that people who play unfun lists to win better than others, have little to no ground to stand on when complaining about how the game isn't fun. You made your bed, lie in it.
Aaaaand there it is! I find some lists personally unenjoyable to play against, therefore, based on my subjective view of "fun," the people who play those lists are bad. Stop it. This is also precisely why I tend to gravitate towards army lists, decks, or whatever playing piece composition or strategy exists in a given game, that some, perhaps many, would find "unfun." To get reactions, because it is just so easy to push the buttons of this particular, complain-the-moment-something-doesn't-go-their-way "type" of gamer.
Not every list, deck or whatever is something that every person will enjoy playing against, or even enjoy playing with. Each individual enjoys different things. This is a part of life we must all accept and deal with. As I already said, stop demonizing people that enjoy games in a different manner than you do.This goes for everyone, myself included.
Casual Vs. competitive does not, has not, and never will, accomplish anything.
Quit re-framing my argument into a casual versus competitive one. That's dishonest and frankly a load of bull. I've stated multiple times that the issue isn't competetive play, it's a vocal minority of players who choose to play the game in the least fun manner they can who also complain about how the game isn't fun. We hear it on competetive podcasts and see it from sites like Spikey Bits who push for people to play the game for the sake of winning over everything else, but then in the same breath will complain that the game isn't as fun as it should be.
This is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed, not swept under a rug and ignored. Our hobby is being dragged down by people who make a big stink for the sake of views and clicks with little to no regard for the actual health of the game, the health of the hobby, or how the narrative they're pushing of "this is the best way to play, and you should always play this way" hurts the game as a whole.
I am all for a proper tournament scene that tests skill and even possibly becomes a professional gaming avenue. I'm not for this push to make the game
only about pasting each other as hard as we can and then complaining that the game lacks balance when you intentionally try to make it unbalanced.
I am not re-framing your argument. Complaining about a "vocal minority" of players who play the game "wrong," and may or may not complain about the fun of the game, is only fanning the flames of the casual vs. competitive nonsense that permeates Dakka. Not one of us has any solid data to know what the majority or minority of 40k players thinks, or how they behave. What we do know is that profits for GW have increased massively, as has tournament attendance.
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
dude, Rule Zero predates warhammer 40k. You HAVE heard of it yes?
Its been a lazy excuse for not doing the job of rules development regardless of where it appears.
Let’s imagine we’re in a boxing match. Should I go easy on my opponent so that he can have more fun? Throw the match? Tie my feet together?
What if I enjoy a good brawl? A tight rule set lets me and my competitive opponent bash it out. This does not stop “casual” boxers from throwing a few punches at each other and giggling about the outcome.
But when you want to be a better boxer, you don’t try to learn from “casual” boxers laughing while they flail gently at each other. You go to the guys sweating it out, pounding the hell out of each other.
Nothing wrong with being a casual boxer. But that doesn’t draw the crowds. It’s not edge of your seat entertainment. Nothing wrong with it. But if you want to draw a crowd, if you want to make a living at it, you aren’t pulling your punches.
Now replace punching each other with outwitting your opponent, learning the best strategies, knowing your opponent’s moves. Compare that to “my friends and I like to make pew-pew sounds while we build a story, and that way nobody loses” and I know which way I’d spend my half-hour.
People aren’t bad for wanting to win. People aren’t bad for wanting a soft game, to pass time with friends. But the competitive players don’t get much from a soft-rules game, while casual players can enjoy a hard-rules game that they tone down.
Aaannyhow. Being crunchy about your crunch being soft, or unequal to the crunch of other players is entirely justified if you enjoy 40k as a mental joust. Charge, smash, try to knock the other guy off his barstool.
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
In casual game play, any casual list can be made to do well against other casual lists. When people start spamming the best and only the best then yes the game can be broken. Hence I said the game should not be defined by competitive play. Remember when GW used to called themselves a miniatures company? They dont do it as often today but its still their core.
Ive seen plenty of people take casual GK against other casual armies and do well. Can GW do better to balance the game particularly armies that are on the lower tiers. Absolutely.
@Blastaar: ignoring statements regarding my feelings about competetive in order to say I'm making claims avout casual versus competetive play is twisting what I'm saying in order to claim internet victory points.
And we do have a negativity problem on Dakka (anything that isn't perfect gets classified as broken and proof of "laziness" and all facts to prove that to noy be true are called "excuses"), but I wouldn't say it's casual versus competetive as much as it is the tired veteran player who is border line burnt out and everyone else.
The game definitely isn't perfect and while it continues to improve (for the most part) I feel if we, as a community, find stuff to not fun to play with (like Grey Knights) we should be telling GW that. This isn't about "doing their job for them", it's about conveying valid concerns and complaints about a product we pay money for to the people who made it. The FAQ email box is a good place to drop that feedback, and it's a way we as a community can influence the game in a positive way.
Or we can post another fifteen page thread about why Grey Knights have it worse than every other army in the game ever.
ClockworkZion wrote: @Blastaar: ignoring statements regarding my feelings about competetive in order to say I'm making claims avout casual versus competetive play is twisting what I'm saying in order to claim internet victory points.
And we do have a negativity problem on Dakka (anything that isn't perfect gets classified as broken and proof of "laziness" and all facts to prove that to noy be true are called "excuses"), but I wouldn't say it's casual versus competetive as much as it is the tired veteran player who is border line burnt out and everyone else.
The game definitely isn't perfect and while it continues to improve (for the most part) I feel if we, as a community, find stuff to not fun to play with (like Grey Knights) we should be telling GW that. This isn't about "doing their job for them", it's about conveying valid concerns and complaints about a product we pay money for to the people who made it. The FAQ email box is a good place to drop that feedback, and it's a way we as a community can influence the game in a positive way.
Or we can post another fifteen page thread about why Grey Knights have it worse than every other army in the game ever.
People have complained about stuff, and GW continues to randomly throw darts at a board to fix the problems. Remember how the main issue with the Iron Hands is the super doctrine and non-Dreads getting a crap ton of benefits, and instead they hit two Stratagems that weren't even close to issues?
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
In casual game play, any casual list can be made to do well against other casual lists. When people start spamming the best and only the best then yes the game can be broken. Hence I said the game should not be defined by competitive play. Remember when GW used to called themselves a miniatures company? They dont do it as often today but its still their core.
Ive seen plenty of people take casual GK against other casual armies and do well. Can GW do better to balance the game particularly armies that are on the lower tiers. Absolutely.
I love the whole anecdotal "casual Grey Knights can do well against other casual lists" and sweeping it all under the rug.
No they don't. It's that pathetic of a release that anyone that paid money for it should have every right to complain and get their money back.
Until today, I never knew there was a Rule "0" in any game system... if anything I thought "Don't be a Jerk" was universal and the basics of good manners.
In regards to hobby positivity... overall I am positive about the hobby, but what I am positive about, others may not be. Right now I am going through a renaissance of sorts playing Battletech with a solid group of fun-loving guys that want to play within the rule structure and blow stuff up. Yes there are some minor blips, and yes there are some personality issues. I would dare say that there are no games out there that do not have some sort of issues. The issue is whether or not those issues are mitigated within the rule structure or mitigated when the rule set is revised due to edition change.
However when I look at the current state of 40k, I can't bring myself to say many things positive about it. Don't get me wrong, its great to see content being pushed out and that we're seeing a resurgence in the specialist games. blah blah blah... but this has made me stop playing the game. The stratagems, the command point system, the oversimplification of the rules to such an extent its water, the higher cost of entry, and a few other issues I have with the current state of the game has made me sit the last edition and this edition out. I can't bring myself to play the game in its current state and have already begun to sell off parts of my 40K collection.
If I stay away from playing 40K, I'm much happier. When I consider playing 40K and look at the current state of the game, I find I am happier in the modeling/painting side of the hobby then the playing side of the hobby.
a_typical_hero wrote: Off topic: I would appreciate if a native speaker from an English speaking country could contact me via private message as well to explain to me how I can improve my wording for the topic I want to convey and not make it sound like what Not Online!!! accuses me of.
You're doing a fine job of expressing yourself, it's him being a disingenuous article.
ClockworkZion wrote: @Blastaar: ignoring statements regarding my feelings about competetive in order to say I'm making claims avout casual versus competetive play is twisting what I'm saying in order to claim internet victory points.
And we do have a negativity problem on Dakka (anything that isn't perfect gets classified as broken and proof of "laziness" and all facts to prove that to noy be true are called "excuses"), but I wouldn't say it's casual versus competetive as much as it is the tired veteran player who is border line burnt out and everyone else.
The game definitely isn't perfect and while it continues to improve (for the most part) I feel if we, as a community, find stuff to not fun to play with (like Grey Knights) we should be telling GW that. This isn't about "doing their job for them", it's about conveying valid concerns and complaints about a product we pay money for to the people who made it. The FAQ email box is a good place to drop that feedback, and it's a way we as a community can influence the game in a positive way.
Or we can post another fifteen page thread about why Grey Knights have it worse than every other army in the game ever.
People have complained about stuff, and GW continues to randomly throw darts at a board to fix the problems. Remember how the main issue with the Iron Hands is the super doctrine and non-Dreads getting a crap ton of benefits, and instead they hit two Stratagems that weren't even close to issues?
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
In casual game play, any casual list can be made to do well against other casual lists. When people start spamming the best and only the best then yes the game can be broken. Hence I said the game should not be defined by competitive play. Remember when GW used to called themselves a miniatures company? They dont do it as often today but its still their core.
Ive seen plenty of people take casual GK against other casual armies and do well. Can GW do better to balance the game particularly armies that are on the lower tiers. Absolutely.
I love the whole anecdotal "casual Grey Knights can do well against other casual lists" and sweeping it all under the rug.
No they don't. It's that pathetic of a release that anyone that paid money for it should have every right to complain and get their money back.
See thats your opinion and probably the more vocal one. I and a lot of people think the IH nerf was a perfect step.
I am not here to defend the GK release. But these days theres more than enough info available for people to make good decisions on what codex to get or not.
However when I look at the current state of 40k, I can't bring myself to say many things positive about it. Don't get me wrong, its great to see content being pushed out and that we're seeing a resurgence in the specialist games. blah blah blah... but this has made me stop playing the game. The stratagems, the command point system, the oversimplification of the rules to such an extent its water, the higher cost of entry, and a few other issues I have with the current state of the game has made me sit the last edition and this edition out. I can't bring myself to play the game in its current state and have already begun to sell off parts of my 40K collection.
If I stay away from playing 40K, I'm much happier. When I consider playing 40K and look at the current state of the game, I find I am happier in the modeling/painting side of the hobby then the playing side of the hobby.
And theres nothing wrong with not playing the game. Its not going to be for everybody. Just as there are many reasons I dont play other games.
First and foremost I am connected to the lore/background of 40K, everything is secondary. Play to have fun, even competitively. The worse aspects of 40K tend to occur due to bad sportsmanship. Find a good friend/group of people and that bad parts of 40k arent as consequential.
No matter what you post, someone on the great wide web will disagree with you.
And the more broad your assertion, the more individuals will disagree, at least in part. Positivity is good for the community. Kudos on that. Perhaps, in the future, focussing on a less broad topic might make it easier to find common ground. On line in the sand, rather than fighting on all sides?
You like the breadth of factions. I find that frustrating, as a gamer, because it gets too loose. Too many things overlap so they need ever more special rules to make them unique.
You like the increase in hobby outreach by GW. I love that. Ready tutorials that teach the basics, the intermediate and advanced techniques appeals to a wider audience and I for one am on board with the war on grey. I’m not a great painter, but painted armies are more exciting to play with. No shade thrown at those that don’t paint, just that I enjoy seeing the effort put forth by fellow hobbyists.
In terms of increased rate of rules, I again find it frustrating. Mostly because of the price tags. A subscription system that allows me access to ongoing material would be perfect in my view, but it isn’t that way for me. And the free rules (points wise) bother me. I’d rather see units that work well by themselves, without Chapter Tactics. Then, your army’s paint colour really doesn’t matter. You add flavour to your list by running units / upgrades that fit the flavour of your desire, instead of min/maxing stacked upgrades.
So we have some common ground, but we have some battleground too. That’s fine, we all have different opinions. So if these three topics were each separate threads, we’d have at least one thread where we were in agreement.
Look at Dakka as having features, not bugs. You can walk tall and carry a big stick. Just know when to use it. Some people have their pet grudges. Some people only operate on “attack mode”. You can’t fix people. Best you can do is provide a reason to follow your lead.
Look if you want the happy clappy cult version of a forum where there are no issues or mistakes by the company because they are infallible you could ask The Grand Alliance to open a 40k board.
Otherwise you got to take the rough with the smooth remember given GW's own stance and backed up by the pricing scheme, GW consider themselves to be the Armani or Tiffany's of war gaming and as such they should be expected to back that up with quality and not just what they charge.
ClockworkZion wrote: @Blastaar: ignoring statements regarding my feelings about competetive in order to say I'm making claims avout casual versus competetive play is twisting what I'm saying in order to claim internet victory points.
And we do have a negativity problem on Dakka (anything that isn't perfect gets classified as broken and proof of "laziness" and all facts to prove that to noy be true are called "excuses"), but I wouldn't say it's casual versus competetive as much as it is the tired veteran player who is border line burnt out and everyone else.
The game definitely isn't perfect and while it continues to improve (for the most part) I feel if we, as a community, find stuff to not fun to play with (like Grey Knights) we should be telling GW that. This isn't about "doing their job for them", it's about conveying valid concerns and complaints about a product we pay money for to the people who made it. The FAQ email box is a good place to drop that feedback, and it's a way we as a community can influence the game in a positive way.
Or we can post another fifteen page thread about why Grey Knights have it worse than every other army in the game ever.
I "ignored" your feelings about competitive play because I didn't think they were relevant. I'm not accusing you of disliking tournament play, it is you who have misunderstood me and gotten riled up and defensive. You have made complaints that here are some tournament players who use so-called "unfun" lists and complain about the game not being fun, meaning that there are people "somewhere" who are making the game unenjoyable by combining units in "wrong" ways, and can not see, or will not see, that they are the "problem." Judging some ways of playing the game as "bad," and that players who choose "bad" or "unfun" lists must be deliberately attempting to make their opponents miserable, is a problem in gamer culture. People get upset when other folks enjoy a game differently than they do, instead of accepting that different people enjoy different things, and an opponent playing a list one would label "unfun" is not necessarily malicious- regardless of how small this alleged group is, or your opinion of competitive play in general.
Seawolf wrote: Until today, I never knew there was a Rule "0" in any game system... if anything I thought "Don't be a Jerk" was universal and the basics of good manners..
that's pretty much what rule zero IS. don't be a jerk and remember the point of a game is to have fun, the rules are ultimately a guideline to that, and if the rules get in the way of having fun feel free to edit as nesscary. As you said that's pretty universal if you're playing Tag with the kids on the street. Soccer on the school yard, D&D with your mates, or warhammer 40k in the local store.
I think it's important to bear in mind that you can be positive about the hobby and not think everything is perfect with it. Just as you can criticize the hobby and not think it's a total pile of horse gak. My general stance on 40k is: it's not too bad, but it could be better. I suspect that's likely the opinion of the majority as well. Now, if we could just learn to phrase that without the "40k sucks and here's why" and "40k is a shining beacon that all other games should aspire to", we'd probably have a whole lot less arguments and far fewer locked threads.
flandarz wrote: I think it's important to bear in mind that you can be positive about the hobby and not think everything is perfect with it. Just as you can criticize the hobby and not think it's a total pile of horse gak. My general stance on 40k is: it's not too bad, but it could be better. I suspect that's likely the opinion of the majority as well. Now, if we could just learn to phrase that without the "40k sucks and here's why" and "40k is a shining beacon that all other games should aspire to", we'd probably have a whole lot less arguments and far fewer locked threads.
I agree that I think we mostly lie in the middle however some will never be able to handle anyone feels anything less then 100% loving about GW.. Commons sense is very rare and no matter how you phrase it someone will take issue with something you say. Saying that, I wish we'd all just live and let live but apparently we need to enforce positive feelings, which will inevitably cause people to feel not positive. If I'm honest someone telling me I can't be negative tends to make me feel they are in fact negative. Odd how that works. Not you, you're pretty down the middle and I dig that.
flandarz wrote: I think it's important to bear in mind that you can be positive about the hobby and not think everything is perfect with it. Just as you can criticize the hobby and not think it's a total pile of horse gak. My general stance on 40k is: it's not too bad, but it could be better. I suspect that's likely the opinion of the majority as well. Now, if we could just learn to phrase that without the "40k sucks and here's why" and "40k is a shining beacon that all other games should aspire to", we'd probably have a whole lot less arguments and far fewer locked threads.
I agree that I think we mostly lie in the middle however some will never be able to handle anyone feels anything less then 100% loving about GW.. Commons sense is very rare and no matter how you phrase it someone will take issue with something you say. Saying that, I wish we'd all just live and let live but apparently we need to enforce positive feelings, which will inevitably cause people to feel not positive. If I'm honest someone telling me I can't be negative tends to make me feel they are in fact negative. Odd how that works. Not you, you're pretty down the middle and I dig that.
And yet here we are, in a forum crammed to the gills with negative threads, with people flipping-the-feth-out about the one nail that stands up because it's very existence threatens them so damn much. "Enforce positive feelings" - what utter rubbish.
And yet here we are, in a forum crammed to the gills with negative threads, with people flipping-the-feth-out about the one nail that stands up because it's very existence threatens them so damn much. "Enforce positive feelings" - what utter rubbish.
One? There's been a spate of these 'lecture threads' lately, most of them not actually positive, just telling people off for not liking things they like, or how they should play a game.
I don't get how people still think GW deliberatly makes new releases OP when stuff like the Ork Buggies, the "new" Phoenix lords, the admech vehicle and other examples exist. In the same way that space marines (their best selling faction) until recently were not incredibly OP. The new codices are powerfull yes, but this is by chance and not by design.
Because I've watched them do exactly that for almost 30 years. And they're still doing it. Oh sure, not every new release is, or has been, OP. But more than enough examples exist to make the claim.
I don't get how people still think GW deliberatly makes new releases OP when stuff like the Ork Buggies, the "new" Phoenix lords, the admech vehicle and other examples exist. In the same way that space marines (their best selling faction) until recently were not incredibly OP. The new codices are powerfull yes, but this is by chance and not by design.
Because I've watched them do exactly that for almost 30 years. And they're still doing it. Oh sure, not every new release is, or has been, OP. But more than enough examples exist to make the claim.
But if they did it on purpose, why wouldn't they do it with every new release? Of course you can claim that they do it, but it is far more reasonable to just accept that they suck at consistent writing. It's all conspirancy theory otherwise, sure I can't prove you wrong that for some reason they choose to make some releases OP to sell those releases especially well, but there are more or at least more clear evidences for the contrary
flandarz wrote: I think it's important to bear in mind that you can be positive about the hobby and not think everything is perfect with it. Just as you can criticize the hobby and not think it's a total pile of horse gak. My general stance on 40k is: it's not too bad, but it could be better. I suspect that's likely the opinion of the majority as well. Now, if we could just learn to phrase that without the "40k sucks and here's why" and "40k is a shining beacon that all other games should aspire to", we'd probably have a whole lot less arguments and far fewer locked threads.
I agree that I think we mostly lie in the middle however some will never be able to handle anyone feels anything less then 100% loving about GW.. Commons sense is very rare and no matter how you phrase it someone will take issue with something you say. Saying that, I wish we'd all just live and let live but apparently we need to enforce positive feelings, which will inevitably cause people to feel not positive. If I'm honest someone telling me I can't be negative tends to make me feel they are in fact negative. Odd how that works. Not you, you're pretty down the middle and I dig that.
And yet here we are, in a forum crammed to the gills with negative threads, with people flipping-the-feth-out about the one nail that stands up because it's very existence threatens them so damn much. "Enforce positive feelings" - what utter rubbish.
See, this is where you and I differ. You see a slew of negative threads, I see many mostly positive threads placed by people with genuine passion for the game. Enough passion to come here and voice their opinions, those who really despise things tend to just walk away and not look back. Even the most negative hater was once an ardent supporter of that I am pretty sure. No one just wants to hate something they put so much time into, this isn't a video game or a movie, it's something we put our heart into. The fact that you see just negative threads everywhere really says more on how you view those who don't just speak great of GW than it does over the content and character of the posters who place to light their issues with GW as a company and what they do.
As well, I'm sorry but anyone preaching to tell everyone else they have to be happy because they just don't want to read their " negative " thoughts, well in my opinion those people need to just think happy happy thoughts and not mire into those negative threads. Telling someone else how to feel, is in itself a bit negative to me. Plenty of folk I here I don't always agree with but I still value their opinions even if its way different than mine. Good or bad.
So no, I don't see a whole bunch of negative threads, I see some critical threads, and a whole bunch of people who love or loved the game talking to each other. As one poster put it, this place can be like the wild west. I assume he meant that in the way of things can be a little spicy and wild but also free to speak your mind within reason. I love that, even if its super positive, or super down but mostly it's in the middle. Anyone trying to enforce positive or negative feelings is doing it wrong. Everyone however can feel positive or negative, and voice it. Here, it's High Noon.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
Whilst I agree in principle that 'Most Important Rule' or whatever is no excuse for sloppy rules design, I note that Warhammer, or any other tabletop miniature game, can never be chess and will always require certain 'Gentlemen's code' by the players. No matter even if the finest, most analytic minds of Dakka developed the most logical, unambigious ruleset ever, it's still a game played with free movement and measurement (ie. no grid) and can never be 100% free of human interpretation and possible bias. Any potential TFG type will easily abuse any such system.
@OP I'm glad you are of a positive mindset about the game and the hobby in general.
Not everyone is.
I'm certainly not, for reasons that I won't repeat here.
You're not going to persuade anyone to change their mind writing a post of the reasons that you like the game.
Some of your ideas to fix the positivity of some posters are unreasonable and make sweeping assumptions, such as an unlimited budget (just buy a new/different army for example).
First and foremost I am connected to the lore/background of 40K, everything is secondary. Play to have fun, even competitively. The worse aspects of 40K tend to occur due to bad sportsmanship. Find a good friend/group of people and that bad parts of 40k arent as consequential.
Well I hate the lore changes as well. On top of it, I also think most of the Primaris units are visually awful. IMG, Primaris never happened. Much like, I still live in the Old World and End Times never took place.
I suppose that next edition of AoS will see release of "Stormcast Superiors" - enhanced and even stronger Sigmarines who dual wield crossbows, or something to that effect.
So I'm hardly seeing any of the supposedly great things OP listed up, but that's just my point of view. I don't think people are idiots if they like 8th edition nor do I hope that GW will crash & burn. If the game in its current state works for some, good for them. But don't pretend "it's still the same old 40k, just better", I began when it was Steel Panthers and they changed it to Red Alert. Which is great if you like Red Alert but I don't.
One part that did not come up so far in the discussion (or I overread it) on the last page was that while both playstyles have their merits and can be fun for you, you need to talk with your friends or co-players to make it fun for them as well.
Casual vs casual is fun. Competitive vs competetive is fun. One against the other is most certainly not. We talk to each other to agree on a point limit and mission parameters and settling on a common playstyle should be done as well.
This goes deeper than just casual or competitive. Maybe I want a casual game without any Knight-like units. Maybe I ask specifically for the other guy to bring his air wing army to test my list against it.
Regarding adaption of the rules to make them more balanced:
Everybody who says that it is not our job as the consumers to change the rules because we can't have a balanced game out of the box (GK vs IH was given as an example) -> You are absolutely right.
It is not our job. We spend our hard earned money and precious spare time for the hobby and only because some lazy git from Nottingham can't be bothered to properly playtest their stuff I have to do the job? Give me a break!
It is valid critique. When you pay alot of money (comparatively) for something, you should be able to expect a good quality. Sadly, reality is often disappointing.
We are on the same side. Neither you nor I should have the need to make up for the game's shortcomings. But if you got a buddy who wants to play his GK against your IH or Eldar Air wing or whatever, then what does it hurt to try and make it fun for him, too?
Is the alternative curbstomping him in every game saying "It's not my job"? I don't think that is what anybody wants or does.
Regarding being positive or negative about the hobby:
The goal of this thread was not to tell people "Only be happy, there is nothing bad about the game. Be positive or shut up.". I wanted to highlight where the hobby improved for us gamers and what each of us could do if we find ourselves not having fun anymore for different reasons.
Stating your frustration in a blunt or hyperbolic way and then stopping there will not improve things, but it will make some things worse. Like the overall community feeling on this forum.
Sending emails directly to Games Workshop when you think some rules are bonkers is actually one of the best things you could do and I did not have it in mind when I originally posted.
There are only humans working at GW as well, so I'm sure your feedback would be received more positive if you could formulate it in a proper way instead of the doomsaying of some of the more recent threads here.
Some recent posts are excellent examples how you can like some stuff, dislike other things and state your opinion in a civilised way
Honestly I'm so disappointed in the direction GW and the competative part of the community has taken the game since 6th edition that I would not mind seeing some negativity. I want to see the community rip appart gw's new concepts like a pack of hungry wolves. It makes me feel less insane for sticking to my plastic models seeing others in similar oppinions doing it too.
We are the consumers here, we are not at gws side. If we like what they do we should say that, and if we hate it then i dont see why we should sugarcoat it. It's a forum for christ sake, a place to voice oppinions for grown ups. Not a damned mine field.
It's just very hard for me to understand why someone else would suffer from anothers opinion of the game. Is it that strange to imagine people might make up their own decisions and not be swayed by the negative thoughts of another ?
If I believed in my heart of hearts this game was the best thing ever, all the negative views online wouldn't change or detract from my personal love of it. Seems like an awful lot of concern when anyone who goes online should always go there with a "buyer beware " attitude.
Community feeling will never totally happy, because people will never totally agree. I appreciate feeling good about the hobby, but you're not the community leader to tell others how to make lemonade out of the lemons they feel GW gives them.
Just enjoy the hobby for yourself, let others do the same. Regardless of how right or wrong their think may be. Anything other is just a waste of time at best, and a bit arrogant to feel you have the answers that everyone else just never understood at worst.
The biggest issue I have with the negativity is when a new or returning players posts a thread asking about 40k and you get posts that say something along the lines of "40k is the literal worst, don't waste your money". Half the time, the poster doesn't even explain *why* they have this opinion, but it just kinda galls me to see new and old players taking in interest in the hobby being pushed away from it. You're always welcome to have your opinion about the game, but I feel like it could be phrased in a way that doesn't immediately come off as trying to push people away from the hobby. Such as "I'm not a fan of the direction GW took with 8th edition, for reasons X, Y, and Z."
AngryAngel80 wrote: It's just very hard for me to understand why someone else would suffer from anothers opinion of the game. Is it that strange to imagine people might make up their own decisions and not be swayed by the negative thoughts of another ?
Not addressing you personally, but in general the vibe I get from some replies is "I simply want to complain and I don't care about the other half of your argument where you talk about what would be helpful to do after complaining". At least the latter part is never/seldomly questioned.
For the last time : Complain all you want, just don't stop there and wait for GW to make it better. Try to make it better yourself.
Good: I'm not a fan of the direction GW took with 8th edition, for reasons X, Y, and Z. (Stolen from the last reply, thank you )
Bad: Army xy is the most broken thing ever. Why would anybody ever play sub-faction xyz again (Paraphrased from one of the threads about blue Iron Hands...)
No need to read all of it, but just the first few comments mentioning DakkaDakka and how those people perceived it at that time is very interesting, to say the least.
Is this really how we as a community want to present ourselves?
