So my question to those who are unhappy with the current state of their respective game and the company as a whole is why do you all stay and collectively subject yourself to something a lot of you clearly hate? I see it time and time again in just about every thread, the literal same arguments people were having two years ago about primaris this, stormcast that, my rules suck, that new army get's more support than my 1 character, 2 troop army that hasn't been good since third edition, I don't like the aesthetics, I don't like the rules! Complain, complain, complain. Clearly this hobby makes you unhappy, so why do you subject yourself to it continuously when a lot of you even go so far as to say that it's never going to change? It's like you know it's bad for your health, but you keep coming back and I just don't understand it?
Just to be fair, I did this myself with 40K up until the Pandemic forced me to suspend my gaming. Once I wasn't able to do it, I had all these realizations that I needed to find another game and I moved to AoS instead of 40K. Things got a lot better for me, because it turns out that game is much better suited for me than 40K was. There are a lot of choices out there for wargames and I'm genuinely curious about this.
techsoldaten wrote: What people say and how they actually feel are 2 different things.
You can not like GW and still like other people in the community.
The German word trotz sums up much of what I feel towards GW.
I understand the differences in opinion. And I also get that folks from friendships with others within the community who probably don't feel the same way. I just don't understand the non-stop complaints about things that aren't going to change. To me, it feels like some folks have lost their interest or at least it's dulled quite a good bit and they're hanging around for the sake of needing something to be upset about.
It's been a while since I took any German, what does that word mean?
When people like something it doesn't generate as much discussion. One could go down a rabbit hole with details of how and why our psychology does that, but regardless that is what it is. With GW specifically, why people like something tends to boil down to a few major reasons which further limits discussion because people agree; if I agree with someone there isn't a lot I have to say beyond 'I agree'.
Accordingly, people who still like the hobby overall will end up spending a great deal more time discussing what they don't like about it.
Arguing is a hobby of its own. When I had young kids and couldn't play I was stuck on forums. Now I'm probably playing more than ever, because of TTS and the shop is open to gaming this June so things are looking up.
Of course I'm pretty positive focused, but the takeaway is that perhaps some people don't have time to game and the forums becomes their outlet for good or bad.
Complaining is free and some people are cheap.
Others are in love/lust with GW & they treat it as such. Either mutual, unrequited, puppy, or masochistic.
Further still, some differentiate between the product and company. Personally I love 40k, currently only mildly dislike GW(better than when they squatted my squats) and despise how some take a fanatical/cultish approach to it. White/Black nighting, vitriol, etc...
It makes zero sense to continue to be ridden roughshod by something that you no longer like.
I can understand hoping that it'll get better, but at some point, to quote a fishing saying "sometimes you just gotta cut n run"
I can't speak for everybody, but for me, what kept me coming back long after I had lost interest in actually playing the game, and still keeps me checking in on new releases just to see what's happening, is investment.
I started playing 40K in 1994, and stopped playing about mid-way through 6th edition when the move to hardcover codexes made it impractical to keep up with the rules and I realised that I wasn't enjoying what the game had become anymore anyway. I have a cabinet full of painted miniatures, two shelves full of rulebooks and codexes, and more unpainted stuff sitting downstairs than I'll likely paint in my lifetime, particularly now that I'm not actively playing the game.
All of that adds up to a significant investment in money, time, and mental space, and just letting go of that is not easy. I did, in the end, by deciding to go back and revisit 2nd edition and largely ignore the new stuff... but that took a while.
It's really easy to dismiss it as people 'wanting something to be upset about'... but it's generally a lot deeper than that, from my experience. People want the thing they love to go on being the thing they love, and so they hang on in the hope that, despite all evidence to the contrary, at some point it will go back to being that thing.
People like to talk about things on the internet. Some people like to talk about things they don't like in a hobby that is important to them. Apparently, other people like to talk about people who talk about things they don't like in the hobby.
Who would have thought?
As someone probably once said of these forums: "I don't come here to not post."
A lot of people like being miserable. They enjoy wallowing in their own misery and because they are fundamentally unhappy they are annoyed by others who are happy or enjoy things. So they complain, they drag things down, they are like the dementors from Harry Potter. Everyone knows who they are... same old nics been moaning on Dakka for 10+ years.
It was also a bit of a hit for the Dakka community when Warseer fell. A lot of the negative dross that used to dwell over there have infected here... like a big negative tumor.
I enjoy 40k. I enjoy other games more, but 40k isn't a "miserable" experience. Just a less enjoyable one than it could be. And that's the rub, isn't it?
Just because I have fun playing 40k doesn't mean it can't be improved in dramatic ways so my enjoyment improves (and that of my opponents).
I don't think it's wrong to enjoy something while also loudly seeking to improve it. Like video games - does the fact that I think X character's moveset could be improved or that Y gun's bullet drop is unrealistic mean that I'm not allowed to play the game?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I enjoy 40k. I enjoy other games more, but 40k isn't a "miserable" experience. Just a less enjoyable one than it could be. And that's the rub, isn't it?
Just because I have fun playing 40k doesn't mean it can't be improved in dramatic ways so my enjoyment improves (and that of my opponents).
I don't think it's wrong to enjoy something while also loudly seeking to improve it. Like video games - does the fact that I think X character's moveset could be improved or that Y gun's bullet drop is unrealistic mean that I'm not allowed to play the game?
If it's less enjoyable, why not make it more enjoyable? It's a big sandbox and homebrewing something to have more fun makes plenty of sense to me.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I enjoy 40k. I enjoy other games more, but 40k isn't a "miserable" experience. Just a less enjoyable one than it could be. And that's the rub, isn't it?
Just because I have fun playing 40k doesn't mean it can't be improved in dramatic ways so my enjoyment improves (and that of my opponents).
I don't think it's wrong to enjoy something while also loudly seeking to improve it. Like video games - does the fact that I think X character's moveset could be improved or that Y gun's bullet drop is unrealistic mean that I'm not allowed to play the game?
If it's less enjoyable, why not make it more enjoyable? It's a big sandbox and homebrewing something to have more fun makes plenty of sense to me.
Because my club won't play games without following the rules. I call it the "cult of officialdom". People are skeptical of rules I wrote myself or homebrew things (unless I'm GMing a campaign or something, but I already do that for 3 systems so doing it for 40k just so I can rewrite the rules to be more like one of the other systems is too much).
Hollow wrote: A lot of people like being miserable. They enjoy wallowing in their own misery and because they are fundamentally unhappy they are annoyed by others who are happy or enjoy things. So they complain, they drag things down, they are like the dementors from Harry Potter. Everyone knows who they are... same old nics been moaning on Dakka for 10+ years.
It was also a bit of a hit for the Dakka community when Warseer fell. A lot of the negative dross that used to dwell over there have infected here... like a big negative tumor.
And a lot of people are annoyed by other people expressing their dissatisfaction, and respond to complaints about GW with personal attacks aimed at the complainer, for example by referring to them as cancer and using the vocabulary of disease. Thus illustrating the ironic fact that it's people who are "positive" towards GW generally who are actually marginally more likely to personally attack other people over their opinions than the "negative" posters.
It all comes down to investment. People complain because they're invested. People attack complainers because they're invested.
It shows how healthy 40k is. When GW really needs to start worrying is if people aren't complaining, because that shows they don't care. And it's a lack of caring that really kills a game system.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I enjoy 40k. I enjoy other games more, but 40k isn't a "miserable" experience. Just a less enjoyable one than it could be. And that's the rub, isn't it?
Just because I have fun playing 40k doesn't mean it can't be improved in dramatic ways so my enjoyment improves (and that of my opponents).
I don't think it's wrong to enjoy something while also loudly seeking to improve it. Like video games - does the fact that I think X character's moveset could be improved or that Y gun's bullet drop is unrealistic mean that I'm not allowed to play the game?
If it's less enjoyable, why not make it more enjoyable? It's a big sandbox and homebrewing something to have more fun makes plenty of sense to me.
Because my club won't play games without following the rules. I call it the "cult of officialdom". People are skeptical of rules I wrote myself or homebrew things (unless I'm GMing a campaign or something, but I already do that for 3 systems so doing it for 40k just so I can rewrite the rules to be more like one of the other systems is too much).
So these people will trust you enough to play in a campaign where you've brewed some rules - but won't play them otherwise.
That's messed up.
That's pretty standard. If you're playing a campaign, everyone has agreed to play that campaign and has a chance to see the rules before it starts. They go into it knowing that it's a campaign with altered rules.
For a pick-up game, people don't want to waste time discussing altered rules, they just want to play the game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I enjoy 40k. I enjoy other games more, but 40k isn't a "miserable" experience. Just a less enjoyable one than it could be. And that's the rub, isn't it?
Just because I have fun playing 40k doesn't mean it can't be improved in dramatic ways so my enjoyment improves (and that of my opponents).
I don't think it's wrong to enjoy something while also loudly seeking to improve it. Like video games - does the fact that I think X character's moveset could be improved or that Y gun's bullet drop is unrealistic mean that I'm not allowed to play the game?
If it's less enjoyable, why not make it more enjoyable? It's a big sandbox and homebrewing something to have more fun makes plenty of sense to me.
Because my club won't play games without following the rules. I call it the "cult of officialdom". People are skeptical of rules I wrote myself or homebrew things (unless I'm GMing a campaign or something, but I already do that for 3 systems so doing it for 40k just so I can rewrite the rules to be more like one of the other systems is too much).
That always frustrates me. The game is so much more than strict match play and people who cram it into that box are missing out.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I enjoy 40k. I enjoy other games more, but 40k isn't a "miserable" experience. Just a less enjoyable one than it could be. And that's the rub, isn't it?
Just because I have fun playing 40k doesn't mean it can't be improved in dramatic ways so my enjoyment improves (and that of my opponents).
I don't think it's wrong to enjoy something while also loudly seeking to improve it. Like video games - does the fact that I think X character's moveset could be improved or that Y gun's bullet drop is unrealistic mean that I'm not allowed to play the game?
If it's less enjoyable, why not make it more enjoyable? It's a big sandbox and homebrewing something to have more fun makes plenty of sense to me.
Because my club won't play games without following the rules. I call it the "cult of officialdom". People are skeptical of rules I wrote myself or homebrew things (unless I'm GMing a campaign or something, but I already do that for 3 systems so doing it for 40k just so I can rewrite the rules to be more like one of the other systems is too much).
So these people will trust you enough to play in a campaign where you've brewed some rules - but won't play them otherwise.
That's messed up.
I second this. Honestly one of the worst parts of the community as a general whole is the refusal to even engage with the wider game outside of strict GW systems.
You can hate/dislike the company/game and still enjoy it you know. Seems weird I know, but for example I thoroughly despise most of the new lore but I can pretend it doesn't exist and keep to my own head canon.
At the end of the day it is for me a social hobby, even when I dislike the current state of the game/company I still like rolling some dice and spending time with my friends. I'm also the kind of person who will spend all day whining about X while still participating in X. Why? I dunno it is my nature to be negative, and I think quite a few other people are the asme. Grumbling can be relieving when not taken to extremes.
insaniak wrote: That's pretty standard. If you're playing a campaign, everyone has agreed to play that campaign and has a chance to see the rules before it starts. They go into it knowing that it's a campaign with altered rules.
For a pick-up game, people don't want to waste time discussing altered rules, they just want to play the game.
It's not that hard to have a simple conversation with people you play with regularly while you set up the terrain, wait for a table, when you arrange a game via FB or whatever.
And one-off games are the best place to try something out. Beats playing in a whole campaign & discovering you dislike some rules change.
It's not that hard if you're open to that discussion. Again, a lot of gamers simply are not. Regular opponents or not, a lot of gamers are just not at all interested in house rules.
For a lot of people there's not much of a choice - they enjoy wargaming, throwing dice, moving models, but their community is just so overwhelming a GW game and resistance to trying an alternative can be very embedded, wherein sometimes no amount of "dude just convince others to play it" will work. So you end up in a vicious cycle of playing almost exclusively 40k/AoS because every year and a half a new edition of one of those games turns up and largely kills the alt-game scene for at least a few months, assuming it ever recovers (people play other games -> everyone tries GW's new edition -> people won't go back to those other games as they're perceived to be 'dead' because none is playing -> repeat)
Although these days I see more people complaining about the complainers than actual complaints. Both the complaints and fanboyism are two sides of the same sunk cost fallacy when it comes to GW games - both have invested so much time, effort and community into the bloody things neither wants or can let go, it just gets expressed as either Dwarfish Grumbling or wide-mouthed fanaticism for defending GW.