I think the major question is does "fantastic models" give a pass for everything else? For many people, it seems like the answer is "Yes, with good looking models I don't care about good rules". Trying to say "fix it yourself" or "house rule it" is a cop-out and an excuse, because mot gaming groups want to play the rules as they are, not put the time in to fix what the designers are incapable of. It's along the same lines, although I don't mind this personally, of the fact the "gentleman's agreement" and "social contract" shouldn't be an excuse for bad design. "Just talk to your opponent about what sort of game you want" isn't a bad thing by itself, but when it's meant to be used to fix the fact GW can't or won't balance things, it becomes an unfeasible option for people who want to play a universal game in a universal way, which incidentally is what 40k attempts to be.
I've dropped my absolute vitriol of GW, but I don't pretend that the game is in a good place at all, because it's not. It remains fun (sometimes) in spite of the rules, not because of them, and I still lament what it could have been with good rules.
One day I'll give 40k another shot, and finish building the Tyranid army I had started before deciding it wasn't worth it. Until then, being critical of poorly-written rules that keep getting excused for being bad is never a bad thing. There is some threshold where it can turn into just bitching and negativity, but in most cases, the people being so negative were made that way, they didn't immediately become bitter and twisted.
There's also the question of 'what the heck else am I going to play?'
Local club is almost 100% GW. There was an Infinity contingent, but we've seen hide nor hair of them for a while. Dunno why. There wasn't a spat or owt.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: There's also the question of 'what the heck else am I going to play?'
Local club is almost 100% GW. There was an Infinity contingent, but we've seen hide nor hair of them for a while. Dunno why. There wasn't a spat or owt.
There is also this. Sometimes you play because you have no other viable option unless you want to play solo because nobody else wants to play a different game.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: There's also the question of 'what the heck else am I going to play?'
Local club is almost 100% GW. There was an Infinity contingent, but we've seen hide nor hair of them for a while. Dunno why. There wasn't a spat or owt.
There is also this. Sometimes you play because you have no other viable option unless you want to play solo because nobody else wants to play a different game.
Not to mention that whole armies can fall to what is deemed office politics.
Look if you want the happy clappy cult version of a forum where there are no issues or mistakes by the company because they are infallible you could ask The Grand Alliance to open a 40k board.
Otherwise you got to take the rough with the smooth remember given GW's own stance and backed up by the pricing scheme, GW consider themselves to be the Armani or Tiffany's of war gaming and as such they should be expected to back that up with quality and not just what they charge.
If you think there are no critics on TGA you'd be mistaken. Its just that people there are better at expressing their ideas without being...gakky...
Look if you want the happy clappy cult version of a forum where there are no issues or mistakes by the company because they are infallible you could ask The Grand Alliance to open a 40k board.
Otherwise you got to take the rough with the smooth remember given GW's own stance and backed up by the pricing scheme, GW consider themselves to be the Armani or Tiffany's of war gaming and as such they should be expected to back that up with quality and not just what they charge.
If you think there are no critics on TGA you'd be mistaken. Its just that people there are better at expressing their ideas without being...gakky...
Or they've gotten banned because TGA is essentially the unofficial GW forum. They've lightened up on some of their circlejerk though lately.
Thing is, after a while of criticism being dismissed, you start to get more negativity as people get frustrated that being nice isn't working.
Wayniac wrote: I think the major question is does "fantastic models" give a pass for everything else? For many people, it seems like the answer is "Yes, with good looking models I don't care about good rules".
There's some truth to this. If GW really crashed the system into a wall the community would pick up rules on their own. There's just something about the models and lore that evokes feelings and it just hasn't been replicated, for me, with Warmahordes / X-Wing / MtG / etc.
Wayniac wrote: I think the major question is does "fantastic models" give a pass for everything else? For many people, it seems like the answer is "Yes, with good looking models I don't care about good rules".
There's some truth to this. If GW really crashed the system into a wall the community would pick up rules on their own. There's just something about the models and lore that evokes feelings and it just hasn't been replicated, for me, with Warmahordes / X-Wing / MtG / etc.
7th came pretty close.
Atleast here, to fully develop own rulesets and or houseroule the matches fully.
Wayniac wrote: I think the major question is does "fantastic models" give a pass for everything else? For many people, it seems like the answer is "Yes, with good looking models I don't care about good rules".
There's some truth to this. If GW really crashed the system into a wall the community would pick up rules on their own. There's just something about the models and lore that evokes feelings and it just hasn't been replicated, for me, with Warmahordes / X-Wing / MtG / etc.
I can see that, and to an extent I'm the same way. But ultimately I want a good game, not a poor game that looks good because it's all just smoke and mirrors.
Honestly, at this point I want ITC to step up and do it. It's clear they have their own agenda for 40k and have some unknown amount of influence. So if GW isn't going to step up and do more balancing, I'd prefer ITC to do it as they did in 7th with their own set of adjustments to make the game better balanced. Whether that's banning some units, FAQing some things, or what, GW isn't going to do it so someone should, as much as I despise ITC and everything they've done to 40k.
Or they've gotten banned because TGA is essentially the unofficial GW forum. They've lightened up on some of their circlejerk though lately.
Thing is, after a while of criticism being dismissed, you start to get more negativity as people get frustrated that being nice isn't working.
If they got banned it was probably for a valid reason, but I don't think we have a means to determine that. You can peruse this thread about balance and see people disagree or criticize the system:
ClockworkZion wrote: @Blastaar: ignoring statements regarding my feelings about competetive in order to say I'm making claims avout casual versus competetive play is twisting what I'm saying in order to claim internet victory points.
And we do have a negativity problem on Dakka (anything that isn't perfect gets classified as broken and proof of "laziness" and all facts to prove that to noy be true are called "excuses"), but I wouldn't say it's casual versus competetive as much as it is the tired veteran player who is border line burnt out and everyone else.
The game definitely isn't perfect and while it continues to improve (for the most part) I feel if we, as a community, find stuff to not fun to play with (like Grey Knights) we should be telling GW that. This isn't about "doing their job for them", it's about conveying valid concerns and complaints about a product we pay money for to the people who made it. The FAQ email box is a good place to drop that feedback, and it's a way we as a community can influence the game in a positive way.
Or we can post another fifteen page thread about why Grey Knights have it worse than every other army in the game ever.
People have complained about stuff, and GW continues to randomly throw darts at a board to fix the problems. Remember how the main issue with the Iron Hands is the super doctrine and non-Dreads getting a crap ton of benefits, and instead they hit two Stratagems that weren't even close to issues?
Smirrors wrote: 8th Edition 40K will be as fun as the friends you play it with.
The problem is the human condition where everybody wants to win, and win at all cost.
8th can be treated as a guideline but people push the boundaries to the nth degree.
Just watch battle reports on youtube. Most present the game as it should be played, two friends having a great time with good lists and good attitudes.
8th edition and warhammer in general should not be defined by competitive play.
This whole "the rules are a guide line" needs to fething stop.
We are not supposed to do the job of the designers. Period. We should NOT have to self relegate and feel bad if we want to bring three of a cool looking unit because they're good or bad.
In casual game play, any casual list can be made to do well against other casual lists. When people start spamming the best and only the best then yes the game can be broken. Hence I said the game should not be defined by competitive play. Remember when GW used to called themselves a miniatures company? They dont do it as often today but its still their core.
Ive seen plenty of people take casual GK against other casual armies and do well. Can GW do better to balance the game particularly armies that are on the lower tiers. Absolutely.
I love the whole anecdotal "casual Grey Knights can do well against other casual lists" and sweeping it all under the rug.
No they don't. It's that pathetic of a release that anyone that paid money for it should have every right to complain and get their money back.
See thats your opinion and probably the more vocal one. I and a lot of people think the IH nerf was a perfect step.
I am not here to defend the GK release. But these days theres more than enough info available for people to make good decisions on what codex to get or not.
However when I look at the current state of 40k, I can't bring myself to say many things positive about it. Don't get me wrong, its great to see content being pushed out and that we're seeing a resurgence in the specialist games. blah blah blah... but this has made me stop playing the game. The stratagems, the command point system, the oversimplification of the rules to such an extent its water, the higher cost of entry, and a few other issues I have with the current state of the game has made me sit the last edition and this edition out. I can't bring myself to play the game in its current state and have already begun to sell off parts of my 40K collection.
If I stay away from playing 40K, I'm much happier. When I consider playing 40K and look at the current state of the game, I find I am happier in the modeling/painting side of the hobby then the playing side of the hobby.
And theres nothing wrong with not playing the game. Its not going to be for everybody. Just as there are many reasons I dont play other games.
First and foremost I am connected to the lore/background of 40K, everything is secondary. Play to have fun, even competitively. The worse aspects of 40K tend to occur due to bad sportsmanship. Find a good friend/group of people and that bad parts of 40k arent as consequential.
Nobody should think the Iron Hands "nerfs" were good, because they weren't. The issues are:
1. Their Super Doctrine, which should NEVER have made it through the "what if" stage of game design, which can be said for Super Doctrines in general
2. Vehicles like Repulsors and Executioners gaining too much with absolutely no drawback
What do they nerf?
1. The Dread character Strat
2. Deny the Witch Strat
3. Healing the same vehicle (because nobody focus fires on a vehicle to kill it, especially since it isn't like knocking a vehicle down to a lower damage bracket doesn't do much against Iron Hands, yep)
OP, looks like you started the 40k hobby close to when I did.
Yes, I agree for variety and publications this is the best it has ever been.
What is a happy thing now is that GW has found again it's hobbyist enthusiasm that we somewhat took for granted back around 3rd edition.
Remember when GW had a website forum much like this one and we all could talk about what could be better or what was good?
There were a ton of tutorials and guides all posted for use.
At some point they were all taken away.
It has taken till now for GW to get to the same level of customer engagement and useful materials as 3rd edition (possibly 4th).
I find people view "complaints" as anger or hatred, really, it is usually voice of customer asking for improvements.
When you have many of your wants met, it sets your mind to thinking of how it can be made even better: you want "moar!".
We usually enjoy our hobby and absolutely want it to be the best it can be.
We are a difficult group to please, we are made of modellers, artists, competitive players, beer and pretzel gamers with friends, collectors and they need to appeal to us all.
Guaranteed, not all of us will be happy with any decision made.
I feel that a lack of positivity on the right topic is also necessary in order to be critical of business decisions that for profit companies make at the expense of their customer's satisfaction.
Tamwulf wrote: Post about feeling good about the game, and everyone takes a giant all over it. So DakkaDakka!
The post is about only wanting positivity and doing GW's job for them.
I suspect also some questioning of why at our historically "best" time for the hobby why we are dissatisfied?
I think it really is our expectations are greater, there should be lessons learned and not repeat past mistakes.
We as gamers are experiencing "Groundhog Day" where we daily, yearly, experience the same day, same mistakes, same loose rules wording that one would think should be "perfect" by now.
GW is no longer a small studio, connectivity and collaboration are easier than ever: why does the hive mind of GW keep missing these things?
One idea is what I see at my work: not enough of the old experienced folk stick around to work with the new millennials and history and best practices are lost.
The new designers are doomed to repeat the errors of those who came before them.
Music industry dusts off really old hits decades before most people forgot about and get new bands to play them and funny how old is new again and what was good then is good now (once properly updated/modernized).
Rules can work the same.
I really like innovation and something completely new is awesome to see, we just need to be able to look back and see what worked, what did not.
Nobody should think the Iron Hands "nerfs" were good, because they weren't. The issues are:
1. Their Super Doctrine, which should NEVER have made it through the "what if" stage of game design, which can be said for Super Doctrines in general
2. Vehicles like Repulsors and Executioners gaining too much with absolutely no drawback
What do they nerf?
1. The Dread character Strat
2. Deny the Witch Strat
3. Healing the same vehicle (because nobody focus fires on a vehicle to kill it, especially since it isn't like knocking a vehicle down to a lower damage bracket doesn't do much against Iron Hands, yep)
You missed a bit in that analysis.
Namely the Ironstone, which in tandem with invulns (you missed that, too) and healing made for super durable tanks. People were running techmarines on bikes, to repair flyers. Despite popular opinion it isn't always simple to off a tough vehicle in one turn. Scratching off 15 wounds and seeing 6 to 9 come back immediately is quite something.
They also increased the cost of the 4+ overwatch strat.
In fact as SoCal there wasn't a single Repulsor among the top 10. 12th place had one.
Nick Nanavanti (5th) ran IH successors with Master Artisan, which according to the forums is trash as well as Stealthy -- 25 Stalker Intercessors, 5 Scouts, Redemptor, Contemptor, Ven Dread, 3x3 Suppressors, Devs w/ Grav cannons w/ Pod, 2 TFCs.
So, is move and shoot plus reroll 1s busting the game wide open with this unit selection? I don't think so. Before the new books you would have looked at this list and laughed. The really rough part is trying to kill those Intercessors being 2+/6+++ with really strong guns.
Tamwulf wrote: Post about feeling good about the game, and everyone takes a giant all over it. So DakkaDakka!
The post is about only wanting positivity and doing GW's job for them.
I suspect also some questioning of why at our historically "best" time for the hobby why we are dissatisfied?
I think it really is our expectations are greater, there should be lessons learned and not repeat past mistakes.
We as gamers are experiencing "Groundhog Day" where we daily, yearly, experience the same day, same mistakes, same loose rules wording that one would think should be "perfect" by now.
GW is no longer a small studio, connectivity and collaboration are easier than ever: why does the hive mind of GW keep missing these things?
One idea is what I see at my work: not enough of the old experienced folk stick around to work with the new millennials and history and best practices are lost.
The new designers are doomed to repeat the errors of those who came before them.
Music industry dusts off really old hits decades before most people forgot about and get new bands to play them and funny how old is new again and what was good then is good now (once properly updated/modernized).
Rules can work the same.
I really like innovation and something completely new is awesome to see, we just need to be able to look back and see what worked, what did not.
Gw has become better, but they've also decided on an absurd release schedule. It's really hard to playtest, edit, and release book after book after book. They're over extending their employees, but this is what we wan't isn't it? If the codexes weren't coming out at break neck speed people would be just as pissed for the opposite reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zerosignal wrote: It's not like they've had 35 years to get this right or anything *coughs*
My core problem with 8th edition at the moment is that after paying quite a lot of money for the rulebooks and then printing/noting/downloading another half-book of FAQs, the game still needs loads of Rule 0. That's insane.
"But it used to be worse!"
"How is that relevant now?"
I also want to echo the point about GW having 30+ years to get this right - if after three-digit pages of FAQ the game still looks like the way it looks, something is going horribly, horribly wrong in the rules-writing.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The post is about only wanting positivity and doing GW's job for them.
If this is really what you took from me explaining my argument over 5 pages of discussion, then you did not read it very well or I'm worse at explaining things than I thought
If you want to do me a favour, please read my postings again. Your assessment is not in the spirit of what I wrote and had in mind.
---
Credit where credit is due: Not Online!!! did reach out to me in a private message and we are having a normal discussion there without any hard feelings. Kudos to him, most people on the net would not do that after getting in a little bit of a heated argument with someone.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: My core problem with 8th edition at the moment is that after paying quite a lot of money for the rulebooks and then printing/noting/downloading another half-book of FAQs, the game still needs loads of Rule 0. That's insane.
"But it used to be worse!"
"How is that relevant now?"
You mean rule 1? I haven't seen that at all. In fact I haven't seen an argument like that of any other edition so far in 8th.
Daedalus81 wrote: Gw has become better, but they've also decided on an absurd release schedule. It's really hard to playtest, edit, and release book after book after book. They're over extending their employees, but this is what we wan't isn't it? If the codexes weren't coming out at break neck speed people would be just as pissed for the opposite reason.
Usually, you would have a "plan" of how abilities and costing is to be figured out. Some guidelines on how to approach all factions.
Then the plan for the specific faction and what makes them different and unique.
I see things like flamer weapons "auto-hit" so they tend to price them more for those armies that have bad ballistic skill.
Bolter weapons both in Deathwatch and SM's in general have added bonuses due to their Codex rules, they should be priced with that considered.
Simple little rules or things to keep track of to ensure that no faction, squad, model, weapon gets too cheap or too expensive for what they do.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...Gw has become better, but they've also decided on an absurd release schedule. It's really hard to playtest, edit, and release book after book after book. They're over extending their employees, but this is what we wan't isn't it? If the codexes weren't coming out at break neck speed people would be just as pissed for the opposite reason...
Most games a) don't burn their core rulebook and re-release it every 2-4 years, b) partially update armies instead of burning their "codex" and re-releasing it every 2-4 years, and c) release stuff for everyone all at once. GW's written themselves into a corner with the "Codex" release model that forces them to be kind of crappy at writing the rules/balancing the game.
Daedalus81 wrote: Gw has become better, but they've also decided on an absurd release schedule. It's really hard to playtest, edit, and release book after book after book. They're over extending their employees, but this is what we wan't isn't it? If the codexes weren't coming out at break neck speed people would be just as pissed for the opposite reason.
Usually, you would have a "plan" of how abilities and costing is to be figured out. Some guidelines on how to approach all factions.
Then the plan for the specific faction and what makes them different and unique.
I see things like flamer weapons "auto-hit" so they tend to price them more for those armies that have bad ballistic skill.
Bolter weapons both in Deathwatch and SM's in general have added bonuses due to their Codex rules, they should be priced with that considered.
Simple little rules or things to keep track of to ensure that no faction, squad, model, weapon gets too cheap or too expensive for what they do.
It's a bit more complex than that. Your Deathwatch example - adding points to those units right now would crush that army. Even with 2 point SS they're weren't taking over the game. The only time you get concerned about things like flamer cost is when every model in the unit can take it like GSC, but even then those units, while brutal, aren't destroying the game (which ties into army design).
There's also design philosophy. Just look at how stratagems are worded in the new books as compared to the old.
And then there's the overall balance of the army. Adeptus Mechanicus can D3+1 repair and repair the same vehicle twice, but Iron Hands cannot, because they also have a repair spell as well as other tough units and relics to consider.
There is absolutely nothing about Games Workshop to be positive about.
You can be happy with the rules or not. It doesn't matter, as long as your attention is focused on the game. You can sing and dance, you can complain, you can debate, whatever, as long as you are talking about a game with a meta-economy controlled by GW.
But don't talk about the company's marketing practices. Every year, they increase prices. The real world buying power of the average player has not increased in over 30 years, yet GW raises prices annually (often at a cost exceeding inflation.) They're getting rich by screwing everyone who buys their products.
The more attention players give the game, the less attention they give to their consumer relationship with the company. GW releases new models with OP rules to increase sales, then walk them back a year later so consumers need to buy more models. GW releases broken rules and never clarify so consumers will argue about them endlessly instead of discussing the problem with broken rules. GW actively undermines the competitive scene through factional power imbalances such that the best army is usually about whoever brought the fanciest models instead of the quality of the player. Nothing is proven, it's just an exercise in smart shopping.
These faults wouldn't matter so much if GW models were priced a little lower. As it stands, GW is similar to Godiva Chocolate, all these retail outlets meant to push overpriced luxury goods with little worth after the initial purchase. Players should not be paying more for that every year, they should be demanding price and rules stabilization - no new rules until GW fixes the problems with the old ones (call it the "Grey Knights" principle.) You shouldn't have to keep paying more for a broken product that doesn't serve other players very well.
That won't happen until people can stop complaining. Honestly, attitudes towards GW mean nothing outside online forums. The company uses points / rules to sell models, the way they do it actively dilutes the value of what is essentially a luxury good. You can talk about attitudes all you want, but there's a point where your opinion devolves into an expression of how much this system has screwed you recently. You can talk about individual personalities within GW all you want, but the only one who matters is Kevin Roundtree who decides how this circus will play out year after year. You can talk about individual releases all you want, but GW is a billion dollar company who makes its money off volume of sales.
They could care less about you individually, it helps to have you pissed off because that means you are still thinking about the game. In that way, one could credibly state "all talk about GW is positive," since it depresses awareness of just how bad their marketing has become.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...Gw has become better, but they've also decided on an absurd release schedule. It's really hard to playtest, edit, and release book after book after book. They're over extending their employees, but this is what we wan't isn't it? If the codexes weren't coming out at break neck speed people would be just as pissed for the opposite reason...
Most games a) don't burn their core rulebook and re-release it every 2-4 years, b) partially update armies instead of burning their "codex" and re-releasing it every 2-4 years, and c) release stuff for everyone all at once. GW's written themselves into a corner with the "Codex" release model that forces them to be kind of crappy at writing the rules/balancing the game.
A lot of people were predicting re-releases of codexes as in just rewrites with nothing new this year. Obviously we got marines, but with a substantial "value-add". Models can't all be ready at the right times. It just is what it is and its better for models to have rules when they come out, isn't it? The manner of the supplements is potentially good for gamers, because they don't have to re-buy the supplement when the core SM book gets updated. Will it pan out like that? No idea. It could be we would see 9th before that's a thing.
The CSM book was a tragedy, but it exists for new players not the old -- points should have been in the PDF for previous owners.
A subscription model would solve a lot of problems for them and us, but it probably won't happen for a while yet (partially because people really like books).
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit more complex than that. Your Deathwatch example - adding points to those units right now would crush that army. Even with 2 point SS they're weren't taking over the game. The only time you get concerned about things like flamer cost is when every model in the unit can take it like GSC, but even then those units, while brutal, aren't destroying the game (which ties into army design).
There's also design philosophy. Just look at how stratagems are worded in the new books as compared to the old.
And then there's the overall balance of the army. Adeptus Mechanicus can D3+1 repair and repair the same vehicle twice, but Iron Hands cannot, because they also have a repair spell as well as other tough units and relics to consider.
It is actually THAT simple.
You do understand I was talking how some things ARE already being applied in Codex books now?
The flamer example I gave because I DO see the point cost difference applied in the books.
Heck, they give differing prices for plasma pistols and other weapons depending if it is a character or a joe-grunt using it: differing levels of capability.
My intent was they show some degree of awareness in this regard and just have to apply it more consistently and thoroughly.
Every time a stratagem is developed for a faction like that very good example of methods of repair do have to be taken into account.
This is where keywords play such an important role because it was the ability to cross-buff from one faction to another that created huge unanticipated outcomes that did break the game, that is where 6th and 7th went a bit off the rails.
techsoldaten wrote: There is absolutely nothing about Games Workshop to be positive about.
K.
The real world buying power of the average player has not increased in over 30 years, yet GW raises prices annually (often at a cost exceeding inflation.)
What does GW have to do with the lack of meaningful wage increases in the world?
GW releases new models with OP rules to increase sales, then walk them back a year later so consumers need to buy more models.
You mean like how they increased the points on the Executioner before the supplements came out? Or how buggies were modestly priced? I don't see GSC bikes and vehicles storming the scene, do you? Were eliminators dead hard when they came out? What about suppressors? What's the state of Venomcrawlers and CSM? I could go on...
GW releases broken rules and never clarify so consumers will argue about them endlessly instead of discussing the problem with broken rules
Never clarifies? Give an example of which ones that have been missed by the 2 week and semi-annual FAQs.
GW actively undermines the competitive scene through factional power imbalances such that the best army is usually about whoever brought the fanciest models instead of the quality of the player.
K, well, let's ask those players about that then?
overpriced luxury goods with little worth after the initial purchase.
Really? Little worth? For models that hold their value for decades? You should recgonize that worth is underpinned by the luxury bar set by GW.
demanding price and rules stabilization - no new rules until GW fixes the problems with the old ones (call it the "Grey Knights" principle.) You shouldn't have to keep paying more for a broken product that doesn't serve other players very well.
The first is the consequence of the world. You can ask. You might not receive. The second is being asked for often and is received on a far more regular basis than before. Is it perfect? No.
The company uses points / rules to sell models, the way they do it actively dilutes the value of what is essentially a luxury good. You can talk about attitudes all you want, but there's a point where your opinion devolves into an expression of how much this system has screwed you recently. You can talk about individual personalities within GW all you want, but the only one who matters is Kevin Roundtree who decides how this circus will play out year after year. You can talk about individual releases all you want, but GW is a billion dollar company who makes its money off volume of sales.
And these things are demonstrably false. Feeling burned by the CSM update taking second fiddle to Marines? I get that, but there's little reason to be absurd about everything to make that point.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit more complex than that. Your Deathwatch example - adding points to those units right now would crush that army. Even with 2 point SS they're weren't taking over the game. The only time you get concerned about things like flamer cost is when every model in the unit can take it like GSC, but even then those units, while brutal, aren't destroying the game (which ties into army design).
There's also design philosophy. Just look at how stratagems are worded in the new books as compared to the old.
And then there's the overall balance of the army. Adeptus Mechanicus can D3+1 repair and repair the same vehicle twice, but Iron Hands cannot, because they also have a repair spell as well as other tough units and relics to consider.
It is actually THAT simple.
You do understand I was talking how some things ARE already being applied in Codex books now?
The flamer example I gave because I DO see the point cost difference applied in the books.
Heck, they give differing prices for plasma pistols and other weapons depending if it is a character or a joe-grunt using it: differing levels of capability.
My intent was they show some degree of awareness in this regard and just have to apply it more consistently and thoroughly.
Every time a stratagem is developed for a faction like that very good example of methods of repair do have to be taken into account.
This is where keywords play such an important role because it was the ability to cross-buff from one faction to another that created huge unanticipated outcomes that did break the game, that is where 6th and 7th went a bit off the rails.
Sure, I think they're getting better at it. Some things are still a little free-wheeling and others require a more delicate touch over hard and fast guidelines.
For most of us the issue is like was said before: It feels like Groundhog Day. They *don't learn* and keep making the same mistake year after year, edition after edition, and people continually make excuses for or give them a pass presumably because they feel mediocrity is "good enough" or like the models so much that they don't really care if they have to work the rules a bit to make them work better (or maybe they are lucky enough to be part of a group that doesn't mind house ruling or agreeing on things).
But there still remains the fact that we are paying a multi-million-pound company, with an international presence more money than we should (whether or not you feel it's justified, it's more than almost any other miniature manufacturer. There might be valid reasons i.e. the cost of maintaining stores, but it's still overpriced) for good models and probably the worst quality in rules (both from an actual rule design standpoint and quality as there are always tons of proofing errors or just poor wording that needs to be fixed), something that likely would never fly in any other product. That's the most frustrating part, is that it's gone well beyond can they and into the realm of "they don't want to" which makes it worse because it's baffling to have game designers who don't actually want to make a good game.
Wayniac wrote: For most of us the issue is like was said before: It feels like Groundhog Day. They *don't learn* and keep making the same mistake year after year, edition after edition, and people continually make excuses for or give them a pass presumably because they feel mediocrity is "good enough" or like the models so much that they don't really care if they have to work the rules a bit to make them work better (or maybe they are lucky enough to be part of a group that doesn't mind house ruling or agreeing on things).
But there still remains the fact that we are paying a multi-million-pound company, with an international presence more money than we should (whether or not you feel it's justified, it's more than almost any other miniature manufacturer. There might be valid reasons i.e. the cost of maintaining stores, but it's still overpriced) for good models and probably the worst quality in rules (both from an actual rule design standpoint and quality as there are always tons of proofing errors or just poor wording that needs to be fixed), something that likely would never fly in any other product.
Fair points. I don't agree that they don't learn, however. The newest books are proof of that despite the perceived power levels. They are better and more carefully written.
Just look at how often explosions are now tied to unmodified rolls rather than subject to modifiers.
I think it is unfair to compare video games, unless those are mobile games, to w40k. It is really hard to spend as much money on a game. For 800$ one can get a laptop good enough to play a lot of games. Same money spend on w40k, may give an army with all the required books, but that is it.
also a language quesiton. Can passion in english be negative, or is there a different word used for ti then?
Karol wrote: I think it is unfair to compare video games, unless those are mobile games, to w40k. It is really hard to spend as much money on a game. For 800$ one can get a laptop good enough to play a lot of games. Same money spend on w40k, may give an army with all the required books, but that is it.
An $800 laptop gets you nothing capable of playing any modern video game. Many popular video games also contain loot boxes or season passes. The cost of video gaming is pretty high compared to the models I had for 25 years still doing service and the new ones I have I expect to last just as long.
also a language quesiton. Can passion in english be negative, or is there a different word used for ti then?
It depends. One can have a passion for something negative, but to them they don't likely perceive it as negative.
An $800 laptop gets you nothing capable of playing any modern video game. Many popular video games also contain loot boxes or season passes. The cost of video gaming is pretty high compared to the models I had for 25 years still doing service and the new ones I have I expect to last just as long.
my sister got a tablet for half of that, 2 years ago, works fine, she can do anything with it. My step brother got a PC last year, for a bit over 900$ and he runs most games he likes on it all the time. So yeah maybe 800$ is not enough to play at best settings, but for us it is enough. 700$ right now doesn't even give an army with all the books needed to be played. And as far as loot boxs go, well w40k is full of those too, there is a yearly seson pass book too. Can't play the game without buying a new CA.
One can have a passion for something negative, but to them they don't likely perceive it as negative.
So passion as a word is considered something good. thanks for explaining.
Karol wrote: 700$ right now doesn't even give an army with all the books needed to be played. And as far as loot boxs go, well w40k is full of those too, there is a yearly seson pass book too. Can't play the game without buying a new CA.
Let's assume Primaris
CA - $35
Codex - $40
Supplement - $30
Primaris Start Collecting - $105 x 2 (assuming more expensive than current SC boxes)
ETB Redemptor - $40 x 2
Intercessors - $60
Invictor - $60 x 2
Librarian - $30
Captain - $35
Land Speeder - $35 x 3
That's $745 for 20 Infiltrators, 10 Intercessors, 6 Suppressors, 6 Eliminators, 2 Phobos Lts, Lib, Cpt, 3 Speeders, 2 Invictors, 2 Redepmtors at full retail price. That's damn near 2K points for a valid army. You can easily get all of this on eBay for 15% off (roughly $633).
Then you could say it's an average $50 a year in book refreshes. That laptop will be largely useless in 2 to 3 years.
So passion as a word is considered something good. thanks for explaining.
One can have a passion for murder or eating too much cake, so, not always good. So the determination of "good" is in the context of the situation and the observer.
That's $745 for 20 Infiltrators, 10 Intercessors, 6 Suppressors, 6 Eliminators, 2 Phobos Lts, Lib, Cpt, 3 Speeders, 2 Invictors, 2 Redepmtors at full retail price. That's damn near 2K points for a valid army. You can easily get all of this on eBay for 15% off (roughly $633).
and then you get to pay import tax, and 23% vat. And because the stuff costs more then a monthly salary here, the customs guys will open it 100% of time. Meaning you are paying more then 700$. But really am not going to argue about 10%. The difference is that a laptop or PC can be used for many things, and worse your watching movies on it. if you spend 600$ on a bad army, then paying 50$ per year to get updated rules sucks, specially when the updates don't fix a thing.
Then you could say it's an average $50 a year in book refreshes. That laptop will be largely useless in 2 to 3 years.
well good for you. I am using an 9 year old laptop right now, and I can tell you that is more useful then my army right now. more fun to use too.
One can have a passion for murder or eating too much cake, so, not always good. So the determination of "good" is in the context of the situation and the observer.
That is interesting. Always good to get to know new things about different stuff. The context thing decided by the observer is a very interesting thing.
The real world buying power of the average player has not increased in over 30 years, yet GW raises prices annually (often at a cost exceeding inflation.)
What does GW have to do with the lack of meaningful wage increases in the world?
Models get more expensive every year. They're expensive as it is, eventually they will be overpriced. It relates to salary in that eventually GW will hit a ceiling (they may already be hitting it with some boxed sets.)
GW releases new models with OP rules to increase sales, then walk them back a year later so consumers need to buy more models.
You mean like how they increased the points on the Executioner before the supplements came out? Or how buggies were modestly priced? I don't see GSC bikes and vehicles storming the scene, do you? Were eliminators dead hard when they came out? What about suppressors? What's the state of Venomcrawlers and CSM? I could go on...
I was thinking mostly about NuMarines, whose new rules fundamentally affect the mechanics of the game. Chaos' recent zenith was short lived.
But sure, there are exceptions to the OP factor. Just because something is not game changing does not mean it doesn't make another unit obsolete in terms of points efficiency.
GW actively undermines the competitive scene through factional power imbalances such that the best army is usually about whoever brought the fanciest models instead of the quality of the player.
K, well, let's ask those players about that then?
I'm not sure a poll is necessary. I'm taking about marketing strategies not attitudes towards the game.
Sure, there are some Nick Navarati types who can prevail through advanced strategies. They succeed at the larger tournaments. Look at the winning factions for smaller ones and you find a picture similar to what I described.
overpriced luxury goods with little worth after the initial purchase.
Really? Little worth? For models that hold their value for decades? You should recgonize that worth is underpinned by the luxury bar set by GW.
If I buy a box of models from GW and try to resell it on eBay, the return I can expect will be 25% - 50% lower if it's shrink wrapped.
If I assemble and paint a model, the return I can expect is maybe 30% of MSRP.
There are plenty of things I have that I can't sell, there are no buyers.
The cost to build a decent army using one of the popular factions is $1,000+. That's a pretty high cost of entry for something that immediately declines in value.
demanding price and rules stabilization - no new rules until GW fixes the problems with the old ones (call it the "Grey Knights" principle.) You shouldn't have to keep paying more for a broken product that doesn't serve other players very well.
The first is the consequence of the world. You can ask. You might not receive. The second is being asked for often and is received on a far more regular basis than before. Is it perfect? No.
Not sure I agree, but sure - maybe I ask for too much.
If prices stabilized for a few years, it would be cheaper to start playing the game. Maybe we could grow the community of players.
If rules stabilized for a few years, it would be easier to use the collections you already have. I'm not saying no new rules, I'm saying focus on balance.
Either way, there's a certain class of player who is skeptical about things like Psychic Awakening, Vigilus Ablaze, the Supplements, etc. What they add to the game leaves many factions further behind. There's a clear benefit to Space Marines right now, not really to other factions, and that's part of a cycle used to sell new models. While it's fine from the standpoint that GW is a business and can do what it wants, players should realize it's in their common interest to have some kind of stability in the game.
Going back to cost for a minute, let's say I spent $1500 on my Grey Knights army. Selling it right now would get me very little in return, the rules are so bad no one wants them.
If we're going to be asked to spend more and more relative to what we earn, it should be reasonable to ask that the game be maintained. Otherwise it has less objective value. GW is a business and we are consumers. Acting like our interests are immaterial is silly.
The company uses points / rules to sell models, the way they do it actively dilutes the value of what is essentially a luxury good. You can talk about attitudes all you want, but there's a point where your opinion devolves into an expression of how much this system has screwed you recently. You can talk about individual personalities within GW all you want, but the only one who matters is Kevin Roundtree who decides how this circus will play out year after year. You can talk about individual releases all you want, but GW is a billion dollar company who makes its money off volume of sales.
And these things are demonstrably false. Feeling burned by the CSM update taking second fiddle to Marines? I get that, but there's little reason to be absurd about everything to make that point.
I'm not trying to be absurd, I'm looking at the situation objectively and thinking about who benefits. If I'm wrong, tell me how without arguing about the rules. Part of my argument is that the rules system is being used to keep you from becoming aware how worthless the original purchase is.
I've tried to lay out the case for depreciation above, and think I was pretty gentle. Let me know your thoughts.
There's a relationship between price hikes and inflation, essentially GW jacks the price above the rate of inflation to continue increasing their bottom line. Models aren't just more expensive year to year, they are moving up the scale in class of goods.
GW has described it's corporate mission as finding people willing to spend money on high quality models. I take them at their word and believe my final point there aligns with their mission exactly. They do incentivize new model sales, even if not uniformly, that's their business model.
and then you get to pay import tax, and 23% vat. And because the stuff costs more then a monthly salary here, the customs guys will open it 100% of time. Meaning you are paying more then 700$. But really am not going to argue about 10%. The difference is that a laptop or PC can be used for many things, and worse your watching movies on it. if you spend 600$ on a bad army, then paying 50$ per year to get updated rules sucks, specially when the updates don't fix a thing.
The same wouldn't apply for a laptop? I totally get the frustration with GK. I expected GW to do more about them sooner. I'm at least partially optimistic that PA might give them more psychic prowess, but it otherwise seems like they're going to wait until they can rewrite a codex to update them. It's really quite confusing couple with the 'no primaris' tag line.
That is interesting. Always good to get to know new things about different stuff. The context thing decided by the observer is a very interesting thing.
Don't quote me on anything as I'm not a trained linguist and English is weird.
techsoldaten wrote: There is absolutely nothing about Games Workshop to be positive about.
And there we go. Ignoring anything and everything beyond this first sentence.
It was hyperbole to be sure, but you missed an otherwise decent post.
If you consider the opening statement of a post to be the introduction of your writing style and content, then opening it with hyperbolic negativity is a sure fire way to make me think "not really worth the time". Besides, I've probably already read whatever points are going to be made elsewhere already. I don't feel the need to dig through hyperbole to find worthwhile opinion that I've already gotten elsewhere.
And if the poster truly felt that there was "absolutely nothing positive about GW",
A: The poster would do well to acknowledge that there might be people in the conversation that might strongly disagree by softening the delivery of their opening and saving such statements for a conclusion.
B: There's probably so much disagreement between such a poster and myself that I hardly think I'd get any value out of reading it. For example, if said poster doesn't like ANY of the models produced by GW, regardless of price or function, then they're just operating from such a different base that I don't care what they have to say about the company as a whole.
Regarding models retaining "Value", the value is to the purchaser, not the resale.
I bought most of my Guardsmen when they were half the price they are now... maybe even less. Those Guardsmen have effectively appreciated in value, as to purchase them now would cost me at least twice as much.
While I couldn't sell the collection for what I paid... probably, I also couldn't *buy* the collection I have now for what I paid. Not even close. Yet I still get the same degree of enjoyment I would get if I purchased the models today.
I've bought a couple new boxes of dudes, NIB, this past year for KT. With the GK box, I hypothetically never need to buy more GK, as I should have all the options I'd ever need in the one box to play any KT I desire. And even if the price of plasti-crack goes up... my investment's value will also go up. I will always have that box's value worth of contents, to play with and appreciate as I see fit.
The value of models only drops when you lose interest in them. If try to sell them, the value drops. But if you keep them and play with them, the value remains the current value. If that makes sense.
I'm not angry. Frustrated? Disappointed? For sure. I'll beat the dead horse and say that GW was on the right track and veered back into crap-town. Oh well, I really like KT.
and then you get to pay import tax, and 23% vat. And because the stuff costs more then a monthly salary here, the customs guys will open it 100% of time. Meaning you are paying more then 700$. But really am not going to argue about 10%. The difference is that a laptop or PC can be used for many things, and worse your watching movies on it. if you spend 600$ on a bad army, then paying 50$ per year to get updated rules sucks, specially when the updates don't fix a thing.
The same wouldn't apply for a laptop? I totally get the frustration with GK. I expected GW to do more about them sooner. I'm at least partially optimistic that PA might give them more psychic prowess, but it otherwise seems like they're going to wait until they can rewrite a codex to update them. It's really quite confusing couple with the 'no primaris' tag line.
Does most of that even apply to GW stuff? I didnt think there would be import tax between EU countries. Nothing I've ever bought from the EU (including stuff from Poland) has had it.
Poland also doesn't suffer from GWs dodgy exchange rates. Prices are virtually the same as UK.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...Gw has become better, but they've also decided on an absurd release schedule. It's really hard to playtest, edit, and release book after book after book. They're over extending their employees, but this is what we wan't isn't it? If the codexes weren't coming out at break neck speed people would be just as pissed for the opposite reason...
Most games a) don't burn their core rulebook and re-release it every 2-4 years, b) partially update armies instead of burning their "codex" and re-releasing it every 2-4 years, and c) release stuff for everyone all at once. GW's written themselves into a corner with the "Codex" release model that forces them to be kind of crappy at writing the rules/balancing the game.
A lot of people were predicting re-releases of codexes as in just rewrites with nothing new this year. Obviously we got marines, but with a substantial "value-add". Models can't all be ready at the right times. It just is what it is and its better for models to have rules when they come out, isn't it? The manner of the supplements is potentially good for gamers, because they don't have to re-buy the supplement when the core SM book gets updated. Will it pan out like that? No idea. It could be we would see 9th before that's a thing.
The CSM book was a tragedy, but it exists for new players not the old -- points should have been in the PDF for previous owners.
A subscription model would solve a lot of problems for them and us, but it probably won't happen for a while yet (partially because people really like books).
...No, it's better for the writers/designers to plan their releases around giving everyone stuff in a more even manner instead of planning their releases around giving one army thirty thousand things at once and then not touching it for a decade.
AngryAngel80 wrote: It's just very hard for me to understand why someone else would suffer from anothers opinion of the game. Is it that strange to imagine people might make up their own decisions and not be swayed by the negative thoughts of another ?
Not addressing you personally, but in general the vibe I get from some replies is "I simply want to complain and I don't care about the other half of your argument where you talk about what would be helpful to do after complaining". At least the latter part is never/seldomly questioned.
For the last time : Complain all you want, just don't stop there and wait for GW to make it better. Try to make it better yourself.
Good: I'm not a fan of the direction GW took with 8th edition, for reasons X, Y, and Z. (Stolen from the last reply, thank you )
Bad: Army xy is the most broken thing ever. Why would anybody ever play sub-faction xyz again (Paraphrased from one of the threads about blue Iron Hands...)
No need to read all of it, but just the first few comments mentioning DakkaDakka and how those people perceived it at that time is very interesting, to say the least.
Is this really how we as a community want to present ourselves?
I get what you are saying but you can only do so much to make it better on your own. You give pie in the sky answers to problems. " Well, if your army sucks, get a new one " Not always is that even a real choice for time and money spent. " Well, get people to not take the armies they like " Yet again, not everyone that plays has every unit in an army, some only get the armies they want and can't really switch out whole lists on the fly to " make it fair " this is an expensive and time consuming hobby. " The price is too high " no real answer to this but to stop buying anything from GW. Sometimes all you have need of is a place to vent, and get how you feel out there with like minded folks.
Every internet post is full of hyperbole, even yours, you'd think from reading it we're all a bunch of monsters with only negative thoughts, we aren't. Yet again, this feels like a some people problem and not an everyone issue as most I've seen get proper answers on here.
As for what a post on reddit says about this forum, I really could not care any less what anyone on Reddit feels about anything really. You can't control how anyone chooses to want to view you, all you can control is how you view yourself and I think we're just fine. There, that's positive don't you think ? If you're so concerned about it, best not let on you come here, with all us evil fiends. Blood thirsty we are..and...Happy Halloween all you ghouls out there.
Sure on the other hand "my army sucks and I never win" can only be said so much before people get tiored of listening to the complaint. eventually they're going to tell you, "get a new army, stop playing, or discuss with your group some way to make it more fun" I do wanna stess that walking away from a game for a time can be healthy and people should be willing to do so. I've had other games I liked that I walked away from because of issues with it. (case in point I stepped away from D&D for the entire 4th edition)
The real world buying power of the average player has not increased in over 30 years, yet GW raises prices annually (often at a cost exceeding inflation.)
What does GW have to do with the lack of meaningful wage increases in the world?
I'm not interested in addressing the rest, but this shouldn't be hard. Eventually GW will need to adjust to this economic reality or go back to being a niche luxury within a niche hobby for 50 year old greybeard sysadmins. Right now they're pretty mainstream compared to what the hobby used to be, but that could change quickly in a downturn once wallets start to close.
What also compounds the price is the game's appetite for models, with a lot of changes in game mechanics and points that push players to these huge model counts. Early edition armies were tiny compared to what we got now. Not sure whether that's better or worse for the game itself (I'd argue worse), but it's definitely worse for people trying to build an army on a hobby budget of like 50-100 usd/mo.
GW actively undermines the competitive scene through factional power imbalances such that the best army is usually about whoever brought the fanciest models instead of the quality of the player.
K, well, let's ask those players about that then?
overpriced luxury goods with little worth after the initial purchase.
Really? Little worth? For models that hold their value for decades? You should recgonize that worth is underpinned by the luxury bar set by GW.
demanding price and rules stabilization - no new rules until GW fixes the problems with the old ones (call it the "Grey Knights" principle.) You shouldn't have to keep paying more for a broken product that doesn't serve other players very well.
The first is the consequence of the world. You can ask. You might not receive. The second is being asked for often and is received on a far more regular basis than before. Is it perfect? No.
The company uses points / rules to sell models, the way they do it actively dilutes the value of what is essentially a luxury good. You can talk about attitudes all you want, but there's a point where your opinion devolves into an expression of how much this system has screwed you recently. You can talk about individual personalities within GW all you want, but the only one who matters is Kevin Roundtree who decides how this circus will play out year after year. You can talk about individual releases all you want, but GW is a billion dollar company who makes its money off volume of sales.
And these things are demonstrably false. Feeling burned by the CSM update taking second fiddle to Marines? I get that, but there's little reason to be absurd about everything to make that point.
OK then -
Demonstrate.
Seriously, You say it is demonstrable -
I want to see your evidence,
because from where I sit,
few things could be more obvious than that techsoldaten is right about this.
Waiting for your demonstration, now....
As for holding value, that HAD been the case...
and I suppose after someone drops 30euro for a monopose character
because the rules are written in a way that demands it - i.e. no model, no rules, with the addition of special new guns and flying tanks to make sure that you NEED to get these models,
makes us want to BELIEVE that this will remain the case,
but given the throw-away CCG mentality top-down from GW,
I imagine that it will not take long for this sentiment to filter into the player/hobby base,
and that GW sees the perceived 'value' in their second-hand plastic toys diminishing rapidly.
Demonstrate what? That GW doesn't use points/rules to make new models OP to drive sales?
For every new model you think is OP to drive sales I'm certain we can point to another that came out as a pile of crap. As already pointed out, for every Wraith knight there's a venom crawler.
I do find it strange how we're talking about holding value on our little plastic toys. I have to say, I'm not buying these as an investment. Buy shares in GW if that's what you're after.
We also don't NEED anything. This is a luxury hobby that we all buy into on our own accord.
Sentineil wrote: Demonstrate what? That GW doesn't use points/rules to make new models OP to drive sales?
For every new model you think is OP to drive sales I'm certain we can point to another that came out as a pile of crap. As already pointed out, for every Wraith knight there's a venom crawler.
I do find it strange how we're talking about holding value on our little plastic toys. I have to say, I'm not buying these as an investment. Buy shares in GW if that's what you're after.
We also don't NEED anything. This is a luxury hobby that we all buy into on our own accord.
I would say with the way they do new weapons often, they probably do aim at least in part to make the new minis more desirable. They may just not be good enough at it to get it right. It could also be they aim to keep space marines just above the line to keep marine players happy and paying. And this leads to wild swings at times.
In a sense they may be aiming for new things to just be slightly better, but have no real gage on the game to get that tuned in.
BrianDavion wrote: Sure on the other hand "my army sucks and I never win" can only be said so much before people get tiored of listening to the complaint. eventually they're going to tell you, "get a new army, stop playing, or discuss with your group some way to make it more fun" I do wanna stess that walking away from a game for a time can be healthy and people should be willing to do so. I've had other games I liked that I walked away from because of issues with it. (case in point I stepped away from D&D for the entire 4th edition)
The easiest fix of all is, just don't read their post if you are tired of hearing of the complaints they post. That is really even easier than trying to tell someone to love it or leave it. Easier than trying to get people to make whole new armies just to play against your bad army, or just not doing something I assume you spend a lot of time in. Yes, if a game is causing you extreme angst, sure taking a moment to center is good, stepping away from a hobby you may have spent years and years or decades on to pray for a miracle as opposed to actually make it actively clear GW done messed up isn't always going to be what someone feels gets their view point out there.
Walk away if you hate it, sell out if you believe you'll never come back, fight for it if you actually still love it though.
Still the absolute easiest path to not having someones negative views color your world, is just not read them, as soon as you see what they are saying scroll past. If people can't master that very easy choice of interaction or avoidance they should work on that. The easiest change is always found in the self then to try tell someone else to stop speaking their opinions, good or bad.
You can feel free to walk away at any time, you can't however tell someone else to walk away, you do you, and let them do them.
They make rules to sell models. That doesnt mean that they make new things OP by default. Having new editions and other books(codex, suplements, wd) that changes balance forces sells. Gw isnt really competent enough to directly steer it but over the years most units in the SM book has been at the top at some point due to some random change that made that unit with that version of the codex in this version of the core rules the best and so people will buy it even if its an ugly old model that is expensive. Gw doesnt really have to intentionaly write new stuff good and they probably dont. At most I think they try to make them not suck and give larger priority in CA to balance them so they arent completely useless.
New primaris is the besr example.
Primaris units have slowly become better but except for the Invictor non of them have really launched with rules that by themselves are good enough to sell models. Most of them have been buffed or have points lowered and what makes them really good now is mostly the supporting CT, doctrines and stratagems and old vehicles(predators etc) or old units(tacticals) being underwhelming despite point decreases. The invictor which is one of the most disliked, or perhaps most split in opinion, for it looks is by far the best primaris unit and something competetive players buy 3 of just because its insane rules. I have bought 3 of them myself and are waiting for some 3d printed replacement parts to finish up my conversions of them cause I love the rules but not the model.
The easiest fix of all is, just don't read their post if you are tired of hearing of the complaints they post. That is really even easier than trying to tell someone to love it or leave it. Easier than trying to get people to make whole new armies just to play against your bad army, or just not doing something I assume you spend a lot of time in. Yes, if a game is causing you extreme angst, sure taking a moment to center is good, stepping away from a hobby you may have spent years and years or decades on to pray for a miracle as opposed to actually make it actively clear GW done messed up isn't always going to be what someone feels gets their view point out there.
.
but that doesn't really work that well. The moment you stop playing, you start to constantly think that you have no only spend a lot of money, but also spend it on something so bad it made you quit using it, so your now wasting the money double. First by buying bad stuff, and then by not using it for anything. I don't know about others, but when I stoped playing, it just made me unable to get a good sleep in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: Sure on the other hand "my army sucks and I never win" can only be said so much before people get tiored of listening to the complaint. eventually they're going to tell you, "get a new army, stop playing, or discuss with your group some way to make it more fun" I do wanna stess that walking away from a game for a time can be healthy and people should be willing to do so. I've had other games I liked that I walked away from because of issues with it. (case in point I stepped away from D&D for the entire 4th edition)
how did you deal with the wasted money, so it didn't bother you?
Karol wrote: I think it is unfair to compare video games, unless those are mobile games, to w40k. It is really hard to spend as much money on a game. For 800$ one can get a laptop good enough to play a lot of games. Same money spend on w40k, may give an army with all the required books, but that is it.
An $800 laptop gets you nothing capable of playing any modern video game. Many popular video games also contain loot boxes or season passes. The cost of video gaming is pretty high compared to the models I had for 25 years still doing service and the new ones I have I expect to last just as long.
also a language quesiton. Can passion in english be negative, or is there a different word used for ti then?
It depends. One can have a passion for something negative, but to them they don't likely perceive it as negative.
If you can't play a modern game on an 800dollar laptop then you are not wise in your purchasing of laptops to be used for gaming.
as for 25 years of service, this is just the thing -
you can't have one, lasting value of useful models, AND the radically revisionist numarine bizniz model that GW is pushing, and that might include paying people to shill for them on Dakka.
as for the negativity, complaints are expressions of perceived differences between what is actual and what is ideal.
GW (not the "hobby" as you try to frame things) is the subject of MUCH complaining because, well, they ar enot serving the interests of their stakeholders (the complainers).
If GW was, then there would be FEWER complaints.
Nothing is ideal,
but oh, how GW has gone so pitifully wrong...
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.
Again, the major issue seems to be that for most of GW's customers, the quality of the model is all that matters (and, to be honest, I find their style has gone way over the top in recent years, to the point of now being almost comical in the appearance and the number of pieces), and the rules are of secondary or even less importance.
While for many people this is fine, a lot of want some more "bite" in our wargaming and dislike the clearly MtG-inspired approach of 40k (and AOS) nowadays where it's more about how you combine units than how you use them on the field. And when you couple that with GW's track record of poorly written rules and wild internal and external balance, it really makes it hard sometimes to be overly positive about the game.
I'd wager for most of the "whiners", it's less "This game sucks" and more "Imagine if this game was well designed". I know for myself it's not hatred, it's more lament and pity. GW has no excuse to not have an amazingly designed set of rules that's correctly balanced (and no, nobody means "perfect balance" as that's an unachievable goal) other than they don't feel it's worthwhile to do, and the fact most of the GW community seem to agree (or, at least, don't think it's that big a deal) makes it worse. Doubly so when you have propaganda mills like FLG and the ITC peddling the idea that the game IS well balanced because you see 8 variations of the same unit choices doing well in tournaments, and those people have their hand on the direction of the game, no matter how minor it may be.
If you can't play a modern game on an 800dollar laptop then you are not wise in your purchasing of laptops to be used for gaming.
as for 25 years of service, this is just the thing -
you can't have one, lasting value of useful models, AND the radically revisionist numarine bizniz model that GW is pushing, and that might include paying people to shill for them on Dakka.
as for the negativity, complaints are expressions of perceived differences between what is actual and what is ideal.
GW (not the "hobby" as you try to frame things) is the subject of MUCH complaining because, well, they ar enot serving the interests of their stakeholders (the complainers).
If GW was, then there would be FEWER complaints.
Nothing is ideal,
but oh, how GW has gone so pitifully wrong...
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.
I stand corrected. There's a Dell with a 1060 for $850. Now add a single game @ $60. We're already well past the cost of many armies. Considering that game isn't going to keep your attention for as long as painting and playing there's considerably more value to be had in the hobby.
But few people rarely dive head first into the hobby. They gradually collect, borrow models, and play with friends.
====
Gw has "gone so pitifully wrong"? Have you been playing the game? Or are you just gak posting?
The easiest fix of all is, just don't read their post if you are tired of hearing of the complaints they post. That is really even easier than trying to tell someone to love it or leave it. Easier than trying to get people to make whole new armies just to play against your bad army, or just not doing something I assume you spend a lot of time in. Yes, if a game is causing you extreme angst, sure taking a moment to center is good, stepping away from a hobby you may have spent years and years or decades on to pray for a miracle as opposed to actually make it actively clear GW done messed up isn't always going to be what someone feels gets their view point out there.
.
but that doesn't really work that well. The moment you stop playing, you start to constantly think that you have no only spend a lot of money, but also spend it on something so bad it made you quit using it, so your now wasting the money double. First by buying bad stuff, and then by not using it for anything. I don't know about others, but when I stoped playing, it just made me unable to get a good sleep in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: Sure on the other hand "my army sucks and I never win" can only be said so much before people get tiored of listening to the complaint. eventually they're going to tell you, "get a new army, stop playing, or discuss with your group some way to make it more fun" I do wanna stess that walking away from a game for a time can be healthy and people should be willing to do so. I've had other games I liked that I walked away from because of issues with it. (case in point I stepped away from D&D for the entire 4th edition)
how did you deal with the wasted money, so it didn't bother you?
As someone who has collected war-games and figures over twenty five years, here are the best things to do:
1. Ask yourself "Will I be satisfied if I buy this model and all it does is sit on the shelf?"
2. Ask yourself "If I buy this game, and it just turns into an experience learning that I don't like it, will I be satisfied?"