I think the resistance to house rules (beyond the most basic stuff, e.g. 1st floor of ruins blocking LOS) generally comes from the fact that it basically never lasts. People don't want to dump time and energy into something they can't play except with a small number of people, and that is probably going to fizzle out anyway.
Arbitrator wrote: For a lot of people there's not much of a choice - they enjoy wargaming, throwing dice, moving models, but their community is just so overwhelming a GW game and resistance to trying an alternative can be very embedded, wherein sometimes no amount of "dude just convince others to play it" will work. So you end up in a vicious cycle of playing almost exclusively 40k/AoS because every year and a half a new edition of one of those games turns up and largely kills the alt-game scene for at least a few months, assuming it ever recovers (people play other games -> everyone tries GW's new edition -> people won't go back to those other games as they're perceived to be 'dead' because none is playing -> repeat)
Although these days I see more people complaining about the complainers than actual complaints. Both the complaints and fanboyism are two sides of the same sunk cost fallacy when it comes to GW games - both have invested so much time, effort and community into the bloody things neither wants or can let go, it just gets expressed as either Dwarfish Grumbling or wide-mouthed fanaticism for defending GW.
Very much this, which is a shame because GW has tried to say "you don't have to play the rules exactly how we wrote them" and tournament scenes use house rules of various levels so it's not like competitive play is "pure" 40k.
Personally I just see 40k as a big sandbox and wish people would stop insisting the only way to play is nearly identical sandcastles.
40k would be a bigger sandbox, I think, if it were less popular, paradoxically.
It's greatest strength and greatest curse is its popularity. When I houserule something, I have to talk it over with 87+ 40k players at my club, or have the houserules change every game (because some agree and some don't). Generally, this results in "default 40k" being the ... well, default. Because not everyone agrees, but everyone plays each other.
Conversely, a group like, say, my Chain of Command group, or the 30k group whose narrative campaign I am overseeing, are totally up with new rules, campaign houserules, changes, homebrew lore, etc.
Even AOS players in my club are more open to houserules, though the very strong narrative community for AOS really reinforces narrative play in a way that seems absent from 40k. Is there a 40k equivalent to the Interstice? To the Great Weave? To NEON?
Unit1126PLL wrote: 40k would be a bigger sandbox, I think, if it were less popular, paradoxically.
It's greatest strength and greatest curse is its popularity. When I houserule something, I have to talk it over with 87+ 40k players at my club, or have the houserules change every game (because some agree and some don't). Generally, this results in "default 40k" being the ... well, default. Because not everyone agrees, but everyone plays each other.
Conversely, a group like, say, my Chain of Command group, or the 30k group whose narrative campaign I am overseeing, are totally up with new rules, campaign houserules, changes, homebrew lore, etc.
Even AOS players in my club are more open to houserules, though the very strong narrative community for AOS really reinforces narrative play in a way that seems absent from 40k. Is there a 40k equivalent to the Interstice? To the Great Weave? To NEON?
Excellent point about the size of 40k likely holding it back a bit.
I think Crusade was an attempt to try and open things up but because it defines things so clearly it seems to have set boundries people aren't comfortable crossing.
insaniak wrote: I can't speak for everybody, but for me, what kept me coming back long after I had lost interest in actually playing the game, and still keeps me checking in on new releases just to see what's happening, is investment.
I started playing 40K in 1994, and stopped playing about mid-way through 6th edition when the move to hardcover codexes made it impractical to keep up with the rules and I realised that I wasn't enjoying what the game had become anymore anyway. I have a cabinet full of painted miniatures, two shelves full of rulebooks and codexes, and more unpainted stuff sitting downstairs than I'll likely paint in my lifetime, particularly now that I'm not actively playing the game.
All of that adds up to a significant investment in money, time, and mental space, and just letting go of that is not easy. I did, in the end, by deciding to go back and revisit 2nd edition and largely ignore the new stuff... but that took a while.
It's really easy to dismiss it as people 'wanting something to be upset about'... but it's generally a lot deeper than that, from my experience. People want the thing they love to go on being the thing they love, and so they hang on in the hope that, despite all evidence to the contrary, at some point it will go back to being that thing.
This^^
Thanks Insaniak for saving me the time to type this out... I started a bit earlier, left and returned to the games table at two different times but kept the Dwarf subscription for a very long time regardless. This has been a conversation with GW (at least in my head and with friends and like-minded hobbyists online) that has lasted almost 30 years. Maybe this is what it feels like when a long time partner gets a neurological disease or goes off the rails in other ways, e.g. numarines, blowing up the old world... one falls in love with the original idea, the potential, and suffers when this potential is pi55ed away.
Necrons got an underpowered and badly written index in 8th, CA17 did nothing for them, the codex had 3 good units and fixed none of the design issues. CA18 fixed a lot of units and nerfed the one brokenly powerful unit in the game. CA19 fixed even more stuff and while the design issues where still there casual lists became less and less crap. Things were going well, the game balance was improving.
CA20 was a slap to the face, balance would have been better off using 8th edition points with the new rules, the product was slapped together using an idiotic algorithm that did not take 9th edition's new rules into account and only a few units got to deviate from the algorithm.
So I hate the game right? No, I love the game. As soon as CA21 came out I started getting ready to play again, I just thought CA20 was too dumb and too bad to play, but the game is really fun. There are a dozen things I like about 9th, but why discuss those? How do you discuss how nice it is that Necron Warriors are finally good again after being a bit of a joke for an edition.
Complaing about Monoliths still being unviable is easier, you can discuss what it would take to make the Monolith viable and the design that leads to it being unviable. Maybe it should be able to FLY like it has always been able to Maybe it should not have taken a big price hike. Or maybe there is an actual way to make Monoliths work, that's also worth discussing, but most of the taktiks people have for making bad units work, don't generally work so that's going to create a negative atmosphere that discussing how "just push them across the board" tactics work for some undercosted units.
I enjoy game discussion, and I mostly laugh at how bad some of GW stuff can get and people still buy it up.
I also think GW is causing as much damage to the hobby as it promotes, so it’s kind of sad for it to still be kind of crap as a company so often.
insaniak wrote: I can't speak for everybody, but for me, what kept me coming back long after I had lost interest in actually playing the game, and still keeps me checking in on new releases just to see what's happening, is investment.
I started playing 40K in 1994, and stopped playing about mid-way through 6th edition when the move to hardcover codexes made it impractical to keep up with the rules and I realised that I wasn't enjoying what the game had become anymore anyway. I have a cabinet full of painted miniatures, two shelves full of rulebooks and codexes, and more unpainted stuff sitting downstairs than I'll likely paint in my lifetime, particularly now that I'm not actively playing the game.
All of that adds up to a significant investment in money, time, and mental space, and just letting go of that is not easy. I did, in the end, by deciding to go back and revisit 2nd edition and largely ignore the new stuff... but that took a while.
It's really easy to dismiss it as people 'wanting something to be upset about'... but it's generally a lot deeper than that, from my experience. People want the thing they love to go on being the thing they love, and so they hang on in the hope that, despite all evidence to the contrary, at some point it will go back to being that thing.
100% agree. For me that's your (OP) answer to the question.
Try to see such posts not as complaining/whining why the game is bad, but rather as discussing how the game can be better to make us want to play it again.
Hollow wrote: A lot of people like being miserable. They enjoy wallowing in their own misery and because they are fundamentally unhappy they are annoyed by others who are happy or enjoy things. So they complain, they drag things down, they are like the dementors from Harry Potter. Everyone knows who they are... same old nics been moaning on Dakka for 10+ years.
It was also a bit of a hit for the Dakka community when Warseer fell. A lot of the negative dross that used to dwell over there have infected here... like a big negative tumor.
Interesting. I used to hang on Warseer as well when it was still more active, they still send me a "Happy Birthday!" spam email every year
As for complainers, its just weak-minded internet "culture" where the curtain of anonymity creates these "gakpost" tendencies. People know they're better than that but do it anyways. It's boring AF but whatchagonnado
The binaries of groupthink enforcing hater/fanboi demographics is hilarious though! Faultless logic, and very mature way to view the world. Such a shame there is no middle ground between those two polar opposites....
There are lots of things to like about the GW games, much of what on here is cathartic, maybe some people hope that that GW might look at these forums as a way of understanding how happy their customers are. I have never seen a survey from GW.
However many people have invested a huge amount of time and money in to GW in 30 ish years 40K has been running. The hobby is not cheap and it is time intensive. A lot of people will have their a good part of their social life revolve around table top gaming and specifically 40K. This all makes it very hard to walk away from.
Also there is no competition for GW really, there are other games sure but nothing like GW. I think the lack of competition is unhealthy for GW but how do you create a competitive product when people have 30 years invested in 40K lore and games.
It’s like football (soccer). There’s so much wrong with it, like an any big money sport, but people don’t just stop supporting their teams.
I think GW either know this or recognise the end result of this and because they know player won’t just walk away it encourages them to do some crap things.
Hollow wrote: A lot of people like being miserable. They enjoy wallowing in their own misery and because they are fundamentally unhappy they are annoyed by others who are happy or enjoy things. So they complain, they drag things down, they are like the dementors from Harry Potter. Everyone knows who they are... same old nics been moaning on Dakka for 10+ years.
It was also a bit of a hit for the Dakka community when Warseer fell. A lot of the negative dross that used to dwell over there have infected here... like a big negative tumor.
Interesting. I used to hang on Warseer as well when it was still more active, they still send me a "Happy Birthday!" spam email every year
As for complainers, its just weak-minded internet "culture" where the curtain of anonymity creates these "gakpost" tendencies.
Yes because GW never deletes negative comments on their social media and people are just posting positive thoughts.
Oh wait they DO delete negative comments and people aren't just hiding on forums LOL
insaniak wrote: I can't speak for everybody, but for me, what kept me coming back long after I had lost interest in actually playing the game, and still keeps me checking in on new releases just to see what's happening, is investment.
I started playing 40K in 1994, and stopped playing about mid-way through 6th edition when the move to hardcover codexes made it impractical to keep up with the rules and I realised that I wasn't enjoying what the game had become anymore anyway. I have a cabinet full of painted miniatures, two shelves full of rulebooks and codexes, and more unpainted stuff sitting downstairs than I'll likely paint in my lifetime, particularly now that I'm not actively playing the game.
All of that adds up to a significant investment in money, time, and mental space, and just letting go of that is not easy. I did, in the end, by deciding to go back and revisit 2nd edition and largely ignore the new stuff... but that took a while.
It's really easy to dismiss it as people 'wanting something to be upset about'... but it's generally a lot deeper than that, from my experience. People want the thing they love to go on being the thing they love, and so they hang on in the hope that, despite all evidence to the contrary, at some point it will go back to being that thing.
My thoughts exactly. I haven't played 40k since 7th, and couldn't get into WHFB before GW exploded the Old World. I keep checking to see what's happening with the games, looking for signs of improvement.
I have a few AOS minis, may get more, mostly for 9th Age. The game may be fun for a basic minis "fix" from time to time. I don't love it, though.
I'm in the 40k section for two reasons. A main reason, and a sub reason.
But firstly, a disclaimer. I love everything 40k except the tabletop game. I love the lore, I love the concept, I love my models. But the prices, the rules, and the priorities are all completely wrong and make for a game that's just not that fun.
So why am I here?
Because I don't have the option to play anything else.
I live in a pretty major city, but it's difficult to get games of anything that isn't 40k, the largest community for a game that isn't 40k/AoS numbers barely a dozen people that I'm aware of.
40k? I know four entire clubs within a reasonable travel of me, there's probably at least 100 people here actively playing 40k.
Too often it's a choice of play 40k or nothing at all.
The secondary reason is I've already invested a lot in 40k. I have a massive army, it doesn't cost me anything to continue playing 40k.
I invest in building and painting other gaming systems, but I have many models for non-40k systems that principally sit in storage because noones there to play them, despite them being (imo) significantly better games.