3. Ask yourself "If I buy this book, will I be satisfied just reading it, and not using it to play a game?"
4. Ask yourself "If I buy this wargame, will I be satisfied if the rules turn into a DIY/group involvement project?"
What it really amounts to is, I suppose, the movie theatre question. If you pay $X to go to a movie, and you didn't like the movie, are you going to feel like you got your $X worth? If you can say "I paid for the experience, no matter the outcome" to a movie or a wargame, then you can sleep better at night.
If you have to say "I paid to see a good movie", there's a lot of wargaming I think you'll want to avoid.
Wayniac wrote: Again, the major issue seems to be that for most of GW's customers, the quality of the model is all that matters (and, to be honest, I find their style has gone way over the top in recent years, to the point of now being almost comical in the appearance and the number of pieces), and the rules are of secondary or even less importance.
While for many people this is fine, a lot of want some more "bite" in our wargaming and dislike the clearly MtG-inspired approach of 40k (and AOS) nowadays where it's more about how you combine units than how you use them on the field. And when you couple that with GW's track record of poorly written rules and wild internal and external balance, it really makes it hard sometimes to be overly positive about the game.
You're one of the few people that can express these thoughts without being ridiculous and I actually really appreciate that.
The MtG line has been parroted over and over again and I find it quite lacking. What do we think 7th was? This whole premise is a recently inspired meme that has caught on and gets wielded like a club. Were leaf-blower lists somehow NOT a MtG style where "it was more how you used them on the field"?
Should characters do nothing but shoot or fight?
And, still, despite these combinations I find no lack of decisions to make on the table -- beyond target priority. I really get the sense that some people don't play missions well and it shows.
I'd wager for most of the "whiners", it's less "This game sucks" and more "Imagine if this game was well designed". I know for myself it's not hatred, it's more lament and pity. GW has no excuse to not have an amazingly designed set of rules that's correctly balanced (and no, nobody means "perfect balance" as that's an unachievable goal) other than they don't feel it's worthwhile to do, and the fact most of the GW community seem to agree (or, at least, don't think it's that big a deal) makes it worse. Doubly so when you have propaganda mills like FLG and the ITC peddling the idea that the game IS well balanced because you see 8 variations of the same unit choices doing well in tournaments, and those people have their hand on the direction of the game, no matter how minor it may be.
It's all in how you want to view the world. "White knights" like myself recognize the flaws in the system. Its why I've spent over 100 hours coding and doing data entry to soften the edges of parts I don't like. The changes I see from GW are progressive. You could hardly say that anything that came out between the Castellan and marines was as oppressive as the Castellan. And we already have GW on the hook to deal with marines.
Now, our "job" is to play against the marines and figure out if they're still to strong or if they can be beaten. Clearly T'au has no problem doing so.
Either we work to make the system better or we piss and moan and everyone is unhappy. Would GW listen more to a unified community or a fractured one with a handful of people sending them really gakky emails?
Also, there is no propaganda from ITC or FLG -- at least not that I consume as I rarely catch their stream. Reece gave a heads up about IH and IF. The sentiment you see expressed is each individuals expression of ITC, because they've played both sides and they truly appreciate what ITC offers for competitive play.
Karol wrote: I think it is unfair to compare video games, unless those are mobile games, to w40k. It is really hard to spend as much money on a game. For 800$ one can get a laptop good enough to play a lot of games. Same money spend on w40k, may give an army with all the required books, but that is it.
An $800 laptop gets you nothing capable of playing any modern video game. Many popular video games also contain loot boxes or season passes. The cost of video gaming is pretty high compared to the models I had for 25 years still doing service and the new ones I have I expect to last just as long.
also a language quesiton. Can passion in english be negative, or is there a different word used for ti then?
It depends. One can have a passion for something negative, but to them they don't likely perceive it as negative.
If you can't play a modern game on an 800dollar laptop then you are not wise in your purchasing of laptops to be used for gaming.
as for 25 years of service, this is just the thing -
you can't have one, lasting value of useful models, AND the radically revisionist numarine bizniz model that GW is pushing, and that might include paying people to shill for them on Dakka.
as for the negativity, complaints are expressions of perceived differences between what is actual and what is ideal.
GW (not the "hobby" as you try to frame things) is the subject of MUCH complaining because, well, they ar enot serving the interests of their stakeholders (the complainers).
If GW was, then there would be FEWER complaints.
Nothing is ideal,
but oh, how GW has gone so pitifully wrong...
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.
How do you explain the popularity of the game if GW has gone 'so pitifully' wrong? In my local area there has been an explosion of 30-40 somethings coming back to the hobby and buying into 40k. We all have a blast, which always makes it difficult for me to reconcile the doom mongering and rage online.
The easiest fix of all is, just don't read their post if you are tired of hearing of the complaints they post. That is really even easier than trying to tell someone to love it or leave it. Easier than trying to get people to make whole new armies just to play against your bad army, or just not doing something I assume you spend a lot of time in. Yes, if a game is causing you extreme angst, sure taking a moment to center is good, stepping away from a hobby you may have spent years and years or decades on to pray for a miracle as opposed to actually make it actively clear GW done messed up isn't always going to be what someone feels gets their view point out there.
.
but that doesn't really work that well. The moment you stop playing, you start to constantly think that you have no only spend a lot of money, but also spend it on something so bad it made you quit using it, so your now wasting the money double. First by buying bad stuff, and then by not using it for anything. I don't know about others, but when I stoped playing, it just made me unable to get a good sleep in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: Sure on the other hand "my army sucks and I never win" can only be said so much before people get tiored of listening to the complaint. eventually they're going to tell you, "get a new army, stop playing, or discuss with your group some way to make it more fun" I do wanna stess that walking away from a game for a time can be healthy and people should be willing to do so. I've had other games I liked that I walked away from because of issues with it. (case in point I stepped away from D&D for the entire 4th edition)
how did you deal with the wasted money, so it didn't bother you?
As someone who has collected war-games and figures over twenty five years, here are the best things to do:
1. Ask yourself "Will I be satisfied if I buy this model and all it does is sit on the shelf?"
2. Ask yourself "If I buy this game, and it just turns into an experience learning that I don't like it, will I be satisfied?"
3. Ask yourself "If I buy this book, will I be satisfied just reading it, and not using it to play a game?"
4. Ask yourself "If I buy this wargame, will I be satisfied if the rules turn into a DIY/group involvement project?"
What it really amounts to is, I suppose, the movie theatre question. If you pay $X to go to a movie, and you didn't like the movie, are you going to feel like you got your $X worth? If you can say "I paid for the experience, no matter the outcome" to a movie or a wargame, then you can sleep better at night.
If you have to say "I paid to see a good movie", there's a lot of wargaming I think you'll want to avoid.
I salute you sir, this is the best bit of hobby advice I've seen on this board.
Taking part in the hobby requires customers to acknowledge that the models they buy won't always have the same rules, power or even outright legitimacy they had when they were purchased. I have close to 20k points of square based fantasy armies in my cabinet, and I occasionally get to put them on the table and play some 9th age or old WFB.
I think people who play also need to understand that it does require a level of continual financial investment if they want to play over an extended period of time. If you can't afford that continuing investment, it probably isn't the hobby for you.
I feel quite positive about the hobby itself. The models are better than ever IMO (a bit over the top, but I like that), and the pace of new releases is incredible. I remember the days where you had to play with old codices for years and years when a new edition came out. That sucked. And were lucky to get a few new models a year, and many of them were metal, which were a pain in the neck to convert and fell to pieces of you dropped them off the table. Now everything's a nice multi-part plastic kit. The pace and quality of output is really amazing.
I also quite like the new contrast paints. They make painting those fiddly bandages on my Ork boyz a breeze, and I like the result better than using shades or ink washes. Blood for the Blood God paint is also just amazing IMO! I haven't used other technical paints but I suspect they too are very good.
The 40K game itself I'm a bit less positive about. I commend GW for doing something risky and bold by rebooting the rules, because let's face facts, it was needed. I'm not totally satisfied with the result, because 8th removed, nerfed, or Index'd a lot of the things I liked most about my old Ork army (such as Looted wagons, large blast and flamer template weapons, Skorcha buggies, Mega-armored warboss, KFF Big Mek on foot, Trukks being a viable way to get Boyz from point A to point B, Lobbas, and hiding behind area terrain). I've kind of of needed to start over on my Ork army, which I guess is what marine players who like the new Primaris stuff are experiencing, so I can understand those salty feelings.
But if we're honest, is 8th really any worse than 3rd edition was? 3rd was a mess at launch, let us not forget. I remember so many 2nd-edition die-hards bemoaning the loss of depth and specificity, but ultimately 3rd edition ushered in a renaissance for the company and the game. I suspect 9th edition will be much better in the way that 4th fixed most of the problems with 3rd. It won't be perfect, and it will be annoyingly expensive, but hey, that's what we live with.
I will say that Popularity does not equal good. GW has a lot of weight, and a lot of places where for years it was the only game in town, the one that everyone played because the alternative was playing by yourself. Don't discount that. In an area where it's basically 40k or bust, of course it's going to be popular because anything else dies on the vine.
Also @Daedalus81, the mtG comparison comes fro the trying to stack psychic powers and buffs to make the "killer combo". I only played like two games of 7th edition but it didn't seem to have that problem (it had its own big issues, of course). Having played Warmahordes for a bit, the MtG style is also (way more) prevalent there so it at least feels like a similar goal. Reward trying to figure out "If I take X with Y and Z, and then I apply A, I can do 50 wounds in a turn" rather than "If I maneuver this unit here and if this other unit can hold its ground for a turn, I can get an advantage" sort of tactics which were traditionally what you saw in wargaming.
In regard of MtG, for me it was ruined at about 5th Edition when they began to push competive play and cynically enforce power creep and expansion spam. But the result was that the game became much less fun. After that, it was just "the Gathering": magic was lost.
But of course, in terms of sales and popularity, the changes were wildly successful for WotC so maybe I'm just a cantankerous old dinosaur who should retire to National Museum.
Also a difference in how you do the MTG style. Warmachine is built around it with smaller armies, sideboard/second list, and very well written rules to make it all possible.
In 40k its just an extra mechanic put on top of everything to cover for the lackluster basic rules. And the lack of standard for rules writing make it a mess.
Didnt feel as bad if the game was over turn 1/2 30 min in to the game there in Warmachine compared to doing it in 40k. Spending 30 min deploying and getting the game decided in your opponents turn 1 shooting phase feels way worse I feel. I dont even have to make a mistake, besides not playing the best list, in 40k to lose the game before I have even moved a single model. I had a lot of turn 1 wins as cryx in warmachine in which my opponent mostly blamed themselves for losing since they did a mistake, very rarely they blamed the game or the dice. Had they played correctly, and they knew it, I wouldnt have been able to do that combo for either a caster kill or scenario victory.
But showing up to a tournament and having a bad table for your matchup and going second you can just lose right there if not winning the roll off in 40k. In my last 3 tournaments game 1 I have killed about 115pts of enemy units while loosing over 5000pts. Worst matchup of the lists on worst board rolling of the worst deployment and going second. There wasnt a single thing I could do. Never happened in warmachine for me.
Having a third of the model count as 40k and half the time to play it makes tcg style combos much more bearable. You werent deploying 100+ models and expecting a 3h game in warmachine after all.
Also @Daedalus81, the mtG comparison comes fro the trying to stack psychic powers and buffs to make the "killer combo". I only played like two games of 7th edition but it didn't seem to have that problem (it had its own big issues, of course). Having played Warmahordes for a bit, the MtG style is also (way more) prevalent there so it at least feels like a similar goal. Reward trying to figure out "If I take X with Y and Z, and then I apply A, I can do 50 wounds in a turn" rather than "If I maneuver this unit here and if this other unit can hold its ground for a turn, I can get an advantage" sort of tactics which were traditionally what you saw in wargaming.
One of those things happens at list building. "Theoretically my army can do X." You won't be wondering whether or not your units will maneuver to deal with a situation at that time.
When I'm playing there are choices to make. People with reductive reasoning boil it down to target priority and perhaps its true for those who simply play little of the mission and shot gunline all game. For me, however, (this is in ITC) I've found it important that I can exploit non-combat objectives when I come up against a list designed to limit my ability to score secondaries or is otherwise hard to kill. I might find myself shooting a non-optimal unit to open a hole big enough to sneak scarabs into a backfield objective or their DZ. I have to be hyper cognizant of their flyers, their ability to pull off my spreaders, and sneak a flyer in to assassinate a character.
There is a lot to mentally do other than X shoots Y and as effectively as possible and I win.
And you can see units like what you speak of in the Incursors and Haywire Mines, but that unit isn't always going to shape the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klickor wrote: Also a difference in how you do the MTG style. Warmachine is built around it with smaller armies, sideboard/second list, and very well written rules to make it all possible.
In 40k its just an extra mechanic put on top of everything to cover for the lackluster basic rules. And the lack of standard for rules writing make it a mess.
Didnt feel as bad if the game was over turn 1/2 30 min in to the game there in Warmachine compared to doing it in 40k. Spending 30 min deploying and getting the game decided in your opponents turn 1 shooting phase feels way worse I feel. I dont even have to make a mistake, besides not playing the best list, in 40k to lose the game before I have even moved a single model. I had a lot of turn 1 wins as cryx in warmachine in which my opponent mostly blamed themselves for losing since they did a mistake, very rarely they blamed the game or the dice. Had they played correctly, and they knew it, I wouldnt have been able to do that combo for either a caster kill or scenario victory.
But showing up to a tournament and having a bad table for your matchup and going second you can just lose right there if not winning the roll off in 40k. In my last 3 tournaments game 1 I have killed about 115pts of enemy units while loosing over 5000pts. Worst matchup of the lists on worst board rolling of the worst deployment and going second. There wasnt a single thing I could do. Never happened in warmachine for me.
Having a third of the model count as 40k and half the time to play it makes tcg style combos much more bearable. You werent deploying 100+ models and expecting a 3h game in warmachine after all.
I think something is quite wrong if you're getting tabled every single game and can't kill more than what amounts to 3 squads of IS. Seems...off...
When I play dice are never a topic as to why the game was lost. I review with my opponent what they think I could have done differently and I do the same for them.
And there are no 'bad tables' in ITC. Everything is standardized as are other formats.
In Sweden we have very varied terrain in tournaments ITC or non ITC. Very rarely are the tables mirrored. Usually more terrain on most tables than what I have seen from tournaments in the US. Makes each game more interesting most of the time but sometimes a table slips through and is quite bad for certain matchups but if its one out of 10-20+ tables it isnt so bad.
Three tournaments in a row I got the most open table in my opening game. Had deployment been quarters or short side it would have been ok but long side each time. Of course I didnt get to choose side either so there it got slightly worse but wouldnt have changed who won but only by how much. And then I got to go second with my Blood Angels against 3 shooty armies. Twice against guard and once against freebootas. The terrain on the table against the ork player would block line of sight well if he only had infantry but he had 3 fliers and 2 gork/morkanoughts that just saw over everything so only 5 scouts on the table were completely out of los.
I could of course have killed 5-10x more pts in each of those games if we played during the times when killpoints or victorypoints were all that mattered to not lose as much but I tried to go for the unlikely comeback in each game and gambled since my chance of winning if not gambling was 0 at that point. And wins are much much more important than a few VPs during a loss. I was really unlucky those 3 times and I kmow if it had been any other table it could have been a very different results. Despite smash captains getting the charges in all games I didnt kill a single thing. I even had extra attacks from "unleash rage" power but my opponents made a ton of 5++ or 6+ saves so my BA smash captain with all buffs failed to kill a single vehicle. Same with captain nr 2 and my Librarian dreadnought or my DC...
The other games I played during those tournaments were all close with some wins, some losses and a few draws as well.
But I feel like you have not played many games if dice have never decided a game for you. I have had games in fantasy in which the first spell turn 1 miscasts and half the army flees. Assassination attemps in warmachine in I needed to not roll like 4+ones in a row with a single reroll for back up. Or in 40k having units like terminators getting 0 hits after a charge despite being mastercrafted or having a large blast miss, scatter and hit even better than the original target and then having a few important units flee of the table turn 1. Or something people at my club still talk about from a team tournament when my friends opponent scattered 10-12 inches into the same terrain piece 6 or 7 times in a row. 9" would have been fine.
Sometimes dice just decide it for you. The guard player I met in the 2 tournaments is a former ETC player who is working his way back on the national rankings and the team again. We discussed the games and we both came to the same conclusion. On that table all I could do was deploy rather aggressively and hope for turn 1 or hope he rolls bad and I roll good. But on some of the city tables he could have been toast.
Vankraken wrote: I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?
I also don't find 8th very fun.
Kill Team and Apocalypse are both great though. There are lots of ways of playing 40K now.
Klickor wrote: They make rules to sell models. That doesnt mean that they make new things OP by default. Having new editions and other books(codex, suplements, wd) that changes balance forces sells. Gw isnt really competent enough to directly steer it but over the years most units in the SM book has been at the top at some point due to some random change that made that unit with that version of the codex in this version of the core rules the best and so people will buy it even if its an ugly old model that is expensive. Gw doesnt really have to intentionaly write new stuff good and they probably dont. At most I think they try to make them not suck and give larger priority in CA to balance them so they arent completely useless.
Games Workshop did not grow into what it is by accident. It's safe to assume there's intent behind rules, design, and marketing strategy, and that the company makes conscious decisions about how to organize its activities to achieve a profit.
Nothing sinister about that, by the way. There wouldn't be a 40k if they didn't.
What bothers me is the release cycle, GW keeps players buying new models through power leveling. There are consequences to this marketing strategy that are not good for wargamers.
Aside from what anyone does with plastic soliders on a table, 40k is a game between Games Workshop and individual tabletop wargamers. Each has a goal they seek to achieve within a set of constraints. For wargamers, the goal is to collect, build, and entertain themselves with a collection of models. For Games Workshop, the goal is to maximize their profits by supplying the tools necessary to do so, and part of that is selling new models. This is the real game, the rules for the tabletop are a means to encourage sales.
New models are expensive. Games Workshop is very good at getting people to buy them, it's their main line of business. Assuming anything about their marketing strategy is unintentional is naive, market success for companies selling tabletop games is exceptionally rare.
Happy to agree new releases are not always OP, but that's also not the only tool GW uses to put wargamers at a disadvantage. GW constantly modifies rules in ways that manipulate the value of the models players already own. Think about it. FAQs and Chapter Approved have made Forgeworld all but unusuable. New Codexes mean wargamers are constantly adjusting their lists to adapt to the new meta. New Editions fundamentally alter the meta, I can't think of a list that survives one edition to the next. Campaigns like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening don't seem to do much but buff a few units that don't have a place in most lists.
If you think this is just a way to achieve balance in the game, how come that never happens? More precisely, why does that only happen for some factions? How come factions like Grey Knights languish at the bottom of a competitive stack while NuMarines just got a ruleset that's the envy of all other factions? Or Necrons, or Renegades and Heretics, or Old Marines. Is that some unfortunate oversight that happens because an overworked rules team who just can't get around to reexamining balance in the game, or is that the result of a marketing plan skewed toward the constant sale of new models?
You start to see the consequences of the real game when you consider 40k isn't cheap. Let's say someone spent $2,000 on an army, buying it direct from Games Workshop. Immediately, those models lost 10% - 25% of their worth because they can be bought for that price off eBay new in the box. Once you assemble them, they have lost about 50% of their worth, because that's what someone pays for assembled models. If you paint them, you've lost about 70% of the worth and have a much smaller pool of people to buy them because different folks have different tastes.
Now take that out a year. Chapter Approved changed the cost of your infantry, either you need more or less of it. There was a campaign book that added some special rules for your elite troops, now you need a copy to benefit from the rule. There's a new tank that has twice the range of the one you currently own for less points, now you need that. You buy all this new stuff, the real cost of your army has increased to $2,500.
Now take all that to the competitive scene. A new Codex just came out, the other faction that was bad a year ago is now dominating competitions. That's not so bad, but GW just released a beta rule that makes it illegal to use a strategy your army relied on. You don't want to get shot off the table, so you switch your list to a different playstyle entirely. It works, kind of, but you can see how it could be a lot better. So you go back to the well and get a bunch more models to add to your army. The real cost for that army just went up to $3,380. Had you bought the models a month earlier, you could have avoided the annual price increase.
Now take that out a couple years. There's a new edition, you need to buy a bunch of rulebooks. Despite some encouraging blog posts, you find it's impossible to run the list you used before. You have mixed feelings about the army now, some other faction does a lot better in the new meta. But you love those models you painted, all those little freehand details mean so much to you. You invest in a shelf to place them on, then start the cycle again with a new army. The real cost stands at $3,380 for what is now a decoration you keep in the closet, plus the cost of a new army should you decide to continue playing. Many people don't. If you decide to sell it, great, but your faction is unpopular now so there's only so much you can expect in return.
Putting aside the cost in dollars, what is the intrinsic worth of that army at each of the different points in that story? Is that wargamer ever satisfied with what they have, or are they constantly reaching for that next branch? What other things do you spend thousands of dollars on annually that leaves you without a feeling of satisfaction?
40k is not cheap. It's priced at a level that makes it an army a luxury purchase. GW's marketing tactics wouldn't matter so much if it was less expensive, we could say it's a disposable commodity that isn't supposed to last forever.
Games Workshop could be employing other marketing strategies to sell new models and be just as successful. It's possible to imagine a tabletop game where rules / points / new releases are not so extreme, where the game can continue to evolve without making armies obsolete every few years. But they are in a game with wargamers, and their incentives are to extract every dollar possible at the lowest cost necessary to deliver something people will buy. They've fine tuned their model to do that to a level allowing them to become a very valuable company.
As players, we are in a game with GW. Instead of speaking up about how the real game works, our attention is focused on the tabletop. That's just the way Games Workshop wants it, they give you lots of convoluted rules to argue about endlessly on the Internet. If you stopped to think about the money you spend on models, it gets harder to make the case for why someone would want to do this. In a very real sense, it doesn't matter if you are positive or negative about the tabletop, as long as you are still thinking about the tabletop. Wargamers come and go from this hobby everyday, your opinion won't be missed should you choose to quit.
But they don't want to think about what the real game. If you did, you wouldn't stand for things like making entire factions obsolete, treating Xenos as an oversight, going decades without a new sculpt, and the like. Even if these issues didn't affect you personally, you'd know it's not healthy for the tabletop when Games Workshop fails to use its resources to avoid them.
I get what you are saying but you can only do so much to make it better on your own. You give pie in the sky answers to problems. " Well, if your army sucks, get a new one " Not always is that even a real choice for time and money spent. " Well, get people to not take the armies they like " Yet again, not everyone that plays has every unit in an army, some only get the armies they want and can't really switch out whole lists on the fly to " make it fair " this is an expensive and time consuming hobby. " The price is too high " no real answer to this but to stop buying anything from GW.
Well, I never said my possible solutions are the end all be all or applicable in every situation. Doesn't hurt to bring them up though and maybe brainstorm with others who are in the same boat how they deal with it, does it?
As for what a post on reddit says about this forum, I really could not care any less what anyone on Reddit feels about anything really. You can't control how anyone chooses to want to view you, all you can control is how you view yourself and I think we're just fine. There, that's positive don't you think ? If you're so concerned about it, best not let on you come here, with all us evil fiends. Blood thirsty we are..and...Happy Halloween all you ghouls out there.
Not caring about what other people think about yourself is imo a good and healthy attitude in general, I agree. But (of course there is a but ) in this case you are not the only one who has to live with the feedback of your actions. People on Reddit did not say "Dakka is a big forum, but beware of AngryAngel80, he is annoying" (not saying that you are, just using your name as an example). They say "Dakka is a big forum, but the discussion culture in general there is gak". People are actively warning about engaging in a discussion here. We are keeping people who share the same hobby away from our community.
Personally speaking, I would gladly exchange hyperbole and "Wild West" attitudes for more people joining the community. I don't expect you to agree with me, but maybe it gets some of the readers thinking.
I feel this is directed at me, as I interchange "Buying, building, painting, playing with Games Workshop products and engaging fellow players" freely with the word "hobby" for practical reasons. I thought within the scope and environment of this discussion it is clear what "the hobby" stands for.
but oh, how GW has gone so pitifully wrong...
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.
That you ignore all the areas where the hobby ( ) improved over time and is in a better place than ever is you being ignorant or a troll.
There, I can do that, too. And if I click on "Submit" now without writing anything further the only thing I achieve is you likely getting annoyed at my post.
In my opening post, most of my points are objectively better than when I started playing in 3rd edition. Saying that I (and people who agree with it) are either romantically idealizing or shills is honestly very weak.
Some problems from 3rd edition are still around, but other areas got better and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging it and maybe even be a tiny little bit happy about it.
Klickor wrote: In Sweden we have very varied terrain in tournaments ITC or non ITC. Very rarely are the tables mirrored. Usually more terrain on most tables than what I have seen from tournaments in the US. Makes each game more interesting most of the time but sometimes a table slips through and is quite bad for certain matchups but if its one out of 10-20+ tables it isnt so bad.
Three tournaments in a row I got the most open table in my opening game. Had deployment been quarters or short side it would have been ok but long side each time. Of course I didnt get to choose side either so there it got slightly worse but wouldnt have changed who won but only by how much. And then I got to go second with my Blood Angels against 3 shooty armies. Twice against guard and once against freebootas. The terrain on the table against the ork player would block line of sight well if he only had infantry but he had 3 fliers and 2 gork/morkanoughts that just saw over everything so only 5 scouts on the table were completely out of los.
I could of course have killed 5-10x more pts in each of those games if we played during the times when killpoints or victorypoints were all that mattered to not lose as much but I tried to go for the unlikely comeback in each game and gambled since my chance of winning if not gambling was 0 at that point. And wins are much much more important than a few VPs during a loss. I was really unlucky those 3 times and I kmow if it had been any other table it could have been a very different results. The other games I played during those tournaments were all close with some wins, some losses and a few draws as well.
But I feel like you have not played many games if dice have never decided a game for you. I have had games in fantasy in which the first spell turn 1 miscasts and half the army flees. Assassination attemps in warmachine in I needed to not roll like 4+ones in a row with a single reroll for back up. Or in 40k having units like terminators getting 0 hits after a charge despite being mastercrafted or having a large blast miss, scatter and hit even better than the original target and then having a few important units flee of the table turn 1. Or something people at my club still talk about from a team tournament when my friends opponent scattered 10-12 inches into the same terrain piece 6 or 7 times in a row. 9" would have been fine.
Sometimes dice just decide it for you. The guard player I met in the 2 tournaments is a former ETC player who is working his way back on the national rankings and the team again. We discussed the games and we both came to the same conclusion. On that table all I could do was deploy rather aggressively and hope for turn 1 or hope he rolls bad and I roll good. But on some of the city tables he could have been toast.
Your experience doesn't seem like an impeachment of 40K, but rather that of bad table design coupled with unfavorable matchups coupled with worst case deployment zones. Given the chance for that I would be designing my lists to take advantage of drop pods and use other means to hide units or pressure my opponent.
Dice are a factor, because its a dice game, but it doesn't help me to focus on whatever wild swings might pop up, because I can't change them. Plan for the worst - hope for the best.
There are totally bad tables in ITC. I played a tau list (guy that won nova) at BAO on a terrible table. His riptides on top of a couple crates could see the entire board (their height + true LOS = I can see his sword tip so the unit is dead) + dawn of war deployment meant I got to eat an entire round of re-roll everything tau shooting which removed 1/4+ of my army before I could even act. The disparity in fire-power after that was too much to come back from.
VS my marine soup that game was over before the dice were rolled. No LOS blocking (ruins in the middle was a hangar that you could see through) he went first, game over.
Another poster hit it on the head. It has become painfully apparent that GW is all about the churn. Models that were good in 7th are no where near the top in 8th. At this point it is clear that GW is pushing model sales with rules and that feels slimy.