Togusa wrote: So my question to those who are unhappy with the current state of their respective game and the company as a whole is why do you all stay and collectively subject yourself to something a lot of you clearly hate? I see it time and time again in just about every thread, the literal same arguments people were having two years ago about primaris this, stormcast that, my rules suck, that new army get's more support than my 1 character, 2 troop army that hasn't been good since third edition, I don't like the aesthetics, I don't like the rules! Complain, complain, complain. Clearly this hobby makes you unhappy, so why do you subject yourself to it continuously when a lot of you even go so far as to say that it's never going to change? It's like you know it's bad for your health, but you keep coming back and I just don't understand it?
Just to be fair, I did this myself with 40K up until the Pandemic forced me to suspend my gaming. Once I wasn't able to do it, I had all these realizations that I needed to find another game and I moved to AoS instead of 40K. Things got a lot better for me, because it turns out that game is much better suited for me than 40K was. There are a lot of choices out there for wargames and I'm genuinely curious about this.
Well, the Hobby is: Painting, collecting, building, playing, lore.
Not GW. I don't need them to enjoy the hobby, a realisation that i made not too long ago, and encouraged with the legendening of my main army.
As such:
-GW isn't the 40k universe. Which is important, 40k as a setting or narrative has some massive draw, that allows and allowed in the past even by GW to be a huge outlet of creativity. I happen to like being a mekboy or heretek. Which is incidentally why i hate what gw has done with it's shift to "DyNaMic ENtrIeS" model types and TACTICOOL ROCKS, which are all monopose. Nvm that the switch of setting to narrative progression wasn't really... well .... well thought out.
The thing is, 40k still has all the old draws, or as a certain fantastical pirate captain stated: "The worlds still the same. there's just less in it." Or basically, GW dosen't really handle the universe the same way as it once did and it shows. That doesn't stop me though from kitbashing or using 3rd party bits ,etc. it's just that it got artificially made more difficult by GW for the following reason.
-GW is a Corporate company with a defacto monopoly and greedy as hell. What do i mean by that? See that cycle brought up by arbitrator, yeah. This used to happen over here all the time. Until in 6-7th Gw shattered it's stranglehold locally, which was an massive improvement in the healthyness of the lcoal scene of TG gaming. Yet it still retains that mass appeal and that sunk cost issue still provides ample support from people like you Togusa, and even me to a degree, even though nowadays i cut the dealer or gw out as much as possible. It's also unhealthy for the game as a whole and even for gw.
-GW forces Mobile game tactics into the hobby. This point is tied to above points, but in essence the tendency is that GW attempts to whalehunt with it's price increases and new thing tm. It's also using FOMO as a sales tactic. This doesn't really dissuade people from the hobby, it just dissuades people from GW. Take the new rules debacle with DE and you see the adverse effects on the hobby quite clearly. You have what is in essence first day /pre order DLC for the codex in the book of rust that turns DE into broken. And that isn't the first time rulessources GW sells to it's custommers are blatantly faulty /P2W. What gw doesn't realise, that unlike a mobile game, which can be held afloat by the whales and you can secure their satisfaction of engagement with bots, you can't do this in 40k since it's a TG. When there's no opponent for you who are you going to play with?
All this atleast has in my case lead to a point, where i simply don't buy into modern GW anymore, i refuse to buy 9th ed rulebook, i refuse to buy the new dexes or separate rulessources. That doesn't mean i hate the hobby or that it makes me miserable, or that i can't enjoy a good batrep or watch a competitve round on twitch. The only thing that it makes me is disapointed in regards to GW's handeling of the rules aspect and therefore play aspect, aswell as the narrative, which i have an inkling that primaris are still just an attempt at reselling the SM crowd their army again.
Their unabashed greed has priced me out of many official GW models aswell and made me for certain more creative in regards to cost saving meassures and inadvertently turned me into a decent kitbasher and builder, or atleast that's what people stated anyhow on my blog, but since i consider that as a baseskill, (and GW did so either cue that ork mechanized army f.e. in older whitedwarfs) and part of the draw i don't care.
TL: DR The universe is still there, there's just less and less reason to play by GW's rules and buy GWs models only. Not when you can convert stuff and not when you can form your own ruleset.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: I'm in the 40k section for two reasons. A main reason, and a sub reason.
But firstly, a disclaimer. I love everything 40k except the tabletop game. I love the lore, I love the concept, I love my models. But the prices, the rules, and the priorities are all completely wrong and make for a game that's just not that fun.
So why am I here?
Because I don't have the option to play anything else.
I live in a pretty major city, but it's difficult to get games of anything that isn't 40k, the largest community for a game that isn't 40k/AoS numbers barely a dozen people that I'm aware of. 40k? I know four entire clubs within a reasonable travel of me, there's probably at least 100 people here actively playing 40k.
Too often it's a choice of play 40k or nothing at all.
The secondary reason is I've already invested a lot in 40k. I have a massive army, it doesn't cost me anything to continue playing 40k.
I invest in building and painting other gaming systems, but I have many models for non-40k systems that principally sit in storage because noones there to play them, despite them being (imo) significantly better games.
This. So. Much. Until GW really screws up again more majorly and they are forced to care more so long this inertia it has will maintain the stranglehold.
While I know 40K is not perfect and lots of units and rules are broken or at least bent out of shape, this forum loves to complain about off topic stuff (myself included). I kind of feel there should be a Primaris Hate thread where all off topic chatter about what’s wrong with Marines can be moved there instead of clogging up threads about other factions. I stopped reading the Sisters of Battle Codex thread because it just turned into a Primaris thread (I think it was that thread anyway). Things can go off topic to just complaining for days yet you mention politics at all and a SWAT team of mods descend and flash bang the whole room
kirotheavenger wrote: I'm in the 40k section for two reasons. A main reason, and a sub reason.
But firstly, a disclaimer. I love everything 40k except the tabletop game. I love the lore, I love the concept, I love my models. But the prices, the rules, and the priorities are all completely wrong and make for a game that's just not that fun.
So why am I here?
Because I don't have the option to play anything else.
I live in a pretty major city, but it's difficult to get games of anything that isn't 40k, the largest community for a game that isn't 40k/AoS numbers barely a dozen people that I'm aware of.
40k? I know four entire clubs within a reasonable travel of me, there's probably at least 100 people here actively playing 40k.
Too often it's a choice of play 40k or nothing at all.
The secondary reason is I've already invested a lot in 40k. I have a massive army, it doesn't cost me anything to continue playing 40k.
I invest in building and painting other gaming systems, but I have many models for non-40k systems that principally sit in storage because noones there to play them, despite them being (imo) significantly better games.
You say it doesn’t cost anything to continue to play 40K but if you are playing with people that want to keep very current with the rules and content then actually the is an operational cost to 40K. The slow and steady roll out of codexes, campaign books, supplemental books like vigilus and PA and other indexes mean that you could end up spending a fair amount of money. And then eventually there will be a new edition.
Some players will just be happy to base line a certain set of rules which is great but reading about the 40K player base and the constant sales figures I don’t think this is many people.
Also the massive uptake of competitive and tournament play is totally exploited by GW. They don’t attempt to make a fair and balanced game, they clearly take an “in app purchases” approach to 40K in that you will at some point see your army take a dive competitively only to find a purchase (usually new rules) are required to put you back in the game.
Been saying it for a long time, expand the horizon. GW is what, less then 5%?? of the total avalible game systems out there. That it is like basicly just eating nothing but bread for your whole life.
And GW is not in the marked to make games with good rules, but to sell models. 40k as it stand will never have a "good and balanced rule set".
For all gamers who has other games then GW, take the plunge, showcase new games to the GW mono fokused gamers. I guess all clubs has a handfull of persons in charge, should not be that mutch of an issue to have demo nights 1-2 times a month for other brand games.
Complaining about negativity around GW is like complaining water is wet. When I tried to get into Warhammer Fantasy back in the day, I remember talking to a group of older guys who stood around slagging off 4th Ed 40K and that I should try fantasy is better, I asked them about Fantasy and all I got was “it’s the worst edition, don’t bother GW has ruined it wait for next edition”.
Half the reason for the negativity is that people back themselves into a GW corner and never try any other tabletop games. Or just have to stick with the current editions even though they hate them. The vast majority of the real consistent detractors are actually the biggest fans, if people genuinely hated the product (not the company) they would have walked a long time ago.
Togusa wrote: So my question to those who are unhappy with the current state of their respective game and the company as a whole is why do you all stay and collectively subject yourself to something a lot of you clearly hate? I see it time and time again in just about every thread, the literal same arguments people were having two years ago about primaris this, stormcast that, my rules suck, that new army get's more support than my 1 character, 2 troop army that hasn't been good since third edition, I don't like the aesthetics, I don't like the rules! Complain, complain, complain. Clearly this hobby makes you unhappy, so why do you subject yourself to it continuously when a lot of you even go so far as to say that it's never going to change? It's like you know it's bad for your health, but you keep coming back and I just don't understand it?
Just to be fair, I did this myself with 40K up until the Pandemic forced me to suspend my gaming. Once I wasn't able to do it, I had all these realizations that I needed to find another game and I moved to AoS instead of 40K. Things got a lot better for me, because it turns out that game is much better suited for me than 40K was. There are a lot of choices out there for wargames and I'm genuinely curious about this.
I don't. I've quit 40k and gave all my Horus Heresy novels in Polish that I had to my mother last year. The last straw was realisation how hypocritical they are. Like how they did the whole "Warhammer is for Everyone" thing when pricing people out of the hobby, including reading fluff. Like if you live outside the west, you're clearly not Everyone to them. Like the Forgeworld Horus Heresy and Imperial Armour fluff is just insanely expensive (when it comes to prices in relation to wages... imagine paying 110 euro for softcover HH book).
Just comparing the days when I used to read Index Astartes in White Dwarf in the Fat Bloke era to Legion descriptions being locked away in super-expensive books, ugh :/ . Yeah, totally for everyone.
I'm still interested in Oldhammer and some of Inq28 stuff but I've quit reading novels and buying any of their stuff. Though now I see the Inq28 community seems to have some toxic elements. While they don't have fascists, they clearly don't like the part of the community that respects canon.
Also their hypocrisy of saying it's not aspirational when since 2nd ed it was basically straightforward glorification of the Imperium directed to kids. Generally, like, reading Wh40k fluff and thoughts of the day has taught me many valuable life lessons, particularly about the value of Hate which I have of course applied to GW, but it can be highly dangerous if someone isn't very individualist and is into stuff like countries, ethnicity, etc.
.
Or the recent stuff they recently were claiming that when they did Rogue Trader, they couldn't do female marines because people would complain about female marines in blisters, conventionally omitting the fact that nobody forced them to write it explicitly in fluff that Space Marines are all male and that gene-seed is keyed to male hormones and tissues and that their concept of female characters was Sororitas with tiny torsos and boobplate and thongs and that they released female army soldiers and other characters and never canonically closed off other factions to women like they did with marines.
I recently got into painting and converting miniatures again and I'm using 1/72 historical miniatures as a base and trying to paint them in Blanchitsu style.
Also got a Laserburn rulebook and a miniature set - thought Laserburn seems to have some crucial supplements like one with vehicle stats and force organisations and scenario supplements permanently OOP.
Was thinking into getting into some wargame for some time, I think most recently looked into Warzone but my main problem with miniature wargames in general is that I have very little tolerance to stuff like abstracted ranges. When I see a rifle with range of 24", I lose all interest in playing that stuff. I noticed that GW stuff tends to take up most of tournament slots in stores, though.
Has anyone here looked into Ion Age?
When it comes to novels, after I started hating GW, I remembered that the excellent Atomic Space Rockets page about space sci-fi realism has a list of recommended novels and that I should start buying them - for some reason I was prioritising 40k novels before despite that I often found combat in them, particularly space combat lacking.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Been saying it for a long time, expand the horizon. GW is what, less then 5%?? of the total avalible game systems out there. That it is like basicly just eating nothing but bread for your whole life.
And GW is not in the marked to make games with good rules, but to sell models. 40k as it stand will never have a "good and balanced rule set".
For all gamers who has other games then GW, take the plunge, showcase new games to the GW mono fokused gamers. I guess all clubs has a handfull of persons in charge, should not be that mutch of an issue to have demo nights 1-2 times a month for other brand games.
What are these other games and do they really compete with 40K in terms of models (quality and quantity), background and lore?
If your more purist about playing games then I bed there's loads out there but the model collecting and lore is at least half of it for most people (I think). GW has been luckily in that it’s been able to benefit from basically being a blend of all other high concept sci fi with a veneer of originality over the top. And it’s developed that starting at a time when no one really cared. Now a new competitor that wanted to compete on the level of lore and model quality and quantity would have to be so original that it would be a massive task, especially as GW would use any suspicion of encroachments on IP to crunch a fledgling competitor.
Plenty of people bleat on and on that 40K is not their hobby, that they haven't bought any stuff in decades, and that they don't play, and yet continue to inflict themselves on forums dedicated to those very things.
Togusa wrote: Clearly this hobby makes you unhappy, so why do you subject yourself to it continuously when a lot of you even go so far as to say that it's never going to change? It's like you know it's bad for your health, but you keep coming back and I just don't understand it?
GW is a corporate brand not a hobby.
I've never been happier hobby wise, I've discovered new things like Infinity and Frostgrave, and stick to older editions of GW games. There are so many new and different games with great models that I want to try and it's just a matter of budgeting my spending. Battletech has been around forever and yet it's brand new to me.
I dont know why being a bit salty about the way gw is taking the game would be bad for your health? I think its fun to stick around to witness some good discussions, see cool paintjobs, hear news in miniature wargaming world and to occasionally join in and bash on primaris cash grab releases for good measure.
I find it easier to relate to someone with a healthy mix of interest and frustration with the hobby than some of these frothing fans who jump on anyone with a non optimistic opinion.
Trying different games is fun but 40k is still a good source for a lot of inspiration and memories. Gw is not the hobby, miniature wargaming, painting and building a fantasy miniature world is. I'll stick around thank you.
Well, the Hobby is: Painting, collecting, building, playing, lore.
Not GW. I don't need them to enjoy the hobby, a realisation that i made not too long ago, and encouraged with the legendening of my main army.
I agree, that's true for me too.
I'm not really a tabletop gamer, I like all the parts of the hobby and if 40k isn't good enough for me I simply stop playing for a while and I dedicate my spare time to the other parts of the hobbies, or even to the other different hobbies that I have.
So while I'm not interested in playing anything that isn't GW, because my desire to play a miniature wargame and to prove my self a good player isn't that strong, I'm also ok with quitting from gaming, even for years, if the current set of rules doesn't satisfy me. I fact, I've done it several times since I started the hobby in 1999 and never got frustrated about GW.
Having said that I think the current version of 40k is one of the best moments for the game, and I don't play only because of the pandemic.
1) Negative social behaviour can become engrained in some peoples habits so much that it infects all their posts. This can become a problem when those people are very active because that griping and whining and negativity permeates into everywhere. Into welcome threads or "hey this game is cool how do I get started" etc.. Ergo people who come and want to engage in a positive way get a fish-slap to the face of negativity. That is very socially discouraging.
Ergo there's a time and a place.
2) No one wins. *
And because the target is often the general "its GW's fault" and GW isn't part of the discussion as a contributor; there's no change or "victory" or defeat or such at the end of a long argument.
Everyone just gets riled up; hyped up over the argument (the original thread point gets forgotten) and fired up and then a mod normally locks/forces the discussion on and no one gets satisfaction. All that negativity builds up and isn't given a proper release, so it builds and builds within people. They hyper focus on the negative and stop being critical and just negative. The result is they get so hooked on it, so focused that it dominates them.
Again in my view the problem isn't one complaint or one critical thought. The problem is volume and placement and the fact that in the end people leave such discussions with a negative association and experience.
The result of which is an unhealthy social setup.
Yes you can easily get all fired up over an argument, but in the end most people don't come to a social group for that. They come to share their painting; their hobby; their gaming; their lore. They come for the positive end of things whatever that is. Heck they come just to hang out with other geeks and chat about hobby and geeky things. Some might be out of 40K but are active in the Infinity or other games; or they are generally chatting about what music thye listen to and what they've done this weekend with their other hobbies.
Positive hobby interaction might not generate 10 pages of back and forth; however its often the thing people come back for more often than the 20 page arguments.
*Think of it like a cat playing with a laser pointer. The cat enjoys it, but if they catch nothing and have no "win" at the end; no reward. Then it can quickly build frustrations and annoyance in the cat. What starts out positive ends up negative and repeat exposure builds on that end state.
Plenty of people bleat on and on that 40K is not their hobby, that they haven't bought any stuff in decades, and that they don't play, and yet continue to inflict themselves on forums dedicated to those very things.
The main thing I dislike is giant models/herohammer. I feel the game played a lot better without Primarchs/Knights/Planes - the scale seemed to be more interesting back then more like a skirmish game.
Togusa wrote: So my question to those who are unhappy with the current state of their respective game and the company as a whole is why do you all stay and collectively subject yourself to something a lot of you clearly hate? I see it time and time again in just about every thread, the literal same arguments people were having two years ago about primaris this, stormcast that, my rules suck, that new army get's more support than my 1 character, 2 troop army that hasn't been good since third edition, I don't like the aesthetics, I don't like the rules! Complain, complain, complain. Clearly this hobby makes you unhappy, so why do you subject yourself to it continuously when a lot of you even go so far as to say that it's never going to change? It's like you know it's bad for your health, but you keep coming back and I just don't understand it?
Just to be fair, I did this myself with 40K up until the Pandemic forced me to suspend my gaming. Once I wasn't able to do it, I had all these realizations that I needed to find another game and I moved to AoS instead of 40K. Things got a lot better for me, because it turns out that game is much better suited for me than 40K was. There are a lot of choices out there for wargames and I'm genuinely curious about this.
I don't, if you may have noticed i and a few others here promote playing the older editions/house rules for the game when it was something we honestly enjoyed. additionally we promote players expanding their options into other game systems(see my sig) that are better than what GW has to offer but may not get the attention they deserve. so i don't see swapping from one GW game (40K) for another GW game (AOS) that is only marginally better in it's current form as an improvement.
So much so that at this point if you talk to me about ret-conned lore, new models, stratagems, FAQs/errata for anything 9th ed related, my eyes will just glaze over with indifference since i no longer care what they are doing with the IP. the reason i am here, posting on these forums is-i am still a war gamer and i like to talk about the games i do play so i can share and promote things with others who are where i am at.
For 3 editions 3rd-5th 40K it felt like the design team was actually trying(but not always succeeding) to fix most issues and advance the game rules in an understandable progression. As one online stream i just watched yesterday mentioned the fact that there is nobody left at GW that were the original brains behind creating the universe and translating it into the game we fell in love with. It is just become a self perpetuating brand that lacks the depth of what it once was.
Some games just do not need "fixing" or updates with official rules that make certain players feel validated because they must use the most current rules set.
For GW games a fine example would be BFG as of the last rules set updates in 2010( a surprisingly positive up date that added more lore to the game) it is still IMHO the best designed game GW has ever made. the game could be re-released as is with no changes right now and still be as good as it ever was.
As another example look at classic battletech/alpha strike-a game that has been around longer than official 40K and has very little in the way of changes to it's core rules for over 30 years.
There is a complete rules set and an entire book of official optional rules for playing the crunchy small scale super detailed skirmish battles of classic battletech or you can use the other official version of the game rules in the form of the super simple large scale battle system of alpha strike.
So no players will feel that you are "making things up" by using non-official rules and you can still play however you want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Forgemaster wrote: The main thing I dislike is giant models/herohammer. I feel the game played a lot better without Primarchs/Knights/Planes - the scale seemed to be more interesting back then more like a skirmish game.
To be honest back in the older editions superheavies were centerpiece models and nowhere near as scary/game breaking as they have become now.
Hollow wrote: A lot of people like being miserable. They enjoy wallowing in their own misery and because they are fundamentally unhappy they are annoyed by others who are happy or enjoy things. So they complain, they drag things down, they are like the dementors from Harry Potter. Everyone knows who they are... same old nics been moaning on Dakka for 10+ years.
It was also a bit of a hit for the Dakka community when Warseer fell. A lot of the negative dross that used to dwell over there have infected here... like a big negative tumor.
Interesting. I used to hang on Warseer as well when it was still more active, they still send me a "Happy Birthday!" spam email every year
As for complainers, its just weak-minded internet "culture" where the curtain of anonymity creates these "gakpost" tendencies.
Yes because GW never deletes negative comments on their social media and people are just posting positive thoughts.
Oh wait they DO delete negative comments and people aren't just hiding on forums LOL
What is this social media which you speak of? AFAIK posting a message on a public HTTP adddress = "social media". But how does one "hide" on a publicly accessible forum, as opposed to "hiding" on other web platforms which do not require strong identification?
A lot of people mentioned the sunk cost fallacy, which is true - but I think it's more complicated than that. After watching this problem for years, I realised it's also a relationship problem. A lot of people love 40k (the game / miniature hobby / lore / all of the above), but they hate how the company is treating its customer base. Without repeating all the complaints, I find they all boil down to one thing: GW does not care about the feelings of its fandom.
This creates powerful resentment because the WH hobby revolves around emotional investment. It's more than just a tabletop game: It's also an expansive, epic narrative and a quasi-artistic hobby. There's no way you would create an elaborate background for your homebrew SM chapter / IG regiment / Eldar craftworld / etc. without putting some feelings into it. Same goes for making elaborate conversions, painting your miniatures or designing colour schemes. Then, you've got novels that actively make you invest yourself into the franchise and its heroes (well, some of them).
GW uses this emotional investment to sell more products and keep people in the hobby - often in a very cynical, exploitative way. At the same time, it refuses to acknowledge it and form any sort of positive relationship with its fanbase. You'll never hear them ask for your actual opinion on the franchise you helped to fund. When they mess up, they'll never admit a mistake and apologise. They demand emotional investment when it's convenient, then pretend it doesn't exist when it's not.
This maltreatment has gone on for decades, in many ways and forms. Whenever you get invested in an army / set of rules, GW will change it. If there's a bit of lore you like, you never know when it's going to get retconned. They'll change things you know and love with a snap of their fingers, over your head, with no regard of how you feel. Then, there's also a long history of marketing dishonesty: false advertising (codexes with units that had no miniatures for years), armies in infinite development hell, overpowered rules to attract customers to new releases, etc. A lot of people feel emotionally betrayed by the company - and for very good reasons.
The true tragedy is, the 40k fandom treated vulnerable feelings as a taboo for the longest time. If you expressed investment, trust, betrayal and anger, you'd be chided, ridiculed, rejected and silenced. The community would only accept 'meritorical' discussions, such as talks about the game rules or lore. Because of that, the entire resentment got displaced onto the game. It practically turned into a custom: If you want to talk about how you feel about your relationship with GW, you should talk about how you feel about the game instead.
This doesn't make your point any less valid - moving out of a toxic relationship is the best way to deal with it. At the same time, I can't blame people for being unable - or unwilling - to get out of it, especially if they love the franchise but hate the company. I can understand people who would like nothing more than to love their hobby, with no evil stepmother looming over it. As one player aptly put it, 'GW has a way of telling us what to love, instead of letting us love what we want'.
TL;DR: Yes, GW has a way of making people miserable. Unfortunately, the community has been avoiding the core of the problem for decades, displacing their feelings onto the game.
I think Warhammer, despite a bump here and there, is in a fantastic place. I fething love Warhammer these days and enjoy playing it and making lists and putting together minis and painting.
Would I love certain things to improve? Yes, but overall I just fething love the hobby right now.
Togusa wrote: So my question to those who are unhappy with the current state of their respective game and the company as a whole is why do you all stay and collectively subject yourself to something a lot of you clearly hate? I see it time and time again in just about every thread, the literal same arguments people were having two years ago about primaris this, stormcast that, my rules suck, that new army get's more support than my 1 character, 2 troop army that hasn't been good since third edition, I don't like the aesthetics, I don't like the rules! Complain, complain, complain. Clearly this hobby makes you unhappy, so why do you subject yourself to it continuously when a lot of you even go so far as to say that it's never going to change? It's like you know it's bad for your health, but you keep coming back and I just don't understand it?
Just to be fair, I did this myself with 40K up until the Pandemic forced me to suspend my gaming. Once I wasn't able to do it, I had all these realizations that I needed to find another game and I moved to AoS instead of 40K. Things got a lot better for me, because it turns out that game is much better suited for me than 40K was. There are a lot of choices out there for wargames and I'm genuinely curious about this.