GW is sloppy in their rule writing. They don't take the time to think how changes will effect a lot of units. For example, my wulfen are a non-starter vs TFCs + tremor shells. There is no counter play for me, halving my move/advance/charge turns my 200 point unit into battlefield decoration. (I guess I could outflank them but finding a spot to come in w/in 6" of a board edge to make a 9" charge with about a 50/50 chance isn't viable). With one wave of their hand 100+ bucks of units I bought and spent 20-30+ hours painting to play the game are on the shelf.
The new primaris Tigurius unit is the same. I literally bought a "new" Tigurius model 6 months before the primaris one came out and now have a model that I cannot "legally" use in a game of 40k that I bought in this edition, only a few months ago with no warning that it may be invalidated and just finished painting in time for it to go on my shelf forever. There is nothing to be positive about in this situation.
GWs push for churn combined with their half-butt'd balance changes (eldar flyers, shield drones, DA/BA/SW/DW/GK) has taken a hobby that I was excited to return to and turned it into something I'm not enjoying anymore. They are causing me to step away from something that I enjoy which I am justifiably salty about. How is it any different than complaining about TFG at your local game store that makes games unbearable just because the culprit is the company selling me the game?
I wouldnt blame table design too much. The tables were better than those in earlier editions its just how lethal some stuff are and how some factions are just worse than others. I used to use pods and rhinos and even landspeeders and land raiders to protect my stuff. But if I were to do that now I would perhaps not lose as fast turn 1 in some matchups but my whole army would be so much worse that I would win even less. Wouldnt make me win a single matchup more, only die slower. Very few armies can take the beating from the output some units have now. So many units die so fast so sometimes all that matters is getting first turn in some matchups.
Klickor wrote: I wouldnt blame table design too much. The tables were better than those in earlier editions its just how lethal some stuff are and how some factions are just worse than others. I used to use pods and rhinos and even landspeeders and land raiders to protect my stuff. But if I were to do that now I would perhaps not lose as fast turn 1 in some matchups but my whole army would be so much worse that I would win even less. Wouldnt make me win a single matchup more, only die slower. Very few armies can take the beating from the output some units have now. So many units die so fast so sometimes all that matters is getting first turn in some matchups.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 4th edition rulebook had a way to generate what kind of terrain would be set up in certain sections of the table, didn't it?
That could be something to bring back along with meaningful terrain rules.
Klickor wrote: I wouldnt blame table design too much. The tables were better than those in earlier editions its just how lethal some stuff are and how some factions are just worse than others. I used to use pods and rhinos and even landspeeders and land raiders to protect my stuff. But if I were to do that now I would perhaps not lose as fast turn 1 in some matchups but my whole army would be so much worse that I would win even less. Wouldnt make me win a single matchup more, only die slower. Very few armies can take the beating from the output some units have now. So many units die so fast so sometimes all that matters is getting first turn in some matchups.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 4th edition rulebook had a way to generate what kind of terrain would be set up in certain sections of the table, didn't it?
That could be something to bring back along with meaningful terrain rules.
I think that was the 5th ed brb. I don't recall 4th ed having randomized terrain.
3rd ed apparently had a system where you determine what sort of climate you're fighting it, but I'm not sure.
Klickor wrote: I wouldnt blame table design too much. The tables were better than those in earlier editions its just how lethal some stuff are and how some factions are just worse than others. I used to use pods and rhinos and even landspeeders and land raiders to protect my stuff. But if I were to do that now I would perhaps not lose as fast turn 1 in some matchups but my whole army would be so much worse that I would win even less. Wouldnt make me win a single matchup more, only die slower. Very few armies can take the beating from the output some units have now. So many units die so fast so sometimes all that matters is getting first turn in some matchups.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 4th edition rulebook had a way to generate what kind of terrain would be set up in certain sections of the table, didn't it?
That could be something to bring back along with meaningful terrain rules.
I think that was the 5th ed brb. I don't recall 4th ed having randomized terrain.
3rd ed apparently had a system where you determine what sort of climate you're fighting it, but I'm not sure.
I want to say the 4th edition had that climate thing too, but my memory is foggy.
I think people who play also need to understand that it does require a level of continual financial investment if they want to play over an extended period of time. If you can't afford that continuing investment, it probably isn't the hobby for you.
good thing that no where in the rules those it say that, and if you ask at a store or forum, you either get no response or get the whole play what you want story, which the most bs thing I have ever been told in my life, since my mom told me I could visit my dad when ever I want.
Plus what would someone playing a bad army spend the money on? More bad stuff,?
techsoldaten wrote: Happy to agree new releases are not always OP, but that's also not the only tool GW uses to put wargamers at a disadvantage.
Here we go - the classic arguing both sides of the coin.
GW constantly modifies rules in ways that manipulate the value of the models players already own. Think about it. FAQs and Chapter Approved have made Forgeworld all but unusuable. New Codexes mean wargamers are constantly adjusting their lists to adapt to the new meta. New Editions fundamentally alter the meta, I can't think of a list that survives one edition to the next. Campaigns like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening don't seem to do much but buff a few units that don't have a place in most lists.
Ok guys we can tell GW to stop trying to balance the game. Its all a ploy. Absolutely none of the units that got point drops in CA needed them, right? Those sneaky GW bastards making the bad units cheaper.
Plenty of FW models are strong. It's just the giant-ass models that have no purpose being in 40K competitive.
If you think this is just a way to achieve balance in the game, how come that never happens? More precisely, why does that only happen for some factions? How come factions like Grey Knights languish at the bottom of a competitive stack while NuMarines just got a ruleset that's the envy of all other factions? Or Necrons, or Renegades and Heretics, or Old Marines. Is that some unfortunate oversight that happens because an overworked rules team who just can't get around to reexamining balance in the game, or is that the result of a marketing plan skewed toward the constant sale of new models?
It has happened and continues to happen. When new unit types become available to armies it changes up a lot of how the game works. Having snipers become a regular appearance when they were practically unheard of 6 months ago changes a lot about the game. The Castellan was a complex combination of a too strong unit and soup. NO ONE on this board could agree on the right fix to that problem and ignoring the procedural steps GW took to nerf it is ignoring history to make a specious point.
Old marines are doing great with the new book. People just like Primaris more, because new models are cool (and consequently less expensive to field). Necrons are competitive. It also seems quite possible that R&H is being shaped up for a release under GW proper given the models popping up in Blackstone Fortress. GK is the odd man out, because their army is focused around a unique aspect that hampers their points cost. The +1A was a bigger buff for them than any marine army - it just isn't enough to tip the balance for them yet.
If it's some marketing ploy then why did old marines get more new direct buffs than Primaris in the new book?
You start to see the consequences of the real game when you consider 40k isn't cheap. Let's say someone spent $2,000 on an army, buying it direct from Games Workshop. Immediately, those models lost 10% - 25% of their worth because they can be bought for that price off eBay new in the box. Once you assemble them, they have lost about 50% of their worth, because that's what someone pays for assembled models. If you paint them, you've lost about 70% of the worth and have a much smaller pool of people to buy them because different folks have different tastes.
Are metal models replaced by superior plastics going to drop in price? You bet.
Now take that out a year. Chapter Approved changed the cost of your infantry, either you need more or less of it. There was a campaign book that added some special rules for your elite troops, now you need a copy to benefit from the rule. There's a new tank that has twice the range of the one you currently own for less points, now you need that. You buy all this new stuff, the real cost of your army has increased to $2,500.
It doesn't help to just make up numbers along side ridiculous assumptions.
Now take all that to the competitive scene. A new Codex just came out, the other faction that was bad a year ago is now dominating competitions. That's not so bad, but GW just released a beta rule that makes it illegal to use a strategy your army relied on. You don't want to get shot off the table, so you switch your list to a different playstyle entirely. It works, kind of, but you can see how it could be a lot better. So you go back to the well and get a bunch more models to add to your army. The real cost for that army just went up to $3,380. Had you bought the models a month earlier, you could have avoided the annual price increase.
Oh, I see, we're still in Make-gak-up-istan. Good day.
jeff white wrote:you can't have one, lasting value of useful models, AND the radically revisionist numarine bizniz model that GW is pushing, and that might include paying people to shill for them on Dakka.
Let's be logical here. Do you really think that positive opinions of GW are because they're paying people to support them? Doubtful. I bloody love Primaris, should I be getting paid for that? Preferably in Intercessor Squads, or Repulsors.
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.
Or simply personal preference? I think 40k is the best it's been since I started, and I've only been playing for just over a decade. I'm not being paid for that belief, and I'm certainly not supportive of all GW policies. However, do I have positive feelings about this edition than previous ones? Overwhelmingly yes. But that's just my opinion. You're entitled to yours.
I just find it amusing when a post encouraging and celebrating positivity is drowned out by more of the negative feelings that are seemingly everywhere else. That fine, express yourself and vent, but does it need to be *everywhere*?
ewar wrote:Taking part in the hobby requires customers to acknowledge that the models they buy won't always have the same rules, power or even outright legitimacy they had when they were purchased. I have close to 20k points of square based fantasy armies in my cabinet, and I occasionally get to put them on the table and play some 9th age or old WFB.
Accurate. That doesn't mean that you can't get satisfaction and enjoyment from it with what you have already. There's no need for continual purchases if you don't want to, which I think is the important part.
I think people who play also need to understand that it does require a level of continual financial investment if they want to play over an extended period of time. If you can't afford that continuing investment, it probably isn't the hobby for you.
Don't agree with that. This only applies if you want to keep expanding or staying "on top" of the meta. But for the person with their full company/Chapter of Marines, or the one who has a lovingly built and grown army that they think is now at an organic "end" point? What financial investment do they need? They can still keep playing with their models, the core rules are free, datasheets are freely handed out with the kits they come in (and, as a result, in my eyes are free), and once you have models, terrain, dice, and other apparatus, unless they are lost/damaged, you don't need to buy more.
So, to play 40k long term, I don't agree that you need continual investment. If by 40k, you only mean tournament/matched play, then by my books, that's only part of 40k, not all of it.
Another poster hit it on the head. It has become painfully apparent that GW is all about the churn. Models that were good in 7th are no where near the top in 8th. At this point it is clear that GW is pushing model sales with rules and that feels slimy.
How many of these do you see on top tables regularly?
Master of Possession
Dark Apostle
CSM Greater Possessed
VC Armigers
Reivers
Honor Guard
Helblasters
Custodians
Wardens
Metamorphs
Locus
Biophagus
Ridgerunners
Jackals
Rockgrinder
Goliath
Plague Marines
The new Skitarii transport (I don't even know its friggin' name that's how common it is)
Any terrain piece
How many of these did you see before the marine books?
Land Speeders
Devs Drop Pods
Centurions
Whirlwinds
TFCs Librarians
GW is sloppy in their rule writing. They don't take the time to think how changes will effect a lot of units. For example, my wulfen are a non-starter vs TFCs + tremor shells. There is no counter play for me, halving my move/advance/charge turns my 200 point unit into battlefield decoration. (I guess I could outflank them but finding a spot to come in w/in 6" of a board edge to make a 9" charge with about a 50/50 chance isn't viable). With one wave of their hand 100+ bucks of units I bought and spent 20-30+ hours painting to play the game are on the shelf.
So, you expect GW to never have a rule that limits movement, because it might affect a unit that wouldn't like that? Seems more like you just like giving up especially with a unit that rerolls its charge has a much better than 50/50 shot. I'm not really feeling bad for the unit swinging 5 times with a power fist axe with no modifier, 2s to hit, run and charge, 5+++, 2 wounds, and death throes.
The new primaris Tigurius unit is the same. I literally bought a "new" Tigurius model 6 months before the primaris one came out and now have a model that I cannot "legally" use in a game of 40k that I bought in this edition, only a few months ago with no warning that it may be invalidated and just finished painting in time for it to go on my shelf forever. There is nothing to be positive about in this situation.
....just use your old model as Primaris...there is nothing that states this is illegal....
Re-roll 9" charge is about a 47% chance, using a cp or re-roll all bumps it up to about 52%...
It's not just a rule that lowers movement but one that has no counter play. Can reduce the movement on 2 units, no one cares about LOS, range is the whole table, no ability to interact with the strat. GW doubling down on rock, paper, scissors which leads to matches decided before models hit the table...
I didn't say that newly released models are top of the pile, just models that were popular in previous editions are not the units with the best rules this edition (reapers, shining spears, primaris were never seen on a table in 7th, grav and cents started this edition as non-competitive, thunder wolf cav are laughably bad, bikes, wraithknights, rhinos, drop pods, broadsides, screamers, warp spiders, fen wolves...). Nothing is universal but on balance it doesn't seem like a hard pattern to recognize.
Using the old tiggy as a new primaris tiggy is not viable without significant kit-bashing as the sizes are not the same and I don't know about your area but in mine the model profiles have to be similar to use a conversion. Counts as are frowned upon in most to all tournaments.
bananathug wrote: I didn't say that newly released models are top of the pile, just models that were popular in previous editions are not the units with the best rules this edition (reapers, shining spears, primaris were never seen on a table in 7th, grav and cents started this edition as non-competitive, thunder wolf cav are laughably bad, bikes, wraithknights, rhinos, drop pods, broadsides, screamers, warp spiders, fen wolves...).
I just want to specifically call out the bolded part - Primaris didn't EXIST prior to 8th, so that may explain why they were never seen. What next, Genestealer Cult is broken because they weren't being played in 5th?
As for the rest, yeah, that's how the meta turns. However, bikes weren't first released in the editions when they were the mainstay of SM lists (5th-7th). Cents were only seen as OP with grav, and it was only really grav-cannons that were broken. Assault Centurions? Pssh, no-one cared about them on release.
How about Stormravens and Leviathan Dreadnoughts? They weren't released in 8th. Guilliman? Hell, most of the things that have benefitted from the new SM codex and supplements are old units, not Primaris ones.
And on the subject of new SM units, how are the Hunter and Stalker for you? Broken as hell? Even upon release? Nope.
But I did find it interesting that you mentioned TWC being shot apart by TFC - which are distinctly not exclusive to 8th.
Nothing is universal but on balance it doesn't seem like a hard pattern to recognize.
Not really. The pattern is broken by the masses of units that get released and are completely unremarkable.
Using the old tiggy as a new primaris tiggy is not viable without significant kit-bashing as the sizes are not the same and I don't know about your area but in mine the model profiles have to be similar to use a conversion. Counts as are frowned upon in most to all tournaments.
Two things:
1, put him on a higher base so he's the same height, that should fulfil most requirements.
2, what a third party tourny team claim is or is not count-as is not up to GW, and therefore not something GW should be criticised for. If anything, blame the TO for not being more accommodating of what is pretty reasonable "count-as". If someone wanted to use oldTiggy at my table, I wouldn't ask for any modification to the model, and at most, ask for the base to be elevated to the same level.
Not to mention that there's more to do than just tourneys.
bananathug wrote: Re-roll 9" charge is about a 47% chance, using a cp or re-roll all bumps it up to about 52%...
It's not just a rule that lowers movement but one that has no counter play. Can reduce the movement on 2 units, no one cares about LOS, range is the whole table, no ability to interact with the strat. GW doubling down on rock, paper, scissors which leads to matches decided before models hit the table...
Sorry, yes, brain fart.
Tremor shells were in the old codex. The only thing that changed is being able to do it twice. Two units for 3CP is no small cost. Were I SW these days I'd either be packing a WW, because Eliminators are dinks, or podding Long Fangs with 4 PC and a PG and Wolf's Eye (reroll wounds) /Keen Sense (not hit penalties) them and you should just about kill two TFCs since they bring their own reroll 1s (on only one TFC) -- or they could kill an entire Eliminators (and more) squad in cover. It's potentially an exceptional meta choice.
I didn't say that newly released models are top of the pile, just models that were popular in previous editions are not the units with the best rules this edition (reapers, shining spears, primaris were never seen on a table in 7th, grav and cents started this edition as non-competitive, thunder wolf cav are laughably bad, bikes, wraithknights, rhinos, drop pods, broadsides, screamers, warp spiders, fen wolves...). Nothing is universal but on balance it doesn't seem like a hard pattern to recognize.
There is no pattern. And you've outlined it on your own. Rhinos were "great" last edition, because they were free. Reapers were nerfed quickly and were most successful, because of Ynnari and Doom, which applied to Haywire and Disintegrators, which has all been nerfed.
So what is GW's objective then? Ynnari - an entire army went from incredible to meh in this edition. Did they want to stop selling the characters? Were they selling too much Eldar? Were Eldar suddenly noncompetitive after the Ynnari nerf ? (hint: no)
Using the old tiggy as a new primaris tiggy is not viable without significant kit-bashing as the sizes are not the same and I don't know about your area but in mine the model profiles have to be similar to use a conversion. Counts as are frowned upon in most to all tournaments.
Why does the profile need to be the same for a model they can't target anyway? Stick him on a plinth and tell them to get bent.
I'm all for GW trying to balance their games. My complaints probably boil down to GW not changing the game quickly enough for my liking since I'm on the receiving end of the bad changes (non-codex astartes). In 3-6 months hopefully DA/SW/BA will be brought into alignment with codex SM and most of my issues will be resolved (came to this realization as I was writing the wall of text below but I'm not going to delete it).
The pattern is the top performing units from last edition are, with very few exceptions, not the same units that performed well last edition.
The top performing units this edition are, with very few exceptions, units that were not top performing last edition.
GW has created a situation where they are changing what units are competitively viable with their rules. Intentionally, to get you to buy new units. Not because they look cool, not because they are new, not to complete your collection, not to pursue a new type of build that you think is cool (all of which are awesome organic reasons to expand your collection) but because rules driven churn is good for GWs bottom line. GW is intentionally toning down units that were good before (wraithknights) and buffing units which were not common (shining spears). Not all (tac marines still suck and riptides are still good) but the majority.
Making exciting rules isn't the same as making OP rules. Give units something they can do on the table that is unique is awesome, but those abilities need to be play tested and balanced rather than "this -1 to damage to all vehicles within 3" seems cool."
Old TFC was good but I could bring more than one unit of wulfen (which I was doing) and at least make my opponent make a decision, with one TFC shutting down two units that's a 100ish point unit invalidating 500ish points of my army with no counter play. Change from 3+ to 2+ BS also really helps them cut through the -1 I could have put on my guys. Along with SM generally getting better I've gone from seeing 0 TFCs in most tournaments to at least one in RTTs and more in anything with more than 3 rounds. Unintentional consequences of GWs poorly thought through changes.
Long fangs in a pod are a good answer, if those TFCs couldn't hide out of LOS. Pretty easy to screen out pod landings when you are only worried about landing zones w/ LOS behind a crate. Been running them to deal with eldar flyers, MVPs a lot of games but getting a bead on those tiny TFCs is tough. WW as an aggressive army are tough because they get bad-touched they are useless. Without a gunline to support they don't really synergize with an aggressive force (not to mention they are significantly better as any other color of marine).
GW removing standard Tiggy from the dex is them intentionally removing a unit mid-edition. They should have taken him off the shelf when they knew they were going to primarisize him this edition, no reason to keep his model on the shelf other than predatory business process. They knew at the outset of 8th they were going to replace him and it's BS to let people buy a model that they will no longer support. No Model No Rules is bad enough but it should at least be supported by No Rules No Model. I'm not sure why you guys are defending this pretty slimy move.
So GW makes bad rules, mid-edition, which do not allow for on table mitigation leading to a rock, paper, scissors type game play where games can be won or lost before turn 1 and we are okay with that.
Selling models they will remove from the game mid edition is okay.
Using OP/UP rules to sell models (new OR existing) is another thing we should just be okay with.
Widely varied power levels (SW/BA/DA/GK vs SM) in a game that was supposedly the most play tested ever where pick-up games were advertised as a viable game play method is okay.
Further distortion of those power levels (for the worse) mid-edition leading to situations where the conclusion of the game is nearly a forgone conclusion between two opponents of relatively similar skill is okay (where the only solution is to literally not play certain match-ups).
Again, GW is TFG at my local who refuses to shower, "forgets" the rules of his models to fit what he wants and provides a painful gaming experience is now beyond reproach because he owns the game store? Nah.
bananathug wrote: I'm all for GW trying to balance their games. My complaints probably boil down to GW not changing the game quickly enough for my liking since I'm on the receiving end of the bad changes (non-codex astartes). In 3-6 months hopefully DA/SW/BA will be brought into alignment with codex SM and most of my issues will be resolved (came to this realization as I was writing the wall of text below but I'm not going to delete it).
The pattern is the top performing units from last edition are, with very few exceptions, not the same units that performed well last edition.
But this isn't really that true. Guilliman, TFC, Tigurius, Dreadnoughts, Knights, and so on are still popular now. There's far more than "few exceptions".
The top performing units this edition are, with very few exceptions, units that were not top performing last edition.
Again, the above units disprove this, and are hardly the only ones.
GW has created a situation where they are changing what units are competitively viable with their rules. Intentionally, to get you to buy new units. Not because they look cool, not because they are new, not to complete your collection, not to pursue a new type of build that you think is cool (all of which are awesome organic reasons to expand your collection) but because rules driven churn is good for GWs bottom line. GW is intentionally toning down units that were good before (wraithknights) and buffing units which were not common (shining spears). Not all (tac marines still suck and riptides are still good) but the majority.
But the release of sub-par units disproves this massively! Seriously, look at just how much as been released for the Primaris, and how much of it is auto-include. What about Death Guard, or CSM - I'm not seeing many Venomcrawlers and Greater Possessed, are you?
GW removing standard Tiggy from the dex is them intentionally removing a unit mid-edition. They should have taken him off the shelf when they knew they were going to primarisize him this edition, no reason to keep his model on the shelf other than predatory business process. They knew at the outset of 8th they were going to replace him and it's BS to let people buy a model that they will no longer support. No Model No Rules is bad enough but it should at least be supported by No Rules No Model. I'm not sure why you guys are defending this pretty slimy move.
You can still use Tigurius. Nothing is stopping you.
Also, I'm curious to see your source on "they were always going to replace him!!" - because without a source, you know that just sounds like a conspiracy theory, right?
Again, it's not "no model no rules", because no-one's coming round and destroying your not-Primaris models, and you Still. Have. Rules. If your TO won't allow that, then maybe you need a better TO.
Selling models they will remove from the game mid edition is okay.
Ignoring the fact that you can still use your model, are you suggesting that GW cannot remove or update models unless there's an edition change? Guess we'll need to wait longer on some poor Sisters sculpts, eh, just to suit those tastes.
Using OP/UP rules to sell models (new OR existing) is another thing we should just be okay with.
Which isn't what's happening at all. Ask Deathshroud Terminators.
If you have grievances with the game, by all means, you are entitled to them, but try and stick to facts, please.
I've actually used Greater Possessed in two games just now but for the fact they only take up one space in a Termite when I drop off the rest of the Alpha Legion in there.
But yeah they're not exactly good but I like they always strike at D2 in melee. Something I guess. Venomcrawlers were used in like three of the topping lists I thought or am I misremembering reading Venoms for Bondage Eldar?
Sorry, but you've created this idea of "changes are made solely for the benefit of GW sales" and creating post-hoc rationalizations for it.
You state:
The top performing units this edition are, with very few exceptions, units that were not top performing last edition.
It's like pointing to a Lascannon in 7th and remaking how effective it can be and then looking at it in 8th and wondering why it isn't the tank destroyer of yore. The system changed. The models and equipment that work best within the system changed. GW had no direct foresight into which of those models would be best when the indexes launched. Its patently absurd.
But you're never going to provide a list that can be contextually reviewed, because you're making a loose assertion about some mental connection you made that you haven't really spent the time to think about deeply. Shining spears didn't get used last edition, because Wraithknights were far too good via Destroyer weapons as were a number of other Destroyer weapon based platforms available to Eldar. Rhinos were free. Bikes weren't good last edition, because they were bikes. Bikes were good, because they were the best way to deliver a bunch of characters under invulnerable saves and FNP very quickly without needing to be in a transport - and narrowly for only one subset. No one else used bikes. To claim bikes used to be good is, again, such a poor revision of history.
And we come to the over-arching dynamic - the suvivorship bias of Warhammer:
"If a unit isn't on top tables it isn't good."
As if the preferences of competitive players have automatically deemed units 5% weaker than what they've chosen to be unmitigated garbage. Bikes are not bad this edition. It's just been hard to convince people to use them "because disintegrators exist". And yet Primaris are now running around like crazy. Bikes always double tap for 4 shots, have T5, M14. Compare to an Intercessor at 4 points less who has 1 extra attack, fires only 1 shot on the move most of the time, but 2 shots max with 1 extra AP. 4 points increases toughness, nearly doubles the damage output and they can pick up a 4++ (or 3++) not to mention what WS can do with bikes. Are they going to get used outside WS? Probably not, because its easier to sit in cover with Intercessors matching the best doctrine available.
with one TFC shutting down two units that's a 100ish point unit invalidating 500ish points of my army with no counter play.
You do have counterplay, but your expectation of counterplay is essentially they shouldn't be able to do that. And that's kind of not good for the game. Yes, sometimes you're going to need to clear a landing zone. Sometimes you're going to need Stormfangs. A WW left on its own that gets tagged on turn 3 already did its job. Though I doubt they're going to sacrifice any meaningful unit on that when wolves are in their face.
GW removing standard Tiggy from the dex is them intentionally removing a unit mid-edition. They should have taken him off the shelf when they knew they were going to primarisize him this edition, no reason to keep his model on the shelf other than predatory business process. They knew at the outset of 8th they were going to replace him and it's BS to let people buy a model that they will no longer support. No Model No Rules is bad enough but it should at least be supported by No Rules No Model. I'm not sure why you guys are defending this pretty slimy move.
And the new CSM models? Those are what? I didn't have to buy them just like you don't have to buy Tiggy to play him as primaris -- guess what -- my old Havocs are using new Havoc rules. Can GW never update models for fear of offending our sensibilities? Should GW be required to announce all their model releases years ahead of schedule and let their current inventory rot? If you like a model, buy it. If you don't then proxy something else.
And you'll note that GW didn't update old Tiggy rules enticing people to buy the old model more and then bait and switch to Primaris. He got new rules and a new model at the same time.
where games can be won or lost before turn 1 and we are okay with that
Games aren't being lost on turn 1 unless you have a really bad matchup on a really bad table. I know it's popular to say, but its not what happens most games. You didn't suddenly lose, because wulfen were half move.
Games aren't being lost on turn 1 unless you have a really bad matchup on a really bad table. I know it's popular to say, but its not what happens most games. You didn't suddenly lose, because wulfen were half move.
I lost a lot of games turn one. Specially now with the new marines, if they go first. small count armies can't really do much about getting targeted by drop pods and charges turn 1 . Specially if this is supported by long range support, the fact that it sometimes ignores LoS is just a bonus.
It's less actually "losing on turn 1" and more "having such an incredibly small chance of winning that playing the rest of the game is an exercise in futility". Most folks, when they say they "lost on turn 1", are refering to this.
If you can't play a modern game on an 800dollar laptop then you are not wise in your purchasing of laptops to be used for gaming.
as for 25 years of service, this is just the thing -
you can't have one, lasting value of useful models, AND the radically revisionist numarine bizniz model that GW is pushing, and that might include paying people to shill for them on Dakka.
as for the negativity, complaints are expressions of perceived differences between what is actual and what is ideal.
GW (not the "hobby" as you try to frame things) is the subject of MUCH complaining because, well, they ar enot serving the interests of their stakeholders (the complainers).
If GW was, then there would be FEWER complaints.
Nothing is ideal,
but oh, how GW has gone so pitifully wrong...
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.