That is a lot of shots taken under the radar. Not sure a useful reply is warranted. So you get this one .
What are these other games and do they really compete with 40K in terms of models (quality and quantity), background and lore?
? You understand there is a massive historicals community? Fantastic background (history), unmatched range of models (from 1/54 to airfix gaming through to 2/3/6mm and naval scales), some of whom are museum quality in terms of accuracy?
If you meant Sci Fi ranges I think only smaller scale games have a bigger range than 40k and no one has had as much written about their setting at 40k. Edit - I forgot battletech which has a bigger lore base (but a smaller model range).
I think people can get their perspectives jammed as well, and for whatever reason, either never expand their horizons or never get the chance to do that.
Why are people miserable? When all you know, or all you have access to makes you miserable
, Misery is easy, especiually when not aware that there are other ways of looking at things. It's very easy to double down that road. That 'righteous anger' that it's 'those peoples' fault that you're miserable. And that's the thing about anger and misery. It can so easily be twisted into being 'righteous'. Its warm and comforting, even if it' burns you up. Especially when you convince yourself you're right to be angry and they're the bad guys with all the power and you're helpless against all the bad things. It's very hard to let go of that.
It must be noted as well that a lot of gamers baulk at the notion of personal responsibility in their games and 'balancing it themselves'. Its the 'games fault this thing is broken, the fact I took twelve of them is irrelevant' kind of thing. I know where my perspective lies on this, yours may differ. It feeds back into the cult of officialdom. Fairh in god, if you will. The rules are absolute, and you're a bad person for stepping outside of them. Question them, fine. Be angry at them, fine. But ou need to follow them. bad, yet official rules trump good yet homebrewed rules. Rules must be adhered to.
The 'cult of officialdom' is a real thing. Combined with the other things above, it can create a toxic mess.
What can exacerbates this is people having a 'set' view of what their hobby is and being unbending about it, what they want from it, and a set view of 'this is how you do it' and an unwillingness or lack of an environment or peers in which this can be changed or broadened. Every negative just reinforces itself and its peers.
(Note: Having a set view of what your hobby is is not necessarily a bad thing, let's be clear. I'm not criticising. As I've aged my own views on what I wanted have shifted over time, not everyone will share this journey or desire. And for what it's worth that's ok).
Sometimes it takes a change of circumstances or a change of perspective to appreciate things again, even things that previously made you miserable. And sadly, not everyone is exposed to this or will take this up.
40k and gw used to make me miserable back in 4th. Competitive play made me miserable. My whole hobby experience was viewed solely through this lens. I burned out, I walked away.
What got me back was a new appreciation for the hobby side and playing other games like warmachine.
Years later I burned out of those 'Other games' and again, competitive play. It was my narrative/relaxed/non competitive garagehammer scene that kept me both engaged and interested in the hobby and in the other games. (Note: I do not have any negative views of competitive play in general, let's be clear. Its just not what I want right now)Again, broader horizons, wider perspective, like minded peers. nothing more.
Last few years I've been loving gw's stuff. Love the boxed games - warcry, shadespire necromunda. Saying this would horrify the angry me of yen or fifteen years ago. I've also learned an approach and a perspective that allows me to actively enjoy these 'horribly made' games in a way I never would have had I stayed laser focused on my previous competitive approach. Age helps! I have a lot more life experience than i did when I was a punk in uni. Its also mellowed me. I'm sure some will call me a white knight or the villain in the story for enjoying gw's stuff these days or for not simply being apoplectic with rage against them all the time.
Anyone find that reading some of these threads on Dakka makes them enjoy the hobby less? Or at least, does reading Dakka make you less happy?
It's weird... I really don't like posting on here because of all the trolls, yet I find myself strangely attracted to reading the threads. I wonder, are we all just a bit masochistic?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, I'm not going to call out the moaners and the haters, but I would just like to say that I really do appreciate the posts of Overread, Mad Dok and several others
Well, the Hobby is: Painting, collecting, building, playing, lore.
Not GW. I don't need them to enjoy the hobby, a realisation that i made not too long ago, and encouraged with the legendening of my main army.
I agree, that's true for me too.
I'm not really a tabletop gamer, I like all the parts of the hobby and if 40k isn't good enough for me I simply stop playing for a while and I dedicate my spare time to the other parts of the hobbies, or even to the other different hobbies that I have.
So while I'm not interested in playing anything that isn't GW, because my desire to play a miniature wargame and to prove my self a good player isn't that strong, I'm also ok with quitting from gaming, even for years, if the current set of rules doesn't satisfy me. I fact, I've done it several times since I started the hobby in 1999 and never got frustrated about GW.
Having said that I think the current version of 40k is one of the best moments for the game, and I don't play only because of the pandemic.
I disagree with the current 40k being the best it was but that is a discussion to be had about broad strokes.
I also think that's what you describe is more like not being frustrated with 40k as a hobby as a whole(lore, models, game rules etc.) and not not being frustrated with GW.
Infact, i think there's a lot of reasons to be frustrated with GW the company and it's influence over the game recently, including IH supplement, and oiecemeal rule sales and DLC/ that breaks the game in many ways cue DE.
Indeed though, if you find yourself frustrated switching the game can help and is probably one of the best things to do if only to see other systems and rulesets.
The problem there however is, do you find a game and community? Historicals are f.e. relatively easy to find, since they are basically the bigger part of the hobby of wargaming, but sci-fi / fantasy, it's nigh impossible to escape GW in many ways due to the size they have within that niche.
I think there are many justified reasons to throw vitriol and salt torwards GW, that doesn't mean that their universes are bad though or that people can't enjoy the game system, or point out the obvious impact gw's corporate greed structure has on the quality of the rules...
In the end i think players should also take the initiative more often and just decide when there's enough.
Anyone find that reading some of these threads on Dakka makes them enjoy the hobby less? Or at least, does reading Dakka make you less happy?
It's weird... I really don't like posting on here because of all the trolls, yet I find myself strangely attracted to reading the threads. I wonder, are we all just a bit masochistic?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, I'm not going to call out the moaners and the haters, but I would just like to say that I really do appreciate the posts of Overread, Mad Dok and several others
The only time it makes me enjoy the hobby less is when I see a general consensus about how people feel GW is getting something wrong or taking advantage and I see the same comments on social media, but I know not only will GW not change but they seems to double down on things that a lot of long term players don’t enjoy. The growing volume of expensive booksto get all the rules for you army, for example. Or the lack of attention for certain factions.
Anyone find that reading some of these threads on Dakka makes them enjoy the hobby less? Or at least, does reading Dakka make you less happy?
It's weird... I really don't like posting on here because of all the trolls, yet I find myself strangely attracted to reading the threads. I wonder, are we all just a bit masochistic?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, I'm not going to call out the moaners and the haters, but I would just like to say that I really do appreciate the posts of Overread, Mad Dok and several others
I will freely admit that the community negativity has dragged me down in the past leading to my taking a break from the online community, and sometimes even the game. I'm not saying that all the negativity is unwarrented (like when GW really steps in it) but so much of it is just this perpetual salt engine that can really poison the well, especially when any comment that disagrees with the negative tone being beat down with accusations of white knighting and the like.
Living in a small town I spend my whole life being dropped small hints about what I could have. The Altaya's collection of warhammer models was my first exposure to warhammer and I fell in love.
My mother bought me the battle for skull pass set at 12 for christmas. I builded it, played agaisnt myself without even knowing the rules but using the tutorial scenarios of the game, and then stopped playing because I knew no one that was interested in that stuff.
Now, being an adult and living in a larger city, a couple years ago I made the jump and started connecting with people, and soon I realized that much more people than I tought played this kind of games. I even discovered that Corvus Belli, the creators of Infinity, are literally from the city I'm living in and have their HQ just in the other side of the river
So basically warhammer (More importantly wargaming, but warhammer and MESBG are the three I play most), is my connection with a passion I have had since I was a child but never had the cappability to enjoy it.
I just believe that people takes it too seriously to the point of investing too emotion into it, both positive and negative. But thats not just about warhammer, you'll see it about everything. People clings at all kind of stuff and lets it affect their emotions way too much.
I love wargaming. I love the people it connected me too. And I love warhammer universes. But nothing of that stuff I let affect me in a negative way. The moment I stop enjoying something, I stop doing it. For example, we stopped playing AoS and jumped to MESBG and Frostgrave. And if AoS becomes fun again we'll play it again.
But people having a toxic relationship with warhammer is completely normal. I had, years ago, the same relationship with Blizzard and Warcraft. And I know friends that are still trapped in that vicious cicle. I jumped off that train long ago and know I enjoy warcraft at my own way and pace.
As others have said, an fantasy universe is much more than the corporation that has taken over that creation.
Anyone find that reading some of these threads on Dakka makes them enjoy the hobby less? Or at least, does reading Dakka make you less happy?
It's weird... I really don't like posting on here because of all the trolls, yet I find myself strangely attracted to reading the threads. I wonder, are we all just a bit masochistic?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, I'm not going to call out the moaners and the haters, but I would just like to say that I really do appreciate the posts of Overread, Mad Dok and several others
I will freely admit that the community negativity has dragged me down in the past leading to my taking a break from the online community, and sometimes even the game. I'm not saying that all the negativity is unwarrented (like when GW really steps in it) but so much of it is just this perpetual salt engine that can really poison the well, especially when any comment that disagrees with the negative tone being beat down with accusations of white knighting and the like.
You almost have a point, but $5 says we would have people here defending the "update" for the Fallen that just happened.
I’m here mostly for the News & Rumors, it’s where I find out about a number of Kickstarters, and what the various wargaming companies are doing nowadays. Originally, I found Dakka because GW wouldn’t tell anyone about what was coming out - it’d just show up in the stores. While Warhammer Community now has most of that information, I still haven’t quite weened myself from find out about GW releases here first.
Likewise, when it comes to 40K specifically, While I’ve had access to the game since Rogue Trader, I think the happiest I was with the game was with the 8E indexes. It was short lived - the Codexes moved the game away from the balance I hoped they were moving towards. Now, I just come here to find out what the state of the game has become, and laugh at how silly the whole thing has become. Maybe one day it will swing back to something I could enjoy, but I doubt it. Still enjoy the lore for now.
I still think it is unfair to say "love it or leave it" about something as nuanced and complex as 40k.
It's possible to love some parts and hate others.
It's possible to build a fun and engaging Armageddon Steel Legion mechanized company (spending lots of time and money and energy doing so and making sure it is lore friendly) whilst loudly proclaiming that it is unfair that the Steel Legion has one of the worst (functional) regimental doctrines, that the rules that made mechanized company work were banned from Matched Play by GW (no more Vigilus, RIP), and that the rules surrounding transports disincentivises their use (unless they're open-topped).
Anyone find that reading some of these threads on Dakka makes them enjoy the hobby less? Or at least, does reading Dakka make you less happy?
It's weird... I really don't like posting on here because of all the trolls, yet I find myself strangely attracted to reading the threads. I wonder, are we all just a bit masochistic?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an aside, I'm not going to call out the moaners and the haters, but I would just like to say that I really do appreciate the posts of Overread, Mad Dok and several others
I will freely admit that the community negativity has dragged me down in the past leading to my taking a break from the online community, and sometimes even the game. I'm not saying that all the negativity is unwarrented (like when GW really steps in it) but so much of it is just this perpetual salt engine that can really poison the well, especially when any comment that disagrees with the negative tone being beat down with accusations of white knighting and the like.
You almost have a point, but $5 says we would have people here defending the "update" for the Fallen that just happened.
Just because some people white knight doesn't mean everyone who says something positive about GW are automatically white knights and deserve to be attacked over it.
Togusa wrote: So my question to those who are unhappy with the current state of their respective game and the company as a whole is why do you all stay and collectively subject yourself to something a lot of you clearly hate? I see it time and time again in just about every thread, the literal same arguments people were having two years ago about primaris this, stormcast that, my rules suck, that new army get's more support than my 1 character, 2 troop army that hasn't been good since third edition, I don't like the aesthetics, I don't like the rules! Complain, complain, complain. Clearly this hobby makes you unhappy, so why do you subject yourself to it continuously when a lot of you even go so far as to say that it's never going to change? It's like you know it's bad for your health, but you keep coming back and I just don't understand it?
Just to be fair, I did this myself with 40K up until the Pandemic forced me to suspend my gaming. Once I wasn't able to do it, I had all these realizations that I needed to find another game and I moved to AoS instead of 40K. Things got a lot better for me, because it turns out that game is much better suited for me than 40K was. There are a lot of choices out there for wargames and I'm genuinely curious about this.
I am not going to quit unless one of two things happen. Either GW gives me a rule set I can have fun with for 8-12 months or they make my army legends, which is practicaly the same as illegal to play with.
If I could buy a good army or switch games, maybe I would, but I must say the fear of investing in something that ends up bad again is a very real thing. Thanfluly I don't have the money to start any new table top. school stuff and supplements eat all my money.
Stormonu wrote: I’m here mostly for the News & Rumors, it’s where I find out about a number of Kickstarters, and what the various wargaming companies are doing nowadays. Originally, I found Dakka because GW wouldn’t tell anyone about what was coming out - it’d just show up in the stores. While Warhammer Community now has most of that information, I still haven’t quite weened myself from find out about GW releases here first.
Likewise, when it comes to 40K specifically, While I’ve had access to the game since Rogue Trader, I think the happiest I was with the game was with the 8E indexes. It was short lived - the Codexes moved the game away from the balance I hoped they were moving towards. Now, I just come here to find out what the state of the game has become, and laugh at how silly the whole thing has become. Maybe one day it will swing back to something I could enjoy, but I doubt it. Still enjoy the lore for now.
It was a unique time in the history of the game. Everyone'sEveryones rules were updated at once! All armies were reasonably on the same field. It was my favorite time too.
Stormonu wrote: I’m here mostly for the News & Rumors, it’s where I find out about a number of Kickstarters, and what the various wargaming companies are doing nowadays. Originally, I found Dakka because GW wouldn’t tell anyone about what was coming out - it’d just show up in the stores. While Warhammer Community now has most of that information, I still haven’t quite weened myself from find out about GW releases here first.
Likewise, when it comes to 40K specifically, While I’ve had access to the game since Rogue Trader, I think the happiest I was with the game was with the 8E indexes. It was short lived - the Codexes moved the game away from the balance I hoped they were moving towards. Now, I just come here to find out what the state of the game has become, and laugh at how silly the whole thing has become. Maybe one day it will swing back to something I could enjoy, but I doubt it. Still enjoy the lore for now.
It was a unique time in the history of the game. Everyone'sEveryones rules were updated at once! All armies were reasonably on the same field. It was my favorite time too.
We still use index 8th with halved ranges when we play epic scale games, makes building and playing super simple and fun(especially when there were only 3 strats and everybody had the same 3).
Stormonu wrote: I’m here mostly for the News & Rumors, it’s where I find out about a number of Kickstarters, and what the various wargaming companies are doing nowadays. Originally, I found Dakka because GW wouldn’t tell anyone about what was coming out - it’d just show up in the stores. While Warhammer Community now has most of that information, I still haven’t quite weened myself from find out about GW releases here first.
Likewise, when it comes to 40K specifically, While I’ve had access to the game since Rogue Trader, I think the happiest I was with the game was with the 8E indexes. It was short lived - the Codexes moved the game away from the balance I hoped they were moving towards. Now, I just come here to find out what the state of the game has become, and laugh at how silly the whole thing has become. Maybe one day it will swing back to something I could enjoy, but I doubt it. Still enjoy the lore for now.
It was a unique time in the history of the game. Everyone'sEveryones rules were updated at once! All armies were reasonably on the same field. It was my favorite time too.
We still use index 8th with halved ranges when we play epic scale games, makes building and playing super simple and fun(especially when there were only 3 strats and everybody had the same 3).
Ah so there was a time during 8th Edition when there were only three global stratagems? And every faction had the same strats? Sounds great! We play Kill Team like that (everyone has only the global tactics + specialist tactics, no faction specific tactics) and I much prefer such an approach to the cardgamey madness that a fullblown tactics/strats stack brings.
If I played 40k as a game of skill- as a competition to determine who is the better player, I could see the merits of the index era and the no faction strat system.
I've always played 40k as more of an immersive storytelling game, so I find that era to be one of the dullest eras in 40k history. Sameness, while great for balance, makes a really dull story.
Ah so there was a time during 8th Edition when there were only three global stratagems? And every faction had the same strats?
Yes
1.command re-roll 1cp (re-roll 1 dice result)
2.counter offensive-2cp (interrupt charge assault phase order after the first one is resolved)
3.insane bravery-2cp (auto pass morale checks)
PenitentJake wrote: If I played 40k as a game of skill- as a competition to determine who is the better player, I could see the merits of the index era and the no faction strat system.
I've always played 40k as more of an immersive storytelling game, so I find that era to be one of the dullest eras in 40k history. Sameness, while great for balance, makes a really dull story.
Ditto that's why we went back to playing older editions where it is the way the armies would behave in the lore with in game rules to represent that. rather it be blood frenzy for khorne berserkers, or born in the saddle for white scars etc...
I've tried to get back into 40K but its stuck as a "tournament or nothing" game, and even then its just not up to the job. If it wasn't for Kill Team and Blackstone Fortress I wouldn't bother.
Age of Sigmar, in comparison, feels like not only a breath of fresh air but also freedom in play styles. The support for models is also far better.
SamusDrake wrote: I've tried to get back into 40K but its stuck as a "tournament or nothing" game, and even then its just not up to the job. If it wasn't for Kill Team and Blackstone Fortress I wouldn't bother.
Age of Sigmar, in comparison, feels like not only a breath of fresh air but also freedom in play styles. The support for models is also far better.
AoS is cementing itself as a "dad game" which may explain why the community tone isn't as salt filled since it's less enticing to the grognard crowd (most of which left when AoS launched).
Don't they just ban anyone who is unhappy about anything or writes anything about the designers? that is not a discourse, that is just a good method to teach people how to self censor.
I'm well aware AoS is pretty bad, but considering playing it anyway, simply because it's firmly in the casual fun tier of gaming and hasn't quite gotten around to having the same level of rules bloat that 40k has picked up over the decades, trying to be competitive and play competitively with that game is tough, KoW is my serious play game since it's extremely well balanced to the point that any faction can win a tournament.
Karol wrote:Don't they just ban anyone who is unhappy about anything or writes anything about the designers?
In short - no.
About all that happens is people are told not to insult/swear/generally be nasty to each other and threads are given nudges to prevent them spiralling down into endless negative angles. Critical talk is perfectly allowed.
The only ones that get banned are those who only ever post in the negative and are clearly aiming to just troll the community or otherwise complain.
Ditto that's why we went back to playing older editions where it is the way the armies would behave in the lore with in game rules to represent that. rather it be blood frenzy for khorne berserkers, or born in the saddle for white scars etc...
Huh. That surprises me. I'm skating around the edges of Chaos, though I'm a Slaanesh guy. Because I haven't done a deep dive, I haven't slammed up against any barriers to my craving for fluff-based play. Similarly, I don't really play marines, though I do appreciate Deathwatch and Greyknights as Chambers Militant of the Inquisition.
My primary army is Sisters, with a strong secondary in GSC, which probably has more to do with why I think 40k kinda sucked from 4th ed to 7th inclusive than any other factor; neither of my primary armies was shown much love after 3rd... Until 8th brought them back and expanded them.
But I would have thought that subfaction traits were good for story minded players. Prior to 8th, there was no difference between a Sister from the Order of Our Martyred Lady and one from the Bloody Rose. I see that as a failure of rules to reflect fluff. A termagaunt from Leviathon is now different from a termagaunt from Jormungandr. A lot of people don't like strats either; personally, I feel like they make armies play like they should- at least the armies that I play- I can't really comment for the ones I don't play.
I can't wait for the new CSM and Daemon Codices. I think 9th ed dexes have been pretty decent so far; based on Deathwatch and Drukhari- the only 9th ed dexes I have so far- I see vast improvements from 8th. I also love Crusade, and all of its associated bespoke content. I'm hoping that CSM and Daemons see a similar degree of improvement.
Karol wrote: Don't they just ban anyone who is unhappy about anything or writes anything about the designers? that is not a discourse, that is just a good method to teach people how to self censor.
If they did that here there would be approximately 9 people left discussing this game. Part of playing Warhammer is hating the game. Everyone know this. lol.
AoS is cementing itself as a "dad game" which may explain why the community tone isn't as salt filled since it's less enticing to the grognard crowd (most of which left when AoS launched).
I've never heard that term before. "Dad Game". What's that mean? I've been considering taking the plunge for a while now.
Just because some people white knight doesn't mean everyone who says something positive about GW are automatically white knights and deserve to be attacked over it.
The reverse is also true. It's possible to dislike a thing and not be a "frothing-at-the-mouth" black knight. lol I think we just give too much attention sometimes to the people at the extreme ends and not enough at the middle.
Karol wrote: Don't they just ban anyone who is unhappy about anything or writes anything about the designers? that is not a discourse, that is just a good method to teach people how to self censor.
I haven't seen them ban people for not liking stuff but if they get toxic (which includes personal attacks ) they do step in.
TGA is weird, it's mostly pretty open but every once in a while Gav will come into a thread and pronounce that TGA is a place for people who enjoy the hobby, so further negative feedback will only be tolerated if it is "constructive," which is never defined but in practice means that "no negative comments are tolerated unless they are couched in terms of being positive about something else."
Dakka is also weird, in a different way. Witness all the attacks in this thread on "negative posters" and "trolls," when in fact the most obvious kind of trolls on Dakka are...well...the people who make attacks on negative posters.
Trolls aren't people who don't like the game, trolls are people who don't discuss actual topics and just try to get a rise out of others or attack them. Which on Dakka usually means people ranting about negativity. It's pretty rare you find a negative poster who goes after individuals, even if they're having a meltdown it's usually about the game, not about other posters.
Let's not white knight the black knights. Dakka may not crack down on threads that often but let's be honest: there is a tendency to browbeat anyone who takes a positive stance regarding GW.
I won't call them trolls for the most part, but we do have a contingent of peopoe who will ascribe malice for everything GW does and spin any arguement of why their claims are ridiculious into simping for GW.
Depends what you mean by "browbeat." The fact that people disagree doesn't make them trolls, it just means they disagree; the fact that someone continues to disagree with you even though you really think they're wrong doesn't make them a troll either, nor does it mean that anyone is browbeating anyone else.
When things get personal here, more often than not it's started by someone attacking someone for being negative, rather than attacking someone for being positive. When was the last time you saw a post on dakka devoted to ranting about fanbois, the way this one is a rant about haters? It happens, but it's far rarer than the opposite, and it's even rarer for "haters" to focus on a particular person and attack them personally. You probably see a personal attack along the lines of "you're just a hater, you hate everything" at least 5x as often as "you're just a fanboi, you'll defend GW for anything!" on these forums.
It's an ironic fact of the way fan discourse works that it's the stans who are more likely to make personal attacks due to a disagreement than the haters, because the stans are more likely to perceive an attack on the product as an attack on themselves, and respond accordingly. It's not an absolute rule, but definitely a tendency.
Ditto that's why we went back to playing older editions where it is the way the armies would behave in the lore with in game rules to represent that. rather it be blood frenzy for khorne berserkers, or born in the saddle for white scars etc...
Huh. That surprises me. I'm skating around the edges of Chaos, though I'm a Slaanesh guy. Because I haven't done a deep dive, I haven't slammed up against any barriers to my craving for fluff-based play. Similarly, I don't really play marines, though I do appreciate Deathwatch and Greyknights as Chambers Militant of the Inquisition.
My primary army is Sisters, with a strong secondary in GSC, which probably has more to do with why I think 40k kinda sucked from 4th ed to 7th inclusive than any other factor; neither of my primary armies was shown much love after 3rd... Until 8th brought them back and expanded them.
But I would have thought that subfaction traits were good for story minded players. Prior to 8th, there was no difference between a Sister from the Order of Our Martyred Lady and one from the Bloody Rose. I see that as a failure of rules to reflect fluff. A termagaunt from Leviathon is now different from a termagaunt from Jormungandr. A lot of people don't like strats either; personally, I feel like they make armies play like they should- at least the armies that I play- I can't really comment for the ones I don't play.