I stand corrected. There's a Dell with a 1060 for $850. Now add a single game @ $60. We're already well past the cost of many armies. Considering that game isn't going to keep your attention for as long as painting and playing there's considerably more value to be had in the hobby.
But few people rarely dive head first into the hobby. They gradually collect, borrow models, and play with friends.
====
Gw has "gone so pitifully wrong"? Have you been playing the game? Or are you just gak posting?
Uhhhh. K.
I was so excited to see this edition come out and, yeah, GW did an Ao$ on 40k.
So we got Stormcaste equivalents in 40k.
Yeah, nice models, but why not make all marines 2 wounds,
celebrate the correction,
and leave the story going?
Why dump the gothic feel for grav tanks in the Imperium?
Simply, you tell us.
Why?
This is marketing driven, not hobby driven.
We love the hobby.
That is why it hurts to have something we love
try to manipulate us with online shill posters taking heat for what?
We have seen corporations run this way for a couple generations and it never looks good.
New business ethics focuses more on the long term interests of all stakeholders, e.g. people who complain a lot.
If people didn't care, then yeah, no complaints.
Gak post?
Gak rules bro.
I have a large colelction of paints, still unopened,
(that i tend to collect when I go into the shop,
cuz I want to buy something from the shop,
because I appreciate it being there,
and I have been buying gift certificates for myself
anticipating the SoB box... so, unopened newly purchased GW paints)
wishing for the urge to play-
but, I hang out at the local GW and watch.
I have been in this hobby since 14, into GW games since 24 thereabouts.
I am 50.
I stand corrected. There's a Dell with a 1060 for $850. Now add a single game @ $60. We're already well past the cost of many armies. Considering that game isn't going to keep your attention for as long as painting and playing there's considerably more value to be had in the hobby.
But few people rarely dive head first into the hobby. They gradually collect, borrow models, and play with friends.
====
Outside of maybe some older titles or inde games or minecraft, an $800 laptop or PC wont really be relevant in about 3-4 years after purchase. and good luck getting the full "value" out of the games graphics or online play. even a 2k PC in 5 years will struggle to run a lot of triple A games at the best quality.
not a jab at ether side. just pointing out that PC gaming has a different type of problem.
jeff white wrote: Uhhhh. K.
I was so excited to see this edition come out and, yeah, GW did an Ao$ on 40k.
In what way? Define "doing an AoS" for us, because what my definition of "doing an AoS" clearly can't be the same as yours.
For me, doing an AoS would be making all prior lore nearly irrelevant (I say nearly, it's not like there aren't still some story hooks", and changing the actual setting and geography of the wider universe (yes, 40k splits the galaxy in two, but it's still all *there* - it would be more like the Storm of Magic or End Times of WHFB, not AoS), as well as causing fundamental shifts in aesthetic and gameplay. 40k hasn't had this either.
So we got Stormcaste equivalents in 40k.
Not really? AoS got SM equivalents, but 40k didn't really pick anything from AoS. Primaris don't have anything in common with Stormcast that regular Marines didn't already have.
Yeah, nice models, but why not make all marines 2 wounds,
celebrate the correction,
and leave the story going?
Because they didn't want to make regular Marines 2 Wounds, because they wanted to tell a story about two different kinds of Space Marine coming in to the fold, which was their choice to do as a narrative team.
You can dislike that, but it's their lore. However, just on that, it sounds like you're complaining just because they decided they wanted to introduce something else.
Why dump the gothic feel for grav tanks in the Imperium?
Simply, you tell us.
Why?
Firstly, grav-tanks have always been a thing in the Imperium. Grav tanks have belonged to the Custodes and SoS for time immemorial, the Admech have it, and Land Speeders are hardly "gothic" looking, yet are iconic Space Marine vehicles.
As I see it, the Repulsor-class vehicles feel more "Space Marine" to me than Bikes and Land Speeders - their boxy aesthetic, the flavour text of how they actually hover (they literally punch the ground to stay afloat!) and the angles and geometry of them all feel quintessentially "Space Marine" to me.
So, whilst I'm not saying that you aren't justified in disliking them, it's not as simple as "they've abandoned the gothic feel!", because that's still very much real for many of us.
This is marketing driven, not hobby driven.
We love the hobby.
That is why it hurts to have something we love
try to manipulate us with online shill posters taking heat for what?
Ah yes. The good old "if you like Primaris, you're a GW shill and not part of the *real hobby lovers* crowd". Maybe, just maybe, people love GW for different things.
But hey, if you still believe that anyone who thinks positively about GW much be a corporate shill for them, what's to stop someone suspecting those who dislike GW's practices of being paid to have those opinions? After all, it's just as ridiculous.
TL;DR Don't be so quick to assume that people who hold a different opinion to you are being paid off or otherwise incentivised to hold that opinion - it works just as well the other way around.
The easiest fix of all is, just don't read their post if you are tired of hearing of the complaints they post. That is really even easier than trying to tell someone to love it or leave it. Easier than trying to get people to make whole new armies just to play against your bad army, or just not doing something I assume you spend a lot of time in. Yes, if a game is causing you extreme angst, sure taking a moment to center is good, stepping away from a hobby you may have spent years and years or decades on to pray for a miracle as opposed to actually make it actively clear GW done messed up isn't always going to be what someone feels gets their view point out there.
.
but that doesn't really work that well. The moment you stop playing, you start to constantly think that you have no only spend a lot of money, but also spend it on something so bad it made you quit using it, so your now wasting the money double. First by buying bad stuff, and then by not using it for anything. I don't know about others, but when I stoped playing, it just made me unable to get a good sleep in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: Sure on the other hand "my army sucks and I never win" can only be said so much before people get tiored of listening to the complaint. eventually they're going to tell you, "get a new army, stop playing, or discuss with your group some way to make it more fun" I do wanna stess that walking away from a game for a time can be healthy and people should be willing to do so. I've had other games I liked that I walked away from because of issues with it. (case in point I stepped away from D&D for the entire 4th edition)
how did you deal with the wasted money, so it didn't bother you?
well D&D is a bit of a differant story as my group could continue playing third edition (pathfinder made this easier then ever) but it's not the first hobby I've walked away from so I can answer this. It didn't bother me because I'd gotten my money's worth. A movie costs about 15-20 bucks for 3 hours entertainment. thus you've proably more then made up the cost of your hobby as it stands already Karol. Also, keep in mind you don't have to sell your stuff, walk away for a bit and occasionally keep tabs, maybe you'll suddenly hear grey knights are now nearly OP in 9th edition etc.
Just because you spent money on something once doesn't mean that money is wasted if you stop using it for a bit.
I mean... do you play with our childhood toys still?
Just because you spent money on something once doesn't mean that money is wasted if you stop using it for a bit.
I mean... do you play with our childhood toys still?
There is a difference between growing tied of something vs outside forces disrupting your ability to enjoy something. That said unlike most children's toys, your not sinking additional hours (in the tens to hundreds of hours) working on assembling and painting them to "properly" use them. Return on investment for something like that is going to be different than something that may take two or three hours worth of wage to afford.
well D&D is a bit of a differant story as my group could continue playing third edition (pathfinder made this easier then ever) but it's not the first hobby I've walked away from so I can answer this. It didn't bother me because I'd gotten my money's worth. A movie costs about 15-20 bucks for 3 hours entertainment. thus you've proably more then made up the cost of your hobby as it stands already Karol. Also, keep in mind you don't have to sell your stuff, walk away for a bit and occasionally keep tabs, maybe you'll suddenly hear grey knights are now nearly OP in 9th edition etc.
Just because you spent money on something once doesn't mean that money is wasted if you stop using it for a bit.
I mean... do you play with our childhood toys still?
no, I don't my mom gave my toys to church, when she send me off to sports school. I don't go to movies, because they cost too much, but seems like the only way to enjoy stuff is to pump more and more money in to it, and have milions of friends to help you with stuff. Maybe if I didn't spend all my confirmation money on the army it would be better, or didn't have to look every weekend what my siblings did with their money. thinking about that stuff only makes unable to sleep and not fun to be around at home.
Sometimes I wish I never listed to people at school, but my mom told me I have to make friends.
There is a difference between growing tied of something vs outside forces disrupting your ability to enjoy something. That said unlike most children's toys, your not sinking additional hours (in the tens to hundreds of hours) working on assembling and painting them to "properly" use them. Return on investment for something like that is going to be different than something that may take two or three hours worth of wage to afford.
I really liked my toys though. Am not sure how much my legos cost, I doubt it costs more then the w40k army, but I had years of fun with them. I was really sad when my mom gave them to church, when I was at school. In fact I think that If I rebought some of the legos, I would have had more fun. Or at least bought something good like a tablet or a phone.
The best way to be positive about the hobby is to ignore the majority of people online.
Quite honestly, anyone who looked into 40k hobby communities online would probably not want to go anywhere near this game.
Fortunately, most of the most irritating people online probably don't play, and I'm pretty sure if they do they 'play' by having models and wishing someone would do a game with them.
Overall, there's a lot you can do with 40k and you don't even need GW's authority to find a way to have fun. Hell, Heralds of Ruin is still superior to Kill-Team.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: The best way to be positive about the hobby is to ignore the majority of people online.
Quite honestly, anyone who looked into 40k hobby communities online would probably not want to go anywhere near this game.
Fortunately, most of the most irritating people online probably don't play, and I'm pretty sure if they do they 'play' by having models and wishing someone would do a game with them.
Overall, there's a lot you can do with 40k and you don't even need GW's authority to find a way to have fun. Hell, Heralds of Ruin is still superior to Kill-Team.
sorry i kinda had to : )
But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.
When looking into 40k online it could be that players choose not to bother with GW as the game is not for them after researching, Maybe they think the game is kinda bad like a lot of others, Or just that the community is not something they want to join. Only one of those is really Negative, but i would also starting to think that its not even much of a worry since that could be just up to opinion.
Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.
Just as a side note. Planning the models, making the molds and then making the model is hardly a process they do without a plan. I say this because someone requested proof they knew they would invalidate old Tigurius for awhile. Of course GW knew they were replacing him, the model molding process isn't a you wake up in the morning and just do it process. It had to be planned out, set into the schedule, and then acted upon.
The fact they left that model out there knowing they'd make him useless is scummy practice on their end. I mean I get it, they don't want to be stuck with unsold models.
Now, I'm not sure here but is the old model still supported rules wise ? As if not, thats pretty poop. If it is, it's just not as good as the Primaris version then I withdraw my complaint.
However, that said, they had to know for quite a long time they were replacing that model, it would have been at least a few months but I believe the time frame to be much longer than that from planning, to putting out a new model to replace an old one.
I get defending GW, but saying they won't use predatory and underhanded practices to sell product, that isn't a hill I'd choose to die on.
I point out, the new small 8th edition codex, no erratas added, no updates, high price tag and they tried to brush it under the rug it was a total waste of your money and outdated on hitting the shelves. Then when it came to lite, they tried to hide all the spin for it of how amazing it was. They are not our friends.
bananathug wrote: Re-roll 9" charge is about a 47% chance, using a cp or re-roll all bumps it up to about 52%...
It's not just a rule that lowers movement but one that has no counter play. Can reduce the movement on 2 units, no one cares about LOS, range is the whole table, no ability to interact with the strat. GW doubling down on rock, paper, scissors which leads to matches decided before models hit the table...
I didn't say that newly released models are top of the pile, just models that were popular in previous editions are not the units with the best rules this edition (reapers, shining spears, primaris were never seen on a table in 7th, grav and cents started this edition as non-competitive, thunder wolf cav are laughably bad, bikes, wraithknights, rhinos, drop pods, broadsides, screamers, warp spiders, fen wolves...). Nothing is universal but on balance it doesn't seem like a hard pattern to recognize.
Using the old tiggy as a new primaris tiggy is not viable without significant kit-bashing as the sizes are not the same and I don't know about your area but in mine the model profiles have to be similar to use a conversion. Counts as are frowned upon in most to all tournaments.
I like your style.
This discussion is with Jedi deflection trainees..
There are tens of threads on this forum in which people "complain" about GW practices.
Invalidating models.
Bending the universe around marketing, rather than the other way around.
Laughable 'fluff'. No myth, no polarity! Just, soup...
Not that soup is bad, but. When Dark eldar and Craftworld eldar start sleeping togther,
you know something has gone wrong.
Pitifully wrong, imho... but this is my opinion.
You can call it negative, but this is the point about all of this,
People like myself care.
This caring is the most valuable asset GW will ever have.
Apple fox wrote: But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.
Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.
Would you please elaborate on these parts with examples from this thread?
Well, this thread is not exactly receptive to complaints, more of a 'if you have something negative to say then you aren't paying attention and should save your money for a better gaming laptop' or some other deflection.
Apple fox wrote: But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.
Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.
Would you please elaborate on these parts with examples from this thread?
Look around- not in just this thread, many many others. The names and smarmy avatars change but the arguments don't. There are plenty of GW white knights on this site right now (and many over the years that have dropped off, but the "haters" remain. Why do you think that is?) that push their agenda of "Praise the mighty GW for everything they do or GTFO!". Some have even posted ITT, they are quite easy to spot and come out like Gollum to defend their precious whenever a thread like this appears as people they deem "haters" will inevitably show up too.
Apple fox wrote: But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.
...
Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.
It's a bit more complex.
There's no pro-GW and anti-GW side, 2 factions aren't warring with each other. There are a few people intent on being correct who don't take the time to understand what others are saying, there are those who wonder if it's worth putting the time into respond, and there are those who see these conversations as nonsense. That doesn't really speak to disposition so much as the dynamics of conversation.
Positivity - this word means very little. Does it mean only discussing parts of the game you like and ignoring concerns you may have? Does it mean only saying things about Games Workshop that present a happy picture (and, if so, why)? Hobbies aren't made better through self-censorship and corporate propaganda, they're made worse. Likewise, overwhelming negativity and criticism don't really mean anything. Who wants to spend all this money on a game just to trash it?
Not sure what anyone gets from these conversations beyond a chance to type. The only thing they're good for is keeping people's attention is focused on Games Workshop by arguing about 40k. Which is good for Games Workshop, it means you are not arguing about money, relationships, politics, or alternate forms of entertainment that could disrupt their revenue streams and cause you to buy fewer new models.
When you start to think about it, the only thing 'positive' about Games Workshop is that they are experts at keeping people's attention. Complex / opaque game systems, constant releases of new models, endless balance shifts in the meta-economy of the game, keeping people buying new models as they make old ones obsolete. Everything else changes, the marketing strategy is the only constant. We can observe the strategy over time, it is intentional and rarely changes, and the benefits to the company are extraordinary in relation to the value provided to customers.
That's the real game. If you want more value, stop arguing about 40k. This means they have to work harder to get your attention, maybe instead of constant power levelling they stabilize prices / rules. The way they've treated Grey Knights is a travesty, people shouldn't be buying new rules until they clean up the mess they made with that faction.
Apple fox wrote: But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.
I don't support pushing people out of a hobby. Pushing them out of your community, sure- that's called gatekeeping and every community needs some degree of gatekeeping... otherwise you get scumbags of various flavors.
Apple fox wrote: When looking into 40k online it could be that players choose not to bother with GW as the game is not for them after researching, Maybe they think the game is kinda bad like a lot of others, Or just that the community is not something they want to join.
Most people just look at the price point and take a pass on it. The cheapest buy-in is Necromunda, and that'll still cost you near $70.00.
Apple fox wrote: Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.
To be quite honest, it's hard for a few individuals here to be an overall negative to the hobby. This hobby can't even keep people working for one of its biggest hype-sites from routinely cheating at tournaments, and IMHO cheating is the one big insufferable sin just under stuff that's actually illegal. If anything, the way people act online is pretty amusing sometimes. I find some extreme reactions to little plastic toy soldiers to be downright hilarious.
Look around- not in just this thread, many many others. The names and smarmy avatars change but the arguments don't. There are plenty of GW white knights on this site right now (and many over the years that have dropped off, but the "haters" remain. Why do you think that is?) that push their agenda of "Praise the mighty GW for everything they do or GTFO!". Some have even posted ITT, they are quite easy to spot and come out like Gollum to defend their precious whenever a thread like this appears as people they deem "haters" will inevitably show up too.
An example of this would be great.
I think, that pointing out flaws in people's arguments and laughing at the wildly inconsistent arguments is being chalked up as white knighting.
I'm just gonna say it and throw this whole thing into a mess.
GW has made a lot of decisions that I think are mind-blowing levels of stupid. And quite a few scummy ones over the years.
Until recently, it seems like using the phrase "feedback from the community" at GW headquarters was akin to telling a dead baby joke at the maternity ward.
However, let's be honest- it's not like a ton of that feedback was mature, thought-out, and polite... I mean, I'm still baffled at the way people shriek about their war toys being no good, and their only feedback is "FIX IT!"... and they wonder why GW just throws a mediocre solution onto a problem.
I mean, I like Reivers and I think they need a boost. Maybe some kind of strength or AP bonus to their combat blades? Or perhaps make that -1 to combat rolls apply on the turn they charge, rather than being tied to the grenade?
See, that's a complaint and a proposed solution. Maybe not the best of either, but it's better than 90% of the shrieking I see about [insert army] any time literally anything 40k is posted online. FFS, they could announce Duncan's wedding and congratulations and you'd still have someone howling about how Aeldari units are terrible and GW hates Xenos players.
But, again on the other hand- I understand complaints. GW spent a long time cranking out a model and having absolutely no contact with the people who played the game and it's a miracle the game lasted this long. When you've just started paying attention to your customers and communicating with them in 2017... there's going to be a significant buildup of negativity and complaints. I'll say the fault there rests on GW.
But also, let's not forget the rule of balance in 40k: My army is underperforming and needs a buff, the one that beat me last time is OP, and the one that I beat all the time is just fine and doesn't need anything.
Adeptus Doritos wrote:The best way to be positive about the hobby is to ignore the majority of people online.
This is probably the best advice given, for anyone in how to actually enjoy the hobby. Can't stand people enjoying the hobby online? Don't interact with that. Can't stand the barrage of people venting about it? Don't interact with that.
The majority of people online doesn't reflect the majority of people in the real world, and really what matters is who you have around you in the real world. For me, those folks are positive, enjoy the hobby, and I think it's a more productive environment than ones that purely complain. But that's just my opinion.
Hell, Heralds of Ruin is still superior to Kill-Team.
Depends what you want to get out of it, but I will absolutely agree that HoR is a very good ruleset.
Apple fox wrote:But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.
See, this is a very strange viewpoint in my opinion.
I don't think anyone's claiming that GW is the sole part of the hobby, but when all the people seem to do it talk about how much they hate GW, they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot. If you don't like GW, as you say, there's more to do without them, so why bother thinking about them? I also struggle to see how someone encouraging people to enjoy the game, to think about the positives, and maybe switch up how they think about interacting with the hobby is "promoting pushing people out of the hobby".
On a wider note, if all you can say about something is negative, why would you want to be part of that anyway? That's not a "get out of my town, you negative nancy!", it's a "if you hate so much about it, why are you just exposing yourself to more hatred?" On the same vein, your comment right here does exactly what you accuse the people who promote positivity of - it reeks of "stop being happy about things, get off this forum!"
Again, as you say - for every "wild accusation", the same is true on the other side. You can't really claim that either side is faultless.
Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.
Again, this baffles me. I don't understand how being positive and happy about things is considered negative. What's wrong with being happy? Why can't there be a thread saying "hey, I'm pretty happy about the hobby right now" without it being filled with the same venting and complaints that are rife in the dozens on threads dedicated for those opinions?
What happens if GW manage to somehow appease everyone - they perfectly balance things, they release models that everyone somehow likes, the lore is somehow agreeable to everyone - would it be negative to enjoy that too?
I just fail to see how constant complaining about how GW is the worst ever and 40k is terrible and so on is considered to be more productive than someone saying "hey, I like this, and I think GW are doing well for me right now". That's not to mean that criticism is always negative, and accepting GW's stuff mindlessly is positive, but with how many threads there are complaining about the hobby, don't you think it's just a bit repetitive?
AngryAngel80 wrote:Just as a side note. Planning the models, making the molds and then making the model is hardly a process they do without a plan. I say this because someone requested proof they knew they would invalidate old Tigurius for awhile. Of course GW knew they were replacing him, the model molding process isn't a you wake up in the morning and just do it process. It had to be planned out, set into the schedule, and then acted upon.
The fact they left that model out there knowing they'd make him useless is scummy practice on their end. I mean I get it, they don't want to be stuck with unsold models.
However, you can still use old Tigurius. It's not been made irrelevant, it's not going to be removed or invalidated or made illegal (unless your TO makes it illegal, which is more a fault of the TO than anything else). Yes, obviously they didn't just wheel out the model from thin air, but claiming that they were always going to do this or whatever the comment was just feels so much like a tinfoil hat theory. Yes, it's a shame if you bought him and now he's been updated, but that's been happening for decades with not just GW's kits, but virtually any consumer product. You could buy a new phone, only for the next day the company to announce they're making a brand new model.
Now, I'm not sure here but is the old model still supported rules wise ? As if not, thats pretty poop. If it is, it's just not as good as the Primaris version then I withdraw my complaint.
Yes. There is a datasheet for Tigurius in both the Index/prior Codex (still legal by my eyes), or you could just use the one which happens to have the Primaris keyword. Frankly, I don't care for any difference, and I see no reason why you can't use the most recent datasheet for Tigurius (which happens to have the Primaris keyword) with your old model, much in the same way that I would have no issue with Calgar's old model being used with the newest rules for him, or Abaddon.
The only thing I'd consider implementing as a TO would be trying to make them as close to the new height as possible, but that's a minor concern, and not required by rules.
I get defending GW, but saying they won't use predatory and underhanded practices to sell product, that isn't a hill I'd choose to die on.
Yeah, absolutely, but of all things GW to complain about, them updating a model so it now happens to be taller than the old one isn't exactly massive. You can still use the old model.
I point out, the new small 8th edition codex, no erratas added, no updates, high price tag and they tried to brush it under the rug it was a total waste of your money and outdated on hitting the shelves. Then when it came to lite, they tried to hide all the spin for it of how amazing it was. They are not our friends.
Yeah, agreed, and I'm not excusing that. I'm absolutely not excusing everything, but some things are not like the others.
jeff white wrote:There are tens of threads on this forum in which people "complain" about GW practices.
Invalidating models.
Bending the universe around marketing, rather than the other way around.
How can you prove that this wasn't a case of "yeah, we want to change the setting, now let's do some models for it!"?
I don't believe you were in any meetings?
Laughable 'fluff'. No myth, no polarity! Just, soup...
Not that soup is bad, but. When Dark eldar and Craftworld eldar start sleeping togther,
you know something has gone wrong.
But they've been allying in desperate alliances for decades now. Like, I'm pretty sure that I've read of Eldar/Dark Eldar alliances before Ynnari were a thing. The Imperium, the soupiest faction, has always been described as such in the lore, and they've been known to ally with Eldar and Tau and even Orks where necessary.
There's still plenty of myth - the lost primarchs, the rest of the Tyranids, who created the Tau, who/what is the Emperor, the sealed box the GK own, the void dragon, all of it - it's still there.
You're cool to dislike the new stuff, but claiming that there's "no myth, no polarity, only soup" just isn't accurate.
Pitifully wrong, imho... but this is my opinion.
You can call it negative, but this is the point about all of this,
People like myself care.
And I care too. It's not just people "like yourself" - it's anyone invested in the hobby. However, unlike you, I am happy with them, not because of some kind of monetary incentive or loyalty or simply being a "shill", but because I'm enjoying current 40k more than I was before. That is just as much "care" as yours.
This caring is the most valuable asset GW will ever have.
The most valuable asset they will have is money. Not rage. Not positivity. If we dislike GW's stuff, just don't feed them money.
jeff white wrote:Well, this thread is not exactly receptive to complaints, more of a 'if you have something negative to say then you aren't paying attention and should save your money for a better gaming laptop' or some other deflection.
Just like how most Dakka threads are poorly receptive of positivity, more of a "if you have anything positive to say you're a GW shill and you're making the hobby worse for all of us", or some other retort.
Difference is, there's several dozen complaint threads, and a handful of positive ones.
Daedalus81 wrote: I'll go collect my check from GW while you wallow in your childish views of the world.
Admits to being a schill.
I wish I was being paid by GW for liking their stuff. Preferably in Primaris models.
Unfortunately, I'm just a guy with an opinion.
This whole shill thing isn't really a good argument - after all, how do I know that the people saying GW are trash aren't just shills for other companies?
It's almost like people don't need to be paid to have an opinion.
Look around- not in just this thread, many many others. The names and smarmy avatars change but the arguments don't. There are plenty of GW white knights on this site right now (and many over the years that have dropped off, but the "haters" remain. Why do you think that is?) that push their agenda of "Praise the mighty GW for everything they do or GTFO!". Some have even posted ITT, they are quite easy to spot and come out like Gollum to defend their precious whenever a thread like this appears as people they deem "haters" will inevitably show up too.
An example of this would be great.
I think, that pointing out flaws in people's arguments and laughing at the wildly inconsistent arguments is being chalked up as white knighting.
I’d name names but I feel that would violate rule 1. You know who they are. One of them started a thread on a similar topic to this just last week.
I'm sure I know who you have on your list, but I don't agree that they're white knighting, they're just people that happen to enjoy the hobby and be happy with its current state, even though it isn't perfect.
I have a similar list of people who I see as nothing but negative, with every post either bashing GW, Marines, or declaring anything and everything trash, garbage or OP.
I'm sure you'd disagree with my choices on that list too though.
What I'd like to see is a quote or example of a post that's white knighting though. It's often said here, but I'd say that 90% of "white knight" posts are just refuting an intellectually dishonest anti GW complaint, of which there are many.
It's tiring seeing post claiming "it only cost a couple of dollars to make a squad and GW sell for €75, rip off!" Or the usual, "GW makes new models OP for sales".
These arguments are blatantly wrong, yet crop up again and again. Every time they're refuted, and yet we still see them.
Complaining about something does not make you a negative person. Making complaints is a way to actually improve a company's product or service.
If your girlfriend complains about you farting on her in public, then you might want to listen- because if she didn't care and want to be with you, she wouldn't complain- she'd just leave. She's complaining because she wants to be with you, she just wants to make things a bit better and knows you can be better.
Spoiler:
Dump her and find a girl that will fart back, don't sell yourself low, you deserve better
Anyway, that being said- there's valid complaints out there, and I have a few myself. But overall, it's more about how you complain, IMHO. That's not being negative, that's an essential part of a business' success- without customer feedback, companies crash and burn.
Of course, it's not like we have a shortage of people that "haven't played since 3rd" and just constantly hang around to talk about how everything sucks. And the people who, no matter what they get,will always complain because that gets them attention. And then we'll have me, complaining because Tau exist and I think Squatting them is the best direction possible for GW in the forseeable future.
Well GW prices are like any other luxury manufacturer a rip off. I saw some mantic starter boxes for what looked like 28mm imperial guard variants and they had newer and more detailed sculpts and it was 20 normal guys, 2 heavy weapon teams and a few characters for just above what 10 cadians cost. Even at the same price I bet GW would have higher profit margins yet they are 200% higher in price.
I only buy discount and preferably second hand from people who over bought so I pay on average 50-70% of the dollar/euro price for my gw plastic and it still feels a bit high at times.
Complaining is perfectly fine, there are issues with the game and no one is saying we should just ignore them or pretend they don't exist.
The issue, and "negative people" come in when every single thread without fail will rehash the same arguments.
If you think Xenos don't get enough love, that's fine, but my thread on peoples favourite sandwich doesn't need to hear about it. Likewise, every new release for a non-Xenos model goes down the same path. It creates an absurd situation where it seems like people are meant to feel guilty that they're getting new releases, or like they have to defend it.