I can't wait for the new CSM and Daemon Codices. I think 9th ed dexes have been pretty decent so far; based on Deathwatch and Drukhari- the only 9th ed dexes I have so far- I see vast improvements from 8th. I also love Crusade, and all of its associated bespoke content. I'm hoping that CSM and Daemons see a similar degree of improvement.
Some armies never had a place until 7th or later. i have an admech force i run in 5th edition but the codex i use is from 7th because it is the first and only compatible one. some things just have to be brought into line with 5th ed USRs
As far as editions go the core rules for 5th were the overall best but needed a few tweaks as in some of the versions in 4th or 7th for the same rule were better than they were in 5th. but importing those into 5th was very easy to do.
What it looks like to me is that your having codex issues like many people did. are group allows all codexes from 3rd-7th to be used in our 5th ed games and some obviuously stand out above the others. there has never been a better lore based codex with all the build options since the 3.5 chaos codex. in fact many of the 3rd and 4th ed codexes and even a few from 5th were the high water mark for their factions.
I also played SOB between 3rd and 4th but it was not my main army (that belonged to dark angels and tau).
In my book strats are garbage because you have to use a resource mechanic to enable things that were previously built in to the faction as natural abilities or equipment you could buy from the armory. additionally the amount of time it adds to the game is glaring i can see why they dropped the additional 6th and 7th turns. i can get through 7 turns of our hybrid 5th ed game in the time it takes our 9th ed players to get through 3. i should note that the pandemic only briefly shut down my gaming group, so i managed to observer many games of 9th all through 2020, so this is not coming from a position of inexperience with the new edition.
Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc.. others gave you the options to build your force in line with specific subfactions by army composition and equipment for your leaders, in the case of SOB rather you went puritan or radical you still had 6 orders to choose from, although it required some effort to research the fighting style and duties of each when designing your army.
Crusade is an absurdly complex campaign system that is a rework of the old 4th ed kill team campaign rules that consisted of 2 pages-a wound effects chart and an experience progression chart. there were also loads of optional missions in the old editions such as combat patrols and kill team missions in the 4th ed rulebook that allowed the players to create their own campaign. they didn't need GW to tell them how to do it. there is nothing about 9th edition or any of it's codexes i find decent or worth my time. to me the game isn't even 40k anymore.
yukishiro1 wrote: Depends what you mean by "browbeat." The fact that people disagree doesn't make them trolls, it just means they disagree; the fact that someone continues to disagree with you even though you really think they're wrong doesn't make them a troll either, nor does it mean that anyone is browbeating anyone else.
When things get personal here, more often than not it's started by someone attacking someone for being negative, rather than attacking someone for being positive. When was the last time you saw a post on dakka devoted to ranting about fanbois, the way this one is a rant about haters? It happens, but it's far rarer than the opposite, and it's even rarer for "haters" to focus on a particular person and attack them personally. You probably see a personal attack along the lines of "you're just a hater, you hate everything" at least 5x as often as "you're just a fanboi, you'll defend GW for anything!" on these forums.
It's an ironic fact of the way fan discourse works that it's the stans who are more likely to make personal attacks due to a disagreement than the haters, because the stans are more likely to perceive an attack on the product as an attack on themselves, and respond accordingly. It's not an absolute rule, but definitely a tendency.
You keep framing it like I'm calling people trolls when I'm not.
Browbeating, or shouting down, or creating a negative echo chamber are all things that mean the same thing: shutting out dissenting ideas, something Dakka has struggled with for some time. It's better than it was during 6th and 7th, but this site has a history of mining salt like it's gold.
And I don't spend too much time on Dakka these days but I recall one prominant Ultramarines player (who I won't name just to keep the muck raking down) being attacked for "white knighting" not even a year ago. All because he was more positive on certain things in the game than the general consensus on the site.
So it's not as common as it used to be but it does happen. That's not even getting into naming names of some of the more prominent black knights we've had on this site.
See, I don't think that's really true. You don't see much shouting down of dissenting ideas here, not really. A stan may feel that a bunch of posters all posting negative things is a "negative echo chamber" that amounts to an attack on them and their views, but it really isn't, it's just a bunch of people agreeing on something the stan disagrees with.
The shouting down of dissenting ideas you do see here is usually of the "haters suck!" variety (like the general topic of this thread), or the guy who showed up yesterday to rant about how negative posters were a "cancer" and a "tumor" (whose posts were promptly removed). I mean this whole thread - at least the posts agreeing with how bad negative posters are - is essentially one big shout-down of people who express negative views.
It's significantly rarer to see topics along the lines of "people who like GW are terrible! discuss!" where a bunch of people happily pile in to rant about fanbois. And you certainly don't see GW fans being called cancer or tumors.
I'm not saying there aren't people here who are irrationally biased against the game. Just that those people are actually less likely to move the discussion to personal attacks than the contingent here that specializes in the drive-by attack on "dakka haters."
I won't call them trolls for the most part, but we do have a contingent of peopoe who will ascribe malice for everything GW does and spin any arguement of why their claims are ridiculious into simping for GW.
This does happen. One of my personal favorites was a poster (who I never saw before or after this incident) explaining in a thread that GW increasing points on everything was part of a master plan for some insane thing. I can't recall exactly the finer points but GW's plan to cause us to need FEWER models was a massively evil plan on GW's part. It involved the ITC somehow being a threat to GW's IP and something about Table War mats. Grade A insanity.
That said, I feel like that's a pretty specific subset of posters and it ends up being predictable. Nothing blocking can't handle ...
I can't really agree it's part of some global trend on Dakka, and when it comes to the extreme posters, it happens in both directions. I don't really see a preference for one version of "Knight" over the other. I see plenty of out-there examples from both, and honestly, it's about even. I wonder if you notice the "Black Knights" more because you try to gravitate towards a positive outlook?
I freely admit I am a bit more positive but I have learned to temper it and avoid falling into blind positivity. I try to acknowledge when GW screws up, but I also try to give them credit when they make steps in the right direct, even when those steps are small.
That said my "favorite" of the negative crowd has to be the "bending of the English language into obscure definitions or grammar arguements to prove the ruleset is 'unplayable'". I don't see it as much as I used to but that was the most headscratching thing to deal with.
Togusa wrote: So my question to those who are unhappy with the current state of their respective game and the company as a whole is why do you all stay and collectively subject yourself to something a lot of you clearly hate? I see it time and time again in just about every thread, the literal same arguments people were having two years ago about primaris this, stormcast that, my rules suck, that new army get's more support than my 1 character, 2 troop army that hasn't been good since third edition, I don't like the aesthetics, I don't like the rules! Complain, complain, complain. Clearly this hobby makes you unhappy, so why do you subject yourself to it continuously when a lot of you even go so far as to say that it's never going to change? It's like you know it's bad for your health, but you keep coming back and I just don't understand it?
The most recent example is the sad excuse of the "new" Fallen rules. GW literally just copy-pasted the 8th edition ones, didn't even give them 2 wounds. This could have been a chance to actually make them a unique faction.
Basically if you take a Renegade aligned Fallen detachment you can take First-born units and may use codex Space Marines non-named chapter abilities. Then a Chaos aligned Fallen detachment can do the same with codex Chaos Space Marines.
*****
Another example is not giving all Marines (Chaos, Grey-Knights, even Custodes) an additional wound in a FAQ then just adjusting their points. Instead of making them wait months, maybe even upwards to a year for their codexes to be released.
***
There's also the missed fusion/melta weapons that didn't receive the updated rules. For example the Tau Fusion Blaster, Knight Thermal Cannon, etc.
I would like to someone explain to someone like me, in simple words. why anyone who plays Renegade Guard or armies in similar state should be bursting out with happiness.
Karol wrote: I would like to someone explain to someone like me, in simple words. why anyone who plays Renegade Guard or armies in similar state should be bursting out with happiness.
I can't remember a single time you've been happy unless you finally moved to a better gaming group that that grognard one that used to club you like a baby seal.
I freely admit I am a bit more positive but I have learned to temper it and avoid falling into blind positivity. I try to acknowledge when GW screws up, but I also try to give them credit when they make steps in the right direct, even when those steps are small.
That's fair. I try to do the same but I feel like when they make mistakes that bug me it tends to come in clumps so it seems like I am more on the negative side at times than I actually am.
That said my "favorite" of the negative crowd has to be the "bending of the English language into obscure definitions or grammar arguements to prove the ruleset is 'unplayable'". I don't see it as much as I used to but that was the most headscratching thing to deal with.
Karol wrote: I would like to someone explain to someone like me, in simple words. why anyone who plays Renegade Guard or armies in similar state should be bursting out with happiness.
This is fair, any Forge World army player has every right to be mad. Renegades and Heretics are gone, Elysians are gone, DKOK is hanging on by a thread. DKOK is nothing more than an expensive army skin, with a bad regiment trait, and 5 unique datasheets (3 of those being horses).
Karol wrote: I would like to someone explain to someone like me, in simple words. why anyone who plays Renegade Guard or armies in similar state should be bursting out with happiness.
I can't remember a single time you've been happy unless you finally moved to a better gaming group that that grognard one that used to club you like a baby seal.
I was told to not make every post about myself. So my question stands. If someone has been waiting for 2-3 editions for an updated and GW pulled a legends on them, or did nothing to fix the army in 2-3 what are they suppose to be happy about. And contrary to maybe some people think, not everyone can support 5-6 armies and 2+ different games played at the same time.
Plus even if we do come back to me and my army, how is GK not having updated stat lines by GW somehow the fault of the place I play at ? And we had 9th ed close to year now right? Seems like with all the free time, and delays those people from the design studio could write a page long PDF for armies like csm or GK, as an errata before those armies get their codex.
Karol wrote: I would like to someone explain to someone like me, in simple words. why anyone who plays Renegade Guard or armies in similar state should be bursting out with happiness.
I can't remember a single time you've been happy unless you finally moved to a better gaming group that that grognard one that used to club you like a baby seal.
I was told to not make every post about myself. So my question stands. If someone has been waiting for 2-3 editions for an updated and GW pulled a legends on them, or did nothing to fix the army in 2-3 what are they suppose to be happy about. And contrary to maybe some people think, not everyone can support 5-6 armies and 2+ different games played at the same time.
Plus even if we do come back to me and my army, how is GK not having updated stat lines by GW somehow the fault of the place I play at ? And we had 9th ed close to year now right? Seems like with all the free time, and delays those people from the design studio could write a page long PDF for armies like csm or GK, as an errata before those armies get their codex.
The people you play with are notoriously toxic and seal bashing and your posts tend to reflect that, even when everyone else is more middle of the road about how good or bad things are. And I've heard of people giving CSM and Grey Knights bonus wounds to make the game more balanced, but I doubt your group is doing that.
I don't fault anyone who is upset with how GW is handling the transfer of FW rules (and likely models over time), it's been less than stellar, but I'm honestly hoping it improves because there is a lot of room for cool stuff in the game that could be better supported than it was under FW.
That said, I sincerely hope this isn't another one of your attempts to drag a thread off topic with how negative your personal game experience has been over the years. You have a bad habit about doing that anytime rules balance comes up and that horse is well past dead.
GW probably rely on the miserable and disappointing feelings(even if they don’t know it) they create to push people around to try new army’s and buy more, with many players feeling trapped or unable to start a new game.
Often even finding a single player can be a lot of work for other games. So moving to another faction to at least be less miserable is seen as a good option.
You know what, the I hear of magical place where things go my way type of argument has been used, so many times I don't even know how to comment it.
Again don't turn this in to a me thing. You think a GSC player is happy how 9th is going on right now, or a Knight player? I just happen to have the privilage of being the owner of an army which has been bottom tier for multiple editions, that is all.
Or how about CSM, I don't care about them or their players. But I assume that if someone doesn't like to play AL or some sort of soup list with demons their army was good last time when, in 4th or 3ed?
How long can someone stay "honestly hoping for improvments"? And after how long is it okey to say, okey this army is screwed and anyone who is playing is probably on avarge not having much fun with it. Is it an edition, more then an edition ? Or does one have to wait for the army to become illegal, and then it is okey to say that bretonian players are more or less allowed to be unhappy about the shape of GW games ?
Karol wrote: I would like to someone explain to someone like me, in simple words. why anyone who plays Renegade Guard or armies in similar state should be bursting out with happiness.