If you think Xenos don't get enough love, that's fine, but my thread on peoples favourite sandwich doesn't need to hear about it. Likewise, every new release for a non-Xenos model goes down the same path. It creates an absurd situation where it seems like people are meant to feel guilty that they're getting new releases, or like they have to defend it.
GAMES WORKSHOP: "We just wanted to say Happy Holidays, and this year we are donating $500,000 to the needy children. And Congratulations on Duncan's wedding. And our sincerest condolences to Peachy as he laments the passing of his pet armadillo, Clyde."
COMMENTS:
"GW you suck for not making better rules for Banshees and no other new Eldar units"
"bring back squats"
"grey knights codex needs to be redone"
"please delete Tau" (Note, this is probably me)
"Are you guys doing anything for Necromunda?"
"i want gorkamorka back lol"
*Heresy meme*
"omg please fire that new chick she is so annoying"
If you think Xenos don't get enough love, that's fine, but my thread on peoples favourite sandwich doesn't need to hear about it. Likewise, every new release for a non-Xenos model goes down the same path. It creates an absurd situation where it seems like people are meant to feel guilty that they're getting new releases, or like they have to defend it.
GAMES WORKSHOP: "We just wanted to say Happy Holidays, and this year we are donating $500,000 to the needy children. And Congratulations on Duncan's wedding. And our sincerest condolences to Peachy as he laments the passing of his pet armadillo, Clyde."
COMMENTS:
"GW you suck for not making better rules for Banshees and no other new Eldar units"
"bring back squats"
"grey knights codex needs to be redone"
"please delete Tau" (Note, this is probably me)
"Are you guys doing anything for Necromunda?"
"i want gorkamorka back lol"
*Heresy meme*
"omg please fire that new chick she is so annoying"
Thanks, Adeptus. for this excellent example of arguing in bad faith.
Blastaar wrote: Thanks, Adeptus. for this excellent example of arguing in bad faith.
I'm happy to help, and I greatly appreciate you returning the favor with a fine example of "Why you should read the other posts instead of just responding to one out of context". I'll make sure I save this one and avoid some embarrassment later.
Blastaar wrote: Thanks, Adeptus. for this excellent example of arguing in bad faith.
I'm happy to help, and I greatly appreciate you returning the favor with a fine example of "Why you should read the other posts instead of just responding to one out of context". I'll make sure I save this one and avoid some embarrassment later.
I did read the other posts. To which you opted to respond with a long version of "GW can't do or say a single thing, even if entirely unrelated to their products, without people yelling at them for the sake of it because GW players are so incredibly toxic."
Even if your extreme hypothetical were true, that GW receives this kind of ire on all fronts heavily suggests that a portion of their playerbase is deeply unhappy with the present state of the game, or their other products, and are not feeling their concerns are acknowledged. Games Workshop obviously knows that listening to the concerns of its customers is good for business- otherwise they would not have marketed 8th by framing it as the 40K "you asked for!" The thing is, GW hears, but they do not listen. Telling customers "hey, we understand your concerns, here is our solution" is just a marketing slogan for them. Their actions do not support the notion that their rules team understands the problems with their game and are working to resolve them.
Telling GW "grey knights are bad, fix them!" Is perfectly adequate feedback. It is not the responsibility of the players to provide GW detailed information on the problems with a product they sell- that is Games Workshop's job. Were the rules team competent, they would investigate the complaints, and work to fix the army. But they haven't.
Yes, I was being sarcastic, because your tone-deaf, outright angry and dishonest post called for it. Reread your response to me. Reflect on it. Perhaps, choosing the combative tone you did, and, as you are so often wont to do, dismissing people's concerns as "complaining for the sake of complaining" only contributes to the issue?
I did read the other posts. To which you opted to respond with a long version of "GW can't do or say a single thing, even if entirely unrelated to their products, without people yelling at them for the sake of it because GW players are so incredibly toxic."
So, you didn't read it. Got it.
Blastaar wrote: Yes, I was being sarcastic, because your tone-deaf, outright angry and dishonest post called for it. Reread your response to me. Reflect on it. Perhaps, choosing the combative tone you did, and, as you are so often wont to do, dismissing people's concerns as "complaining for the sake of complaining" only contributes to the issue?
And here you go proving the point. And that thing about people being toxic? Yeah, I didn't say that but you kinda made that point for me as well.
Shine on, you shiny diamond.
Oh, and as far as 'angry and combative', I think that's you, buddy. Calm down and grow up.
If you think Xenos don't get enough love, that's fine, but my thread on peoples favourite sandwich doesn't need to hear about it. Likewise, every new release for a non-Xenos model goes down the same path. It creates an absurd situation where it seems like people are meant to feel guilty that they're getting new releases, or like they have to defend it.
GAMES WORKSHOP: "We just wanted to say Happy Holidays, and this year we are donating $500,000 to the needy children. And Congratulations on Duncan's wedding. And our sincerest condolences to Peachy as he laments the passing of his pet armadillo, Clyde."
COMMENTS:
"GW you suck for not making better rules for Banshees and no other new Eldar units"
"bring back squats"
"grey knights codex needs to be redone"
"please delete Tau" (Note, this is probably me)
"Are you guys doing anything for Necromunda?"
"i want gorkamorka back lol"
*Heresy meme*
"omg please fire that new chick she is so annoying"
This is sorta correct to an extent. There are tons of people on their Facebook and Instagram that don't anything constructively.
HOWEVER they don't listen to even a lot of constructive points on appropriate settings.
I did read the other posts. To which you opted to respond with a long version of "GW can't do or say a single thing, even if entirely unrelated to their products, without people yelling at them for the sake of it because GW players are so incredibly toxic."
So, you didn't read it. Got it.
Blastaar wrote: Yes, I was being sarcastic, because your tone-deaf, outright angry and dishonest post called for it. Reread your response to me. Reflect on it. Perhaps, choosing the combative tone you did, and, as you are so often wont to do, dismissing people's concerns as "complaining for the sake of complaining" only contributes to the issue?
And here you go proving the point. And that thing about people being toxic? Yeah, I didn't say that but you kinda made that point for me as well.
Shine on, you shiny diamond.
Oh, and as far as 'angry and combative', I think that's you, buddy. Calm down and grow up.
Look around- not in just this thread, many many others. The names and smarmy avatars change but the arguments don't. There are plenty of GW white knights on this site right now (and many over the years that have dropped off, but the "haters" remain. Why do you think that is?) that push their agenda of "Praise the mighty GW for everything they do or GTFO!". Some have even posted ITT, they are quite easy to spot and come out like Gollum to defend their precious whenever a thread like this appears as people they deem "haters" will inevitably show up too.
It's funny to read this given how I was once widely derided as GW White Knight back in the day when debating about GW's financial health. You still think I'm on their paycheque?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Firstly, grav-tanks have always been a thing in the Imperium. Grav tanks have belonged to the Custodes and SoS for time immemorial, the Admech have it, and Land Speeders are hardly "gothic" looking, yet are iconic Space Marine vehicles.
Sure they had. All of them were outliers, to show off remnants of the former glory and prowess of the Imperium. By contrast, Xenos races underlined their technological advancement with grav-tanks which were standard equipment of their armies. So yes, giving a grav tank as a line vehicle for Imperium is indeed stepping outside of the implicit former boundaries, and undermines the fundamental concept of the Imperium of Man, which is slow fight against the decline. It's one reason why I don't like Primaris marines - another is that many of the units look quite derp, but that is another story.
It's like giving Tau effective close combat troops with powerful weaponry, and arguing that what's the big deal, they always had close combat units like Aun'shi, Farsight, Kroot...it's a change of the paradigm. One could argue that it is not necessarily bad change, but one cannot argue that it isn't change.
Even if your extreme hypothetical were true, that GW receives this kind of ire on all fronts heavily suggests that a portion of their playerbase is deeply unhappy with the present state of the game, or their other products, and are not feeling their concerns are acknowledged.
Does it?
Another take is thst there is a subset of bitter, miserable customers who will never be satisfied with anything that is presented to them. And who cannot ever be pleased.
With respect, while this is hyperbole, I have met enough gamers who I could only describe as self centred, entitled and bitter to see at least some of that in all the negativity that gets posted.
Telling GW "grey knights are bad, fix them!" Is perfectly adequate feedback. It is not the responsibility of the players to provide GW detailed information on the problems with a product they sell- that is Games Workshop's job. Were the rules team competent, they would investigate the complaints, and work to fix the army. But they haven't.
'X is bad, fix it!' Without any additional direction is white noise. It is not 'perfectly adequate' feedback. And it has nothing to do with competency either. I mean, how do they 'fix' them, if they don't know what the customer wants. They can't make everyone happy either.
Some of my friends playtested for gw back in the day. Two even got their names into a couple of codices and rulebook in the 'special thanks' section. And it's not just gw. I also remember with privateer press' mk2 public playtest, and their requests for the mk3 cid/player feedback, where they said quite clearly this approach had no value. It gives them nothing to work with, no idea of what's wrong, or what direction to go in order to fix it.They wanted specifics in terms of what was wrong and feedback in terms of changes and directions to go.
Feel free to disagree, by all means, but to me, saying 'It's not our responsibility to do anything' is a copout and a handwaving away of our role and our ability to play a part in our enjoyment of our hobby.
Grimtuff wrote: Bruh...
If you think that is an example of negativity then you are truly grasping at straws.
Could not disagree more with your statement and assessment. If that post in the other thread was meant as a lighthearted jab at the game's lack of proper balancing, then it missed the goal by a long shot. The OP is doing something really good. Instead of just taking the hardest net list he can find, he is asking for advice how to make it a good experience for everybody involved. You can complain that 40k is bad at internal as well as external army balancing and that there are much better system out there if balance is important for you, but this is not the advice OP asked for and thus not the right place to state your complain and add nothing of value to the thread.
Even if your extreme hypothetical were true, that GW receives this kind of ire on all fronts heavily suggests that a portion of their playerbase is deeply unhappy with the present state of the game, or their other products, and are not feeling their concerns are acknowledged.
Does it?
Another take is thst there is a subset of bitter, miserable customers who will never be satisfied with anything that is presented to them. And who cannot ever be pleased.
With respect, while this is hyperbole, I have met enough gamers who I could only describe as self centred, entitled and bitter to see at least some of that in all the negativity that gets posted.
Telling GW "grey knights are bad, fix them!" Is perfectly adequate feedback. It is not the responsibility of the players to provide GW detailed information on the problems with a product they sell- that is Games Workshop's job. Were the rules team competent, they would investigate the complaints, and work to fix the army. But they haven't.
'X is bad, fix it!' Without any additional direction is white noise. It is not 'perfectly adequate' feedback. And it has nothing to do with competency either. I mean, how do they 'fix' them, if they don't know what the customer wants. They can't make everyone happy either.
Some of my friends playtested for gw back in the day. Two even got their names into a couple of codices and rulebook in the 'special thanks' section. And it's not just gw. I also remember with privateer press' mk2 public playtest, and their requests for the mk3 cid/player feedback, where they said quite clearly this approach had no value. It gives them nothing to work with, no idea of what's wrong, or what direction to go in order to fix it.They wanted specifics in terms of what was wrong and feedback in terms of changes and directions to go.
Feel free to disagree, by all means, but to me, saying 'It's not our responsibility to do anything' is a copout and a handwaving away of our role and our ability to play a part in our enjoyment of our hobby.
Since GW doesnt have a clear line of communication and dont have a place we can give good feedback and know they will take part of it having lots of people shouting all over the place is what you get. Hopefully GW will see that "GK suck pls fix it" and then do their own research for what needs to be done. They have the resources and ability if they want to. PP on the other hand were quite public with their whole beta rules and had forum interactions with the player base on their own forum so of course people could give better feedback there. It was back and forth communication there while from GW its mostly one way.
If GW made an open space and showed that they would listen to the feedback there then I think you would get better criticism. Its not the players fault but GWs in this case. They want it this way. As it is now they dont even have to defend themselves they get others to do it for them. They can just ignore everything and spout their own PR over at WarhammerCommunity and actually interacting with the playerbase would make that so much harder and they would have to put in serious effort to listen if they were to do that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Firstly, grav-tanks have always been a thing in the Imperium. Grav tanks have belonged to the Custodes and SoS for time immemorial, the Admech have it, and Land Speeders are hardly "gothic" looking, yet are iconic Space Marine vehicles.
Sure they had. All of them were outliers, to show off remnants of the former glory and prowess of the Imperium. By contrast, Xenos races underlined their technological advancement with grav-tanks which were standard equipment of their armies. So yes, giving a grav tank as a line vehicle for Imperium is indeed stepping outside of the implicit former boundaries, and undermines the fundamental concept of the Imperium of Man, which is slow fight against the decline.
But then another facet of the Imperium was the discovery and utility of barely understood technologies, and how their tech was always far more brutal and direct than some of their xenos counterparts.
Let's compare the grav vehicles of three types of faction: Space Marines, Eldar/Necrons and T'au. For the Eldar and Necrons and similar old races, this is because they haven't suffered massive technological strife. Their equipment is top notch, understood, and refined. We see this in their design, and their fluff - they are elegant, fast, almost skimming more like light aircraft than an hover vehicle.
Then the T'au, who have such tech because of their technological mastery and rapid development. Larger engines, but still very sleek, very *designed* - visually inferior and certainly more militarily focused than the old races, but shows technological advancement.
And the Space Marines, who have a massive angular box, festooned with guns, cargo, the same blocky silhouette and layered plates iconic to the Imperium. This is not an elegant weapon, this is a hunk of metal and armour designed only for war. And the description of how it floats - it doesn't project some elegant fancy antigrav field like Eldar or Tau or even Land Speeders, it punches the ground until it can hover and turns the battlefield to glass behind it. That's the most Space Marine thing I've heard, on something that apparently doesn't suit their identity.
It doesn't abandon the "fighting against the loss of technology" side, it reinforces it. We're looking at something so clearly retrofitted, clearly cobbled together it might as well be Orky, taking the few relic elements the Imperium has and brutally appropriating them to last just a little bit longer. This isn't the same grav-tech as Legion Jetbikes and Land Speeders - this is a whole other affair.
TL;DR, I don't think anti-grav alone is what defines the xenos tech from the Space Marines, but how it is executed and implemented, and I still feel that Space Marines keep their core identity even if their tanks float now.
It's like giving Tau effective close combat troops with powerful weaponry, and arguing that what's the big deal, they always had close combat units like Aun'shi, Farsight, Kroot...it's a change of the paradigm. One could argue that it is not necessarily bad change, but one cannot argue that it isn't change.
With no change to their story or the T'au race as a whole? Sure, even though the Farsight Enclaves and certain Ethereals/Commanders/Kroot do have close combat training and weaponry. But how about with the increased exposure to Daemons and Neverborn, the T'au get get into more conflicts with them, and come to the same discovery the Ultramarines did during the Battle of Calth: that daemons are significantly weaker to melee weaponry and more "primitive" forms of combat? That may actually prompt the Empire to consider the use of selected melee troops and equipment to combat Daemonic threats, and bada bing, bada boom, you've got Crisis Suits with flamers and swords, maybe with some kind of hexgrammatic ward or null-field generator-equivalent. For me, that sounds absolutely like something the T'au would invest in - they're all about adaptive warfare, and the only reason they didn't spec into melee initially was because their shooting was capable against conventional targets. With ethereal threats that are resistant to advanced ranged weapons (like Daemons are in lore), the most efficient solution for the T'au would be the adoption of small, specially trained melee teams.
I honestly don't see that as a change to the T'au dynamic. Is it a *change*, yes, is it a change to their core identity? No, if anything, this reinforces it.
Since GW doesnt have a clear line of communication and dont have a place we can give good feedback and know they will take part of it having lots of people shouting all over the place is what you get. Hopefully GW will see that "GK suck pls fix it" and then do their own research for what needs to be done. They have the resources and ability if they want to. PP on the other hand were quite public with their whole beta rules and had forum interactions with the player base on their own forum so of course people could give better feedback there. It was back and forth communication there while from GW its mostly one way.
And what if 'their own research' identifies 'x' as a problem to be fixed but a bunch of people elsewhere say 'y' is the problem?
Pp went public, true and it was pretty good but a lot of the feedback was not 'better' - it was white noise, wth little or no value, precisely because people just said 'this is bad, FIX IT'. There is a reason they didn't repeat it with mk3, and did a different take on the public playtest that time. The noise to signal ratio was huge in the mk2 playtest, I actually remember even hearing (at least it was told to me anecdotally) that one of the developers even got death threats (I have absolutely no way to confirm this and I am... more than somewhat sceptical, to be fair!) out of it. The pp forums were pretty useless too - they were just an echo chamber and group think and as time went on, they turned into a salt mine. I remember a lot of people complaining how 'pp never listened' etc.
If GW made an open space and showed that they would listen to the feedback there then I think you would get better criticism. Its not the players fault but GWs in this case. They want it this way. As it is now they dont even have to defend themselves they get others to do it for them. They can just ignore everything and spout their own PR over at WarhammerCommunity and actually interacting with the playerbase would make that so much harder and they would have to put in serious effort to listen if they were to do that.
I don'tthink they would get 'better' feedback at all. You put too much faith in gamers. While plenty blame rightfully lies with gw, There's plenty fault on the side of the players too - there's too many selfish, bitter gamers out there who have no intention of listening and who only spout poison and who would do nothing good at all with any open space presented to them. And with respect, you only need a handful of these to tarnish a brand. And There's a lot more to it than 'nah, we really just don't want to listen to you' or 'don't want to defend ourselves'. I remember the gw forums back in the day and they were a toxic mess with very little to redeem them. It was terrible from a pr and an image perspective. There is a reason both gw and pp nuked their forums.
Since GW doesnt have a clear line of communication and dont have a place we can give good feedback and know they will take part of it having lots of people shouting all over the place is what you get. Hopefully GW will see that "GK suck pls fix it" and then do their own research for what needs to be done. They have the resources and ability if they want to. PP on the other hand were quite public with their whole beta rules and had forum interactions with the player base on their own forum so of course people could give better feedback there. It was back and forth communication there while from GW its mostly one way.
And what if 'their own research' identifies 'x' as a problem to be fixed but a bunch of people elsewhere say 'y' is the problem?
Pp went public, true and it was pretty good but a lot of the feedback was not 'better' - it was white noise, wth little or no value, precisely because people just said 'this is bad, FIX IT'. There is a reason they didn't repeat it with mk3, and did a different take on the public playtest that time. The noise to signal ratio was huge in the mk2 playtest, I actually remember even hearing (at least it was told to me anecdotally) that one of the developers even got death threats (I have absolutely no way to confirm this and I am... more than somewhat sceptical, to be fair!) out of it. The pp forums were pretty useless too - they were just an echo chamber and group think and as time went on, they turned into a salt mine. I remember a lot of people complaining how 'pp never listened' etc.
If GW made an open space and showed that they would listen to the feedback there then I think you would get better criticism. Its not the players fault but GWs in this case. They want it this way. As it is now they dont even have to defend themselves they get others to do it for them. They can just ignore everything and spout their own PR over at WarhammerCommunity and actually interacting with the playerbase would make that so much harder and they would have to put in serious effort to listen if they were to do that.
I don'tthink they would get 'better' feedback at all. You put too much faith in gamers. While plenty blame rightfully lies with gw, There's plenty fault on the side of the players too - there's too many selfish, bitter gamers out there who have no intention of listening and who only spout poison and who would do nothing good at all with any open space presented to them. And with respect, you only need a handful of these to tarnish a brand. And There's a lot more to it than 'nah, we really just don't want to listen to you' or 'don't want to defend ourselves'. I remember the gw forums back in the day and they were a toxic mess with very little to redeem them. It was terrible from a pr and an image perspective. There is a reason both gw and pp nuked their forums.
Seriously nobody could tarnish GW’s brand more than GW have over the years and if that didn’t scare people off the feth all is going to, besides GW have learned all you need is a FB page a small pr team and some willing shills erm sorry playtesters/you tubers and any tarnish polishes right off.
Never forget it was not that long ago that GW’s actual company policy was based on the hardcore fans being dribbling idiots who would stay no matter what state the games were in or how much it cost.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Complaining about something does not make you a negative person. Making complaints is a way to actually improve a company's product or service.
Sure. You can click my profile and see recent posts from me that criticize GW.
Yet, I'm a white knight compared to the people who come in here in bad faith, like some here, and say some of the most ridiculous gak.
Some want to claim 40k is like MtG? I'll disagree and provide my thoughts on why.
Some want to claim
There is absolutely nothing about Games Workshop to be positive about.
supported by conspiracies? That's not useful criticism. It's not going to change anything GW is doing. It isn't going to win support.
There were a rash of totally obscene posts when the Executioner went up in points, too. Feel free to go review them, because they're illuminating in the context of the strong rules marines got.
And I'm going to go as far to say the "non white knights" need to call this gak out more. Otherwise your silence is implicit support.
Apple fox wrote: But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.
Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.
Would you please elaborate on these parts with examples from this thread?
Look around- not in just this thread, many many others. The names and smarmy avatars change but the arguments don't. There are plenty of GW white knights on this site right now (and many over the years that have dropped off, but the "haters" remain. Why do you think that is?) that push their agenda of "Praise the mighty GW for everything they do or GTFO!". Some have even posted ITT, they are quite easy to spot and come out like Gollum to defend their precious whenever a thread like this appears as people they deem "haters" will inevitably show up too.
gee I dunno, could it be because the putridly toxic community is one they don't enjoy interacting with? because no one likes to try to enjoy their lollypop when they're surrounded by people screeching about how aweful lollypops are and it should have been a cookie, and it's the wrong flavor of lollypop anyway? And if you actually like the Lollypop you're clearly just a shill for the greedy confections company. and how they're absolutely insenced that they're being forced to buy lollypops?
Apple fox wrote: But it seems to me, these positivity threads. The people who promote positivity and push against the negative people are really Negative and promote both pushing people out of the hobby and make wild accusations, assumptions and often seem to forget that for a lot of people GW is not the sole part of the hobby.
Reading a lot of reply here, I think some of the people pushing this Positive thinking are the most negative to the Hobby, Both GW and the miniature hobby as a whole.
Would you please elaborate on these parts with examples from this thread?
Look around- not in just this thread, many many others. The names and smarmy avatars change but the arguments don't. There are plenty of GW white knights on this site right now (and many over the years that have dropped off, but the "haters" remain. Why do you think that is?) that push their agenda of "Praise the mighty GW for everything they do or GTFO!". Some have even posted ITT, they are quite easy to spot and come out like Gollum to defend their precious whenever a thread like this appears as people they deem "haters" will inevitably show up too.
gee I dunno, could it be because the putridly toxic community is one they don't enjoy interacting with? because no one likes to try to enjoy their lollypop when they're surrounded by people screeching about how aweful lollypops are and it should have been a cookie, and it's the wrong flavor of lollypop anyway? And if you actually like the Lollypop you're clearly just a shill for the greedy confections company. and how they're absolutely insenced that they're being forced to buy lollypops?
Build it and they will come.
Yeah but there are people who will still defend the company when it’s pointed out the raspberry labelled lollypop is in fact gak flavour and will ignore the warnings and eat anyway and then try and explain that it’s ok because the company have made the best tasting gak flavoured lolly anyway.
Seriously part of the toxicity of the community if that is even the case, is as much the white knights who will argue even against mathematics and common sense that a rule is not garbage as long as it’s official and there’s even the slimmest edge case for its use. I don’t know like a chapter tactic that only kicks in if titans and super heavies shoot infintry.
Thank you for this stunning insight that proves my point and let’s not forget there is no Dakka gestalt mind and if the was by posting you are a part of it and increased the negativity of the thread.
Thank you for this stunning insight that proves my point and let’s not forget there is no Dakka gestalt mind and if the was by posting you are a part of it and increased the negativity of the thread.
you're abolutely right, and IMHO the problem is that the mods don't put a stop to some of the excessively negitive crap here. there are certain posters who absolutely should be taken aside and told "cut it out" with action taken if they do not. people who start a half dozen threads all basicly saying "YOU SUCK YOUR ARMY SUCKS! AND GW SHOULD REMOVE IT" etc. people who don't even play an army posting around trying to stirr up crap saying people should be "insulted" by it (like Slayer-fan attempting to stirr gak up when GW published the blood raven chapter tactics in the july WD, acting like we should all be offended because the rules aren't hopelessly broken)
Seriously nobody could tarnish GW’s brand more than GW have over the years and if that didn’t scare people off the feth all is going to, besides GW have learned all you need is a FB page a small pr team and some willing shills erm sorry playtesters/you tubers and any tarnish polishes right off.
I don't think that's particularly fair.
Now let's be honest - gw have made some stupendously boneheaded decisions over the years, burned a lot of trust, burned even more egos, and made a hell of a lot more mistakes and missteps along the way. I'll be the first to say this. Absolutely. I left gw games entirely from about the end of fourth edition all the way through to about two years ago because of all their crap. And I had a fantastic time playing other games like Warmachine and Infinity.
That said, since Kirby has wandered off and Roundtree got the helm, from my POV they've been doing a lot more things right than wrong, especially in the last 2 years, and being honest, I've genuinely not had so much fun with painting and modelling projects in years. Ive probably dropped a grand or two on their stuff since roundtree has been on the scene. I've had a fantastic time gaming too. Shadespire was our game of choice for the last year or so, and I'm currently getting my warcry starter painted up - I'll be honest, I think this is a wee gem and probably the skirmish game two of my guys have been waiting for for years. And I've loved gw's social media presence - for me at least, they've made it 'fun' again with the regimental standard and all the other media they've released.
If all that stuff still makes you miserable and angry, I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. Maybe it's an age thing, or more probably the guys I play with, but my perspective over the years has definitely shifted, andi value different things now. The fact that the game is still broken as anything means less to me than it did, because we put a lot more emphasis on the 'gamebuilding' aspect of wargaming, than 'blind match ups'. I've also lost faith in the 'god' that is 'a balanced game' - ttgs are limited systems, with rough edges, and I think there's only so far they can be pushed (but thats a debate for another thread). I've also learned enough not to take their mistakes personally. Gw are not an abusive partner. They're just a company making products, some of which I buy and enjoy.
I guess the gaming side for you is not the same as my situation and that's a genuine shame. Still doesn't make us or them 'shills'.
Never forget it was not that long ago that GW’s actual company policy was based on the hardcore fans being dribbling idiots who would stay no matter what state the games were in or how much it cost.
Very true!
Yeah, they relied on the whales a bit too much. To be fair, focusing in on a particular market is not in itself a bad thing, neither is reducing volume of sales but also reducing expenses (sell less stuff for more). But they did it with such contempt, and along with all the other crap they pulled - it's no wonder they bled customers for years. I've seen enough anecdotes to know that there were plenty folks in the company that looked at, and treated their customers with contempt too. Their upper management ran out of ideas, and could only conceive of one way of doing things.
And it was pushing them ever onwards to a wall.
I'm glad they've changed their approach. Im glad they were able to embrace fresh thinking, I'm glad I was also able to change my perspective on things too. Because at the end of the day, and speaking entirely for myself, im glad that I can actually embrace and enjoy the stuff again that gw puts out, and enjoy a side of the gaming universe that for years I stayed away from.
Thank you for this stunning insight that proves my point and let’s not forget there is no Dakka gestalt mind and if the was by posting you are a part of it and increased the negativity of the thread.
I'm more sad that we can't just... accept the positivity. There shouldn't be this many posts on this thread. It should be a couple of people saying, "Yeah, good point, you're right, maybe I'll reflect on that." and that's it.
But then posts like this inevitably turn into wit-offs, where we try to out-wit each other to prove who is the edgiest, wittiest, most negative person in the thread.
It honestly has a lot less to do with 40k and a lot more to do with Internet culture as a whole. In a real world situation, someone sitting down with their friends or their gaming group and explaining these things would probably be met with a lot of nodding of the head and a few 'you right' responses, and then everyone would actually have something to reflect on.
Here, however, it's an all-you-can-eat buffet of 'gotcha' responses, strawman arguments, and people just trying to one-up each other.
I find it my interest in the hobby at the lowest it's been since I started. I haven't played a game in 9 months, and don't have the drive to build or paint new stuff. I think it's hard to remain motivated when your faction gets neglected for years. There are other games that provide a better experience than 40k at this point, and I'm not sure if I can see myself putting myself in that same position again.
Darsath wrote: I find it my interest in the hobby at the lowest it's been since I started. I haven't played a game in 9 months, and don't have the drive to build or paint new stuff. I think it's hard to remain motivated when your faction gets neglected for years. There are other games that provide a better experience than 40k at this point, and I'm not sure if I can see myself putting myself in that same position again.
A lot has changed in 9 months. What were you playing?
Yeah but there are people who will still defend the company when it’s pointed out the raspberry labelled lollypop is in fact gak flavour and will ignore the warnings and eat anyway and then try and explain that it’s ok because the company have made the best tasting gak flavoured lolly anyway.
Seriously part of the toxicity of the community if that is even the case, is as much the white knights who will argue even against mathematics and common sense that a rule is not garbage as long as it’s official and there’s even the slimmest edge case for its use. I don’t know like a chapter tactic that only kicks in if titans and super heavies shoot infintry.
There's the other thing that bugs the ever living gak out of me:
"If it's not perfect its total gak". THAT is what toxic is. You people operate black and white and nothing else.
But, sure, only non white knights understand math and common sense. Thanks for saving us.
Blastaar wrote: Thanks, Adeptus. for this excellent example of arguing in bad faith.
I'm happy to help, and I greatly appreciate you returning the favor with a fine example of "Why you should read the other posts instead of just responding to one out of context". I'll make sure I save this one and avoid some embarrassment later.
I did read the other posts. To which you opted to respond with a long version of "GW can't do or say a single thing, even if entirely unrelated to their products, without people yelling at them for the sake of it because GW players are so incredibly toxic."
Even if your extreme hypothetical were true, that GW receives this kind of ire on all fronts heavily suggests that a portion of their playerbase is deeply unhappy with the present state of the game, or their other products, and are not feeling their concerns are acknowledged. Games Workshop obviously knows that listening to the concerns of its customers is good for business- otherwise they would not have marketed 8th by framing it as the 40K "you asked for!" The thing is, GW hears, but they do not listen. Telling customers "hey, we understand your concerns, here is our solution" is just a marketing slogan for them. Their actions do not support the notion that their rules team understands the problems with their game and are working to resolve them.
Telling GW "grey knights are bad, fix them!" Is perfectly adequate feedback. It is not the responsibility of the players to provide GW detailed information on the problems with a product they sell- that is Games Workshop's job. Were the rules team competent, they would investigate the complaints, and work to fix the army. But they haven't.
Yes, I was being sarcastic, because your tone-deaf, outright angry and dishonest post called for it. Reread your response to me. Reflect on it. Perhaps, choosing the combative tone you did, and, as you are so often wont to do, dismissing people's concerns as "complaining for the sake of complaining" only contributes to the issue?
I quoted the whole post, but one thing I wanted to touch on was saying " GW, this is broke, fix it " I couldn't agree more that should be totally fine feedback. In fact I'd often consider it counter productive as the company that makes the productive should damn well know what they put out sucks. Me, or any of us, saying this sucks, and heres why, I doubt would get any better response as the game designers aren't going to say " Hey, ya know what ? Random internet person 9 says we should do this for them, well better listen to them then ! "
Often complaints to GW tend to be just as hard for anyone to phrase as listen to. Say whats wrong and how to fix it, and you're being arrogant that you can do their jobs, state the problem and just say it needs to be fixed and you're being vague and unhelpful. Get annoyed that lasting issues never get touched on and you're being combative. Obviously there will be some people who just complain and attack GW over everything because they are trolls and like to do that to near anyone or anything but that doesn't devalue the otherwise valid criticisms.
Darsath wrote: I find it my interest in the hobby at the lowest it's been since I started. I haven't played a game in 9 months, and don't have the drive to build or paint new stuff. I think it's hard to remain motivated when your faction gets neglected for years. There are other games that provide a better experience than 40k at this point, and I'm not sure if I can see myself putting myself in that same position again.
A lot has changed in 9 months. What were you playing?
Yeah but there are people who will still defend the company when it’s pointed out the raspberry labelled lollypop is in fact gak flavour and will ignore the warnings and eat anyway and then try and explain that it’s ok because the company have made the best tasting gak flavoured lolly anyway.
Seriously part of the toxicity of the community if that is even the case, is as much the white knights who will argue even against mathematics and common sense that a rule is not garbage as long as it’s official and there’s even the slimmest edge case for its use. I don’t know like a chapter tactic that only kicks in if titans and super heavies shoot infintry.
There's the other thing that bugs the ever living gak out of me:
"If it's not perfect its total gak". THAT is what toxic is. You people operate black and white and nothing else.
But, sure, only non white knights understand math and common sense. Thanks for saving us.
None of us need "perfect". What we NEED is for them to actually try harder and maybe, I dunno, think sometimes.
Only time I see the word "perfect" is in strawmans or right after "dont expect" or "we dont need". There is a whole lot you could do with ease to make 40k and GWs practices better without even needing to think what would be perfect. If anyone ever wanted perfection then they wouldnt ever be able to touch a GW product and survive the burns to post online.
How about we reach a happy medium of, letting people be positive, and letting people point out what is bad and not telling either side how to live. That is really the only thing I chimed in on.
I won't say why you shouldn't enjoy yourself, but please refrain from telling me why GW is amazing.
I would further add, if a handful of deemed negative posts on warhammer from some people online force people out of love of the hobby or the hobby in general, I'd say that person has bigger issues than not playing warhammer like inability of making choices for themselves.
I honestly don't see people not loving GW, or loving it all the time as an issue. I see the issue being when you can't accept that both those types actually tend to care about the hobby. Which is why you get the " negative " talk in a " positive " thread, turns out people don't like being told what to do in terms of how they view GW and what they do or don't like and why should always be " positive " otherwise they are " negative ".
i guess what weirds me out about this place is how much people here seem to hate and resent their hobby. i enjoy this hobby, i love building and painting models, i am sad that i can't buy all the models i want because i am too poor and they are too expensive and too many, and i am sad that i can't paint quicker, and i wish i had more time to play games with them, but i can't imagine getting this upset over rules. maybe its because i wasn't raised in a competitive environment, so i enjoy losing as much as i enjoy not losing, but i can see that if you feel you need to win lots of games the cost of staying competitive would be very high. but then, we live in a capitalist system, and gw's shareholders need their profit, so what are you going to do?
I would further add, if a handful of deemed negative posts on warhammer from some people online force people out of love of the hobby or the hobby in general, I'd say that person has bigger issues than not playing warhammer like inability of making choices for themselves.
Not engaging with a community platform (the other part of my argument which you left out) or not bothering with a hobby anymore because you value a good community and the community is gak IS making a choice for themselves. Telling that guy "stop collecting, Dakka is trash" and then he would stop the hobby would be what you describe.
AngryAngel80 wrote: How about we reach a happy medium of, letting people be positive, and letting people point out what is bad and [1]not telling either side how to live. That is really the only thing I chimed in on.
I honestly don't see people not loving GW, or loving it all the time as an issue. I see the issue being when you can't accept that both those types actually tend to care about the hobby. Which is why you get the " negative " talk in a " positive " thread, turns out [2]people don't like being told what to do in terms of how they view GW and [3]what they do or don't like and why should always be " positive " otherwise they are " negative ".
[1] So what you are doing right now? Or is it just advice that you, I and other gave in this thread and that some just sweep aside as "don't tell me what to do" when being presented with conflicting views?
[2] & [3] Please elaborate with examples from this thread.
BrianDavion wrote: how about the excessivly negitive people then not invade every thread, even the god damned LORE discussions, to scream about how X sucks etc?
Are you serious ? Yeah I'll tell the negative ones to not invade positive threads when all the knights decide to not trot on into a thread with someone hating on GW to explain to them how they should be thankful for all GW deems fit to offer them. Seriously man, back the train up both sides do that so don't act like it's just the evil negative guys attacking everyone.
It happens to every thread, and both parties do it. If living and let living is just too much to ask for, then better get down with the negative vibes as I doubt they will go anywhere much like all the defenders of realm will be sure to defend the honor of GW at every turn as well.
Neither side is right, neither side is wrong, just deal with it.
I would further add, if a handful of deemed negative posts on warhammer from some people online force people out of love of the hobby or the hobby in general, I'd say that person has bigger issues than not playing warhammer like inability of making choices for themselves.
Not engaging with a community platform (the other part of my argument which you left out) or not bothering with a hobby anymore because you value a good community and the community is gak IS making a choice for themselves. Telling that guy "stop collecting, Dakka is trash" and then he would stop the hobby would be what you describe.
AngryAngel80 wrote: How about we reach a happy medium of, letting people be positive, and letting people point out what is bad and [1]not telling either side how to live. That is really the only thing I chimed in on.
I honestly don't see people not loving GW, or loving it all the time as an issue. I see the issue being when you can't accept that both those types actually tend to care about the hobby. Which is why you get the " negative " talk in a " positive " thread, turns out [2]people don't like being told what to do in terms of how they view GW and [3]what they do or don't like and why should always be " positive " otherwise they are " negative ".
[1] So what you are doing right now? Or is it just advice that you, I and other gave in this thread and that some just sweep aside as "don't tell me what to do" when being presented with conflicting views?
[2] & [3] Please elaborate with examples from this thread.
You can make whatever thread you like, but if someone thinks the tank looks bad, they'll voice it there too. That shouldn't take away your love of it.
You can engage in a community platform but choose to engage in the points you want and leave the rest. If you value someone elses opinion over your own drive to experience it for yourself and make up your own mind, you not in it is no big loss and I'd say you should learn to make your own choices and bring in input simply as a way to gauge your feelings on the matter not as a defacto statement of truth.
So me telling you to stop telling people to dislike GW is fine but me saying let the people say what they will is bad ? Nice turn around on that one. As I said, if living and let living is just too hard and unacceptable better just get ready for the hate train as you'll change nothing and work over no one if all you want is an echo chamber which feels an awful lot like what some people seek in opinions. Not all, just some.
I'm not going to go around and seek out all the examples, they are there, I'm sure you can read them same as I did. Making me do pointless busy work to earn brownie points for an argument you will never agree to anyways is just a waste of both our time.
sure it's fine to think the tanks look bad but when you run around making posts that say "REPULSORS OBJECTIVELY LOOK BAD!" it's silly. (the repulsor's gun layout I think is reasonably sensable when you look at it, the executioner's is less so though)
AngryAngel80 wrote:How about we reach a happy medium of, letting people be positive, and letting people point out what is bad and not telling either side how to live. That is really the only thing I chimed in on.
Yeah, I can work with that. However, I'm sure you'll agree that there is a difference between "pointing out what is 'bad'" and "going into every thread with the same criticisms, even on otherwise unrelated or specifically optimistic threads".
I wouldn't have a problem with a "this is a rant thread, only rants and complaints here", but when it's nearly *every thread*? That's excessive.
I won't say why you shouldn't enjoy yourself, but please refrain from telling me why GW is amazing.
So, just to be clear, does this work the other way around? "I won't say why you should enjoy yourself, but please refrain from telling me why GW sucks"?
I would further add, if a handful of deemed negative posts on warhammer from some people online force people out of love of the hobby or the hobby in general, I'd say that person has bigger issues than not playing warhammer like inability of making choices for themselves.
Agreed, but so likewise, if people can't stand folks liking what GW do without calling them a shill or white knight, does that not also speak to their insecurity?
Again, just to clarify, it's not just "a handful of deemed negative posts" - it's a torrent of them on nearly every thread. And while criticism and discontent are all fine and dandy, when it's all you can see, surely you can see why that's a tad over-the-top?
I honestly don't see people not loving GW, or loving it all the time as an issue. I see the issue being when you can't accept that both those types actually tend to care about the hobby. Which is why you get the " negative " talk in a " positive " thread, turns out people don't like being told what to do in terms of how they view GW and what they do or don't like and why should always be " positive " otherwise they are " negative ".
But when the majority of posts and threads are telling people to view GW as this evil terrible can-do-no-good entity, that's okay?
You're absolutely right, people don't like to be told how to think and feel. So why is telling people to 'perhaps look on the bright side and find positives in their hobby' bad, but telling people that 'GW suck and you should hate them because they're a terrible company' okay?
There should be a balance, but right now, that's not what's going on.
AngryAngel80 wrote: You can make whatever thread you like, but if someone thinks the tank looks bad, they'll voice it there too. That shouldn't take away your love of it.
It doesn't. I bring it up because you just stated I should not tell you why GW is amazing. Which is so far the only example in this thread were somebody outright says "Don't post your opinion at all".
AngryAngel80 wrote: So me telling you to stop telling people to dislike GW is fine but me saying let the people say what they will is bad ? Nice turn around on that one. As I said, if living and let living is just too hard and unacceptable better just get ready for the hate train as you'll change nothing and work over no one if all you want is an echo chamber which feels an awful lot like what some people seek in opinions. Not all, just some.
Sorry, I seem to not make my point clear. I wanted to highlight that you are preaching water in one sentence and drinking wine in the next. I don't see "don't tell me what to do" as a valid counter argument. If you use it, then you either have no argument or don't want to engage in a discussion. This is closer to asking for the echo chamber you mention.
I'm not going to go around and seek out all the examples, they are there, I'm sure you can read them same as I did. Making me do pointless busy work to earn brownie points for an argument you will never agree to anyways is just a waste of both our time.
This is getting tiresome. Everytime I ask for examples for general assessments like this from someone in this thread I get either ignored or told "It is there, just read it". I'm sorry, but I read through all posts and did not come to the same conclusion as you. I would honestly appreciate it, if you could quote from this thread. I'm not trying to be annoying on purpose or make you do some work or anything. I'm interested in a good discussion and for that I would need some concrete examples.
Thank you in advance, if you go through the posts and quote some
I thought it was generally frown upon to
A. Single people out.
B. To get posts that may have been moderated on.
But if I was going to, I think of a few posts by people in this thread.
And one in another, all 3 of which have pushed positivity in the hobby.
This is the thing, I do not think voicing my opinion on the game is negative, it’s why I try and never comment on the fun of other people. Just on fun for myself.
Even if it’s hard to get the words right so that goes across.
And well, maybe I am not even seen as negative by the people I may think do here. But it’s hard to know when some on this thread can use vague insults to skirt lines, but direct them at no one.
Apple fox wrote: I thought it was generally frown upon to
A. Single people out.
B. To get posts that may have been moderated on.
But if I was going to, I think of a few posts by people in this thread.
And one in another, all 3 of which have pushed positivity in the hobby.
This is the thing, I do not think voicing my opinion on the game is negative, it’s why I try and never comment on the fun of other people. Just on fun for myself.
Even if it’s hard to get the words right so that goes across.
And well, maybe I am not even seen as negative by the people I may think do here. But it’s hard to know when some on this thread can use vague insults to skirt lines, but direct them at no one.
As far as I am aware, singling someone's posts out isn't a violation of rule 1 it's done respectfully - as in, you can't attack a person, but you can criticise their opinion. So, while I'm not a mod, I don't see what's wrong with that. Of course, a mod is probably the arbiter on that.
As an aside, you make it sound like "pushing positivity" is a bad thing - why? What's wrong with having more positive feelings over negative ones?
Apple fox wrote: I thought it was generally frown upon to
A. Single people out.
B. To get posts that may have been moderated on.
But if I was going to, I think of a few posts by people in this thread.
And one in another, all 3 of which have pushed positivity in the hobby.
This is the thing, I do not think voicing my opinion on the game is negative, it’s why I try and never comment on the fun of other people. Just on fun for myself.
Even if it’s hard to get the words right so that goes across.
And well, maybe I am not even seen as negative by the people I may think do here. But it’s hard to know when some on this thread can use vague insults to skirt lines, but direct them at no one.
As far as I am aware, singling someone's posts out isn't a violation of rule 1 it's done respectfully - as in, you can't attack a person, but you can criticise their opinion. So, while I'm not a mod, I don't see what's wrong with that. Of course, a mod is probably the arbiter on that.
As an aside, you make it sound like "pushing positivity" is a bad thing - why? What's wrong with having more positive feelings over negative ones?
Pushing positivity is great, I just do not think the people here are doing it. I think a lot of people are saying a lot of nice things, only to do exactly what they speak against.
When it’s all said, the only way to really push positivity is to be positive. And that is hard work, sometimes things get to you. But I do not think the discussion itself surrounding GW is negative.
Apple fox wrote: But I do not think the discussion itself surrounding GW is negative.
Discussing GW is not negative. Having criticism of GW is not negative. Having dozens of threads where the same criticism is brought up, going into threads dedicated to praise and positivity solely to level those same criticisms, and some* of those criticisms to be based on flimsy "evidence" at best? That is negative. And it just makes me wonder, if all you can think of is negativity, what's the point?
*obviously not all, and many of those criticisms are based off of opinions of what we personally want most in the game, be that a tight ruleset, affordable prices, a certain type of lore, or whatever else.
Apple fox wrote: But I do not think the discussion itself surrounding GW is negative.
Discussing GW is not negative. Having criticism of GW is not negative. Having dozens of threads where the same criticism is brought up, going into threads dedicated to praise and positivity solely to level those same criticisms, and some* of those criticisms to be based on flimsy "evidence" at best? That is negative. And it just makes me wonder, if all you can think of is negativity, what's the point?
*obviously not all, and many of those criticisms are based off of opinions of what we personally want most in the game, be that a tight ruleset, affordable prices, a certain type of lore, or whatever else.
Well, I consider most threads here just a discussion. A thread dedicated to praise and positivity itself seems a catalyst for negativity. Why, because often they are not promoting any positivity but a negativity against people’s opinions.
Not always, but often enough. Evidence is a a weird thing, as it’s a discussion forum. Of corse some things need some forms of evidence but if it’s so flimsy then a response should be enough.
Threads start and die, to find new discussion. I also do not read every thread, or participate. Upon seeing this thread I had decided not to post originally.
To post in a way to only invite positivity you create that negativity is just what I think about all of this.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As far as I am aware, singling someone's posts out isn't a violation of rule 1 it's done respectfully - as in, you can't attack a person, but you can criticise their opinion. So, while I'm not a mod, I don't see what's wrong with that. Of course, a mod is probably the arbiter on that.
As an aside, you make it sound like "pushing positivity" is a bad thing - why? What's wrong with having more positive feelings over negative ones?
Well because the obligatory 8th ed is great and it is the best time to play w40k, is kind of hard to accept. When your army is neither good, nor fixed in 8th, nor does it seem as if GW is going to fix anything, and they stay super secretive about what they plan for you faction. Plus there is stranger patern breaking , first codex in 8th was marines, so 8th 2.0 started with marines, but the next updates weren't GK and DG, but eldar and more marines, and later on SoB, tyranids, BA etc. So they are skipping some armies with their updates. Now if your army does well, the probably being skiped as far as rules updates go, is a good thing. It ain't a good thing, when your army is bad though. Specially when GW in the past phased out whole factions in the past.
And it just makes me wonder, if all you can think of is negativity, what's the point?
this maybe is a stupid question for some, but how does it suppose to work? Just because other people are happpy, your suppose to be happy too or at least pretend you are, even if you are not happy yourself? Is it like lieing, where you have to say lieing is bad, but telling the truth only makes people angry and gets you in trouble?
Apple fox wrote:Well, I consider most threads here just a discussion. A thread dedicated to praise and positivity itself seems a catalyst for negativity. Why, because often they are not promoting any positivity but a negativity against people’s opinions. Not always, but often enough. Evidence is a a weird thing, as it’s a discussion forum. Of corse some things need some forms of evidence but if it’s so flimsy then a response should be enough.
While I do wish that were the case, unfortunately, when those responses are just treated as "you're just being a shill/white knight", logic throws itself out of the window. That's not a Dakka exclusive thing, the amount of times in the real world where people believe in the flimsiest evidences and ignore everything to the contrary is staggering.
Threads start and die, to find new discussion. I also do not read every thread, or participate. Upon seeing this thread I had decided not to post originally.
To post in a way to only invite positivity you create that negativity is just what I think about all of this.
I disagree with that, personally. Positivity doesn't mean "you can't criticise GW", and in a great many cases, criticism is a great form of positive action. Just repeating the same criticism to the point of negativity is something that happens easily enough without anyone advocating for a more positive outlook. It feels like the only things people can say are the same opinions over and over again to the point where they negatively swamp everything. Likewise, if someone were always saying "GW are the best and there should be no criticism of them!", that would be negative.
But, that's just my view.
Karol wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As far as I am aware, singling someone's posts out isn't a violation of rule 1 it's done respectfully - as in, you can't attack a person, but you can criticise their opinion. So, while I'm not a mod, I don't see what's wrong with that. Of course, a mod is probably the arbiter on that.
As an aside, you make it sound like "pushing positivity" is a bad thing - why? What's wrong with having more positive feelings over negative ones?
Well because the obligatory 8th ed is great and it is the best time to play w40k, is kind of hard to accept.
That's my opinion. I'm not claiming for a fact that "this is best edition ever!", but that I am enjoying this edition the most, and I personally think it's great.
I'm not denying your opinion if you feel the opposite, but your comment just there is exactly what I mean by how any kind of positive outlook is trampled upon. "I like this!"-"Well I don't, so I don't believe you." It feels like an automatic response at this point, someone says something vaguely praising GW for something, and then immediately followed up by "no, that's wrong, here's all the things wrong about it that get brought up all the time". It just feels excessive.
Basically, sorry if you don't agree with my opinion, but it's just as valid as yours.
And it just makes me wonder, if all you can think of is negativity, what's the point?
this maybe is a stupid question for some, but how does it suppose to work? Just because other people are happpy, your suppose to be happy too or at least pretend you are, even if you are not happy yourself? Is it like lieing, where you have to say lieing is bad, but telling the truth only makes people angry and gets you in trouble?
No, it's not about pretending that you're happy, or putting on a brave face and just plowing through in the hopes it'll get better. What I mean is "if all you can associate with something is negativity, maybe it's a good time to take a step back and do something that actually makes you feel good".
We're not being forced to play 40k (at least, I hope not). If it's impossible to hold back criticism to the point where it spills out into unrelated threads, maybe it's worth considering the negative impact that's having on you. Take a step back, some time out, enjoy something that you actually like. If I was playing a video game, and I started hating it, started getting bored, killed a lot, just having a bad time, why would I keep playing it? I'd play something else, maybe go back to my old game when I felt better about it or when things had gotten to a point where I liked it again.
It's not a case of "what's the point of being negative?", it's "what's the point of subjecting myself to something that only inspires negativity in me?". Hope that clears that up.
I'm not seeing it, and I'm really looking for it. You know, usually when someone is making jokes about something- they're not being angry and hostile. I can laugh at a lot of things, even myself, and that generally keeps me from being quite hostile. A sense of humor is quite the versatile tool.
So, I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree by reasoning of "I'm right". Just this once, at least.
Even if your extreme hypothetical were true, that GW receives this kind of ire on all fronts heavily suggests that a portion of their playerbase is deeply unhappy with the present state of the game, or their other products, and are not feeling their concerns are acknowledged.
Yet they make millions of dollars. For all the unsatisfied customers that there are out there, they sure seem to have no problem throwing money at the game. See, that's kind of doing the opposite of expressing dissatisfaction. Do you tell you dog he is a good boy when he poops on the floor and bites you? No, but if you do-he'll keep pooping on the floor.
I criticize a lot of things, and have some pretty hefty and harsh criticisms. GW has been on the receiving end of my criticism in the past. When I am not happy with something, I quit spending money on it. A FINE example would be CMON, a company that loves to make a new flashy game and drop support of it after a few months in favor of a slightly similar game (Zombicide won't be seeing another PENNY of my money if they don't continue to support Invader and skip right back to 2e Zombicide instead, much like they have done before).
I only have your word to go on, and you could lie or you could be telling the truth about this and I could be wrong- but I will bet you a bag of 32mm bases that you haven't stopped buying stuff despite your problem.
"Good dog, good poopie on the carpet!" is what they hear.
Telling GW "grey knights are bad, fix them!" Is perfectly adequate feedback. It is not the responsibility of the players to provide GW detailed information on the problems with a product they sell- that is Games Workshop's job. Were the rules team competent, they would investigate the complaints, and work to fix the army. But they haven't.
No, it isn't. That's how children complain- they don't understand why the toy or what-have-you isn't working, and don't have the vocabulary to elaborate on the problem- so they just cry and hand the problem off to an adult.
An adult, or at least a young adult would know that elaborating on the problem and explaining how it's not working and what the problem is- that gets results. Perhaps offering suggestions or ideas also helps a lot.
I'd love to be your mechanic, and have you bring your car to me and tell me "My car is broke, fix it" and think that was enough. I'd smile and assure you that I'd take care of it once I found out what the problem is, and spend the better part of the next year 'trying to find the problem'. And just letting those lot fees pile up. Never told me the issue, so... I have limited time, garage space, employees, and materials so... this is certainly going to be a while. And if you get tired of waiting, and want it back- sure, you can have it back. Sorry about all that, just a matter of these lot fees you'll have to square up. And all you had to do was make at least some guess at what the problem was, and that could have narrowed it down and changed this whole scenario.
See? That's what happens when you start acting entitled and refusing to at least try and express what the problem is with something. No one can help you if you're not willing to communicate, and no one should help you- your complaint should be ignored.
Deadnight wrote: Another take is thst there is a subset of bitter, miserable customers who will never be satisfied with anything that is presented to them. And who cannot ever be pleased.
With respect, while this is hyperbole, I have met enough gamers who I could only describe as self centred, entitled and bitter to see at least some of that in all the negativity that gets posted.
There is certainly a vocal minority of people that are always pissed off and complaining. Case in point- "Third edition guy" that's always there to complain about how all the rules suck and the models suck, and he's been doing this since after third...in other words, he's been doing this for fifteen years. That's some kind of psychological problem right there, or a sign of some other serious issues- putting it nicely.
I could speculate on why they do this, but a lot of it I think is less actual dissatisfaction with the product and more a symptom of someone who spent their whole life whining to their parents to get what they want or make themselves the center of attention, and sometimes these habits die hard. If enough people ignore the, they'll be forced to adapt once they realize whining doesn't get them results.
Now, don't get me wrong- GW isn't a generous relative and these releases are not 'gifts'. I don't have to be grateful. I can be displeased. And I should express displeasure if I am displeased, of course. I been mad for YEARS about not getting proper Chaos Warriors (up until yesterday), and I flat-out refused to spend money on Age of Sigmar because I thought it was absolutely absurd that they just ignored one of the staples of Warhammer in favor of Khorne Murderstrokers and Bloodbelchers or whatever. Didn't give them one cent. Complained, and stated specifically what I'd like to see. Now I got it, I'll spend the money (if there's no issues, at least).
Everyone wants to whine, but no one wants to speak with their wallet. Same guys that complain incessantly about this game are usually over-drafting their accounts to buy the newest toy from GW.
Blastaar wrote: If specific issues are repeatedly brought up when discussing 40k, that is a sign that there are problems with the game.
Could you provide an example of such an issue that existed before the marine books? (Note: I'm not asserting issues dont exist)
I think the most agreed upon is the poor excuse for terrain rules in the core game. It also ties directly into the lack of game mechanics in the core rules as the core rules are extremely bare bones for a tactical table top war game.
)
all over it. So DakkaDakka! 