I can't remember a single time you've been happy unless you finally moved to a better gaming group that that grognard one that used to club you like a baby seal.
Dude, I've been waiting 7 editions for rules for my army so get over it. You got duped into an army that was bad by people who purposefully sold it to you CUZ it was bad.
You know that making mistakes and learning from them is part of life, or maybe you dont...
I really hope that GK are redonkulously OP so that you can exact revenge on the donkey-caves who sold it to you. And I hate GK as an entity so that's saying something!
Apple fox wrote: GW probably rely on the miserable and disappointing feelings(even if they don’t know it) they create to push people around to try new army’s and buy more, with many players feeling trapped or unable to start a new game.
Often even finding a single player can be a lot of work for other games. So moving to another faction to at least be less miserable is seen as a good option.
I don't think that's GW's plan. FOMO, sure. Making people upset to get them to switch armies seems too likely to backfire.
Apple fox wrote: GW probably rely on the miserable and disappointing feelings(even if they don’t know it) they create to push people around to try new army’s and buy more, with many players feeling trapped or unable to start a new game.
Often even finding a single player can be a lot of work for other games. So moving to another faction to at least be less miserable is seen as a good option.
I don't think that's GW's plan. FOMO, sure. Making people upset to get them to switch armies seems too likely to backfire.
I don’t think it’s planed, I think it’s entirely unintentional. But it’s effect I think is seen when people drop army’s for others over just how bad they are. Or waiting for updates so play something else just so they are not left sitting for years playing nothing.
Karol wrote: You know what, the I hear of magical place where things go my way type of argument has been used, so many times I don't even know how to comment it.
Again don't turn this in to a me thing. You think a GSC player is happy how 9th is going on right now, or a Knight player? I just happen to have the privilage of being the owner of an army which has been bottom tier for multiple editions, that is all.
Or how about CSM, I don't care about them or their players. But I assume that if someone doesn't like to play AL or some sort of soup list with demons their army was good last time when, in 4th or 3ed?
How long can someone stay "honestly hoping for improvments"? And after how long is it okey to say, okey this army is screwed and anyone who is playing is probably on avarge not having much fun with it. Is it an edition, more then an edition ? Or does one have to wait for the army to become illegal, and then it is okey to say that bretonian players are more or less allowed to be unhappy about the shape of GW games ?
I'm building a World Eaters army (28 more Berserkers to go) and played Sisters for three editions before that so trust me I get how much having bad rules can be a kick in the teeth. I've played against power gamers, casual players and everything in between. I know I've tried to give you ideas how to have fun even when you're losing but that's gone in one ear and out the other.
And 9th edition has gone a long way to let weaker armies more playable, but I've been an active critic of GW's poor handling of not just FAQing an extra wound to CSM and Grey Knights for a while. As for the actual Knights, they need something like having them use their wounds profile as a substitute for model count for claiming objectives. I also think they should work the Apoc casualty mechanic into 40k to remove some of the feel bads that come from alpha strikes and other similar negative game experiences. But that's just my $.02 on some things the game could do better.
Lastly, I fully respect that most people can't jump armies (I know I can't afford to), but at the same time 40k isn't the only game, and even if you want to only play 40k it's not like slowly collecting a new army is all that impossible.
As for AoS, Bretonnians can still use their models to play Cities of Sigmar, even if they can't play Brets proper. AoS is a different community though who are more conversion and count-as friendly since they equip weapons across full units instead of individual models.
Apple fox wrote: GW probably rely on the miserable and disappointing feelings(even if they don’t know it) they create to push people around to try new army’s and buy more, with many players feeling trapped or unable to start a new game.
Often even finding a single player can be a lot of work for other games. So moving to another faction to at least be less miserable is seen as a good option.
I don't think that's GW's plan. FOMO, sure. Making people upset to get them to switch armies seems too likely to backfire.
I don’t think it’s planed, I think it’s entirely unintentional. But it’s effect I think is seen when people drop army’s for others over just how bad they are. Or waiting for updates so play something else just so they are not left sitting for years playing nothing.
I feel that happens more when talking about competitive play, but then again I feel competitive play brings the worst parts out in the game.
I actually see it more with casual players, no one likes being blown away.
Or just having a bad faction, people here like to be able to feel there mental investment has value.
They don’t want to be left every game feeling they can’t win without others not playing there best or putting in less effort.
Honestly I kind of want to leave but I don't think other game systems have the same sort of community and support that GW has. Honestly i kind of want to get into Kings of War after they nuked warhammer fantasy into a crater and still haven't given us the Old World after barely updating news about it and still won't let us play warhammer fantasy 8th in stores. It's just such an insult.
If I had to state all my problems with GW quickly it'd be: Prices, army faction imbalance, imbalanced abilities, clear army faction preferential treatment (New models, new units and being strong in the game), a weird constant shift towards younger and younger kids I never see play the game, weird aesthetic changes in models and art, a hatred of long term and hardcore fans, killing warhammer fantasy, Calling customers toxic during several different occasions and an actual gw manager saying I didn't spend enough on my armies for warhammer fantasy to show support for it to not die as well as constant changing of facts during warhammer fantasys death, changes in lore that can be dumb, constant annoying IP issues and pulling support for some older games up to the point you can't play them in their stores and others. They also used to make really shoddy gear on top of being over-priced.
Karol wrote: You know what, the I hear of magical place where things go my way type of argument has been used, so many times I don't even know how to comment it.
Again don't turn this in to a me thing. You think a GSC player is happy how 9th is going on right now, or a Knight player? I just happen to have the privilage of being the owner of an army which has been bottom tier for multiple editions, that is all.
Or how about CSM, I don't care about them or their players. But I assume that if someone doesn't like to play AL or some sort of soup list with demons their army was good last time when, in 4th or 3ed?
How long can someone stay "honestly hoping for improvments"?
And after how long is it okey to say, okey this army is screwed and anyone who is playing is probably on avarge not having much fun with it. Is it an edition, more then an edition ?
Or does one have to wait for the army to become illegal, and then it is okey to say that bretonian players are more or less allowed to be unhappy about the shape of GW games ?
First off, Karol, your posts here are fine.
Second, your point is valid.
Third, to answer this set of questions from personal experience,
About 20 years, for me until restartes rubicons and end times Nast;
Between 4 and 6 editions;
Yes, and that depends on who you ask.
flamingkillamajig wrote: If I had to state all my problems with GW quickly it'd be: Prices, army faction imbalance, imbalanced abilities, clear army faction preferential treatment (New models, new units and being strong in the game), a weird constant shift towards younger and younger kids I never see play the game, weird aesthetic changes in models and art, a hatred of long term and hardcore fans, killing warhammer fantasy, Calling customers toxic during several different occasions and an actual gw manager saying I didn't spend enough on my armies for warhammer fantasy to show support for it to not die as well as constant changing of facts during warhammer fantasys death, changes in lore that can be dumb, constant annoying IP issues and pulling support for some older games up to the point you can't play them in their stores and others. They also used to make really shoddy gear on top of being over-priced.
So you made a lot of points, so I'm going to try and cover them as best I can:
Prices: Yup, definitely a problem. GW needs to learn how to learn to lower prices. They do offer box deals and the starters are nice discounts but it's not enough. They need to do something about how they handle rules as well because the fast release cycle and constant book purchasing is pricing people out of the hobby.
Faction imbalance: there will always be some imbalance. The game needs it or else the game will lose it's flavor. Faction imbalances let the different factions have flavor, as well as let the meta ebb and flow so it doesn't become stale.
Faction preferential treatment: I agree GW's top down approach of making models then doing everything else definitely pushes the faction updates unevenly. They need to work on this because it's a problem. Factions should go more than every other edition in terms of getting updates.
Younger people: I hate to break it to you, but younger people are the future of the game. Without new people coming in the game will eventually die. GW has done school league programs for years in England to help foster an environment for new people to enjoy the hobby. Plus these things let parents share the game with their kids which can foster a new generation of gamers.
Aesthetic changes: If this is about Primaris, I hate to break it to you but almost nothing about them is actually new. Even Phobos armour has ties to Rogue Trader marines:
I do agree that we went through a period where the art wasn't as visually interesting but I think that has to do with how GW art basically went through a period where there was no difference in texture across the images which took some flavor out of the images, but the art direction has changed and we've been seeing different textures on different parts of the image instead of everything getting a smooth blend of light and shadow.
Hatred of long term fans: this one just reads like a bit of a persecution complex. GW isn't out to specifically attack anyone in the hobby community (beyond the weird fascist minority that seems to pop up with people like Arch).
Killing warhammer fantasy: I hate to break it to you but GWand the community killed WFB. GW did it by constantly raising prices AND creating the horde rule that incentivised 100+ model blocks AND lowering points to a ridiculous extent but the community was also incredibly toxic with a superiority complex about being the "smarter" game than 40k, and a refusal to play lower points levels. WFB dropped in sales so bad it wasn't even in the top 10 games sold in North America, with it's sales being lower than JUST the Space Marine Tactical box. ONE KIT was outselling the entire game. With that in mind it's not really a shock that the game was killed.
Toxic customer accusations: Let's be honest: there are toxic parts of the community. People like Gamza complaining about "soy" in the hobby, and Arch making videos on if black people can be Space Marines (not to mention using the N-word to describe Gnoblars in a video that was finally deleted this year) we can't pretend there aren't toxic parts of the community that need to be addressed.
Changes in lore: It's been happening since Rogue Trader. I don't know what to tell you, that's probably the only thing about the lore that hasn't changed. How "dumb" changes are really comes down to your personal tastes what you want from the setting.
IP Issues: GW has had missteps but I think they've gotten better, even if the Chapterhouse Lawsuit lead to some unfortunate reprocussions to the hobby (and the uptick of original-idea-do-not-steal naming conventions). That said IP law is a complex mess at the best of times and at least they're less toxic with their IP than Anne Rice or Disney.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Faction imbalance: there will always be some imbalance. The game needs it or else the game will lose it's flavor. Faction imbalances let the different factions have flavor, as well as let the meta ebb and flow so it doesn't become stale...
This is a terrible argument I often find being made by people who have never played any games other than 8e/9e 40k. There will always be some imbalance, sure, but it's an incredible leap from there to claiming that GW's complete lack of effort put into balance is somehow necessary for factions to have personality. You don't have to choose between GW's piles of dead units/dead Codexes and a perfectly symmetrical game with no faction identity; I've played loads of games that managed to both have distinct faction identities and make a large percentage of the units in the game playable, including older editions of 40k.
On top of that I find GW's complete lack of interest in balancing the game dilutes faction identities far more than it strengthens them these days. I don't know about you but things like White Scars killing Knights by stabbing them in the shins with D2 knives throws the whole identity of Knights for a loop to me.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Faction imbalance: there will always be some imbalance. The game needs it or else the game will lose it's flavor. Faction imbalances let the different factions have flavor, as well as let the meta ebb and flow so it doesn't become stale...
This is a terrible argument I often find being made by people who have never played any games other than 8e/9e 40k. There will always be some imbalance, sure, but it's an incredible leap from there to claiming that GW's complete lack of effort put into balance is somehow necessary for factions to have personality. You don't have to choose between GW's piles of dead units/dead Codexes and a perfectly symmetrical game with no faction identity; I've played loads of games that managed to both have distinct faction identities and make a large percentage of the units in the game playable, including older editions of 40k.
On top of that I find GW's complete lack of interest in balancing the game dilutes faction identities far more than it strengthens them these days. I don't know about you but things like White Scars killing Knights by stabbing them in the shins with D2 knives throws the whole identity of Knights for a loop to me.
I'm not saying that the balance is where it should be, there are too many lagging factions that need to be fixed for that. I was more addressing the idea of faction imbalance in general, not the specific state of the game. I've talked about some things I felt need to be changed and should have been FAQs a few posts back. That said I've seen a particular complaint crop up that the game should near perfectly balanced, and I don't agree. 40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits.
One livestream/podcast I listen to is Warhammer Weekly which deals in AoS but they often make some points I feel we should be talking about in 40k, like shooting for getting armies into a "fat middle" (usually described as somewhere between 45-65% winrates), and honestly I think that'd be a good spot for the game as a whole.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Faction imbalance: there will always be some imbalance. The game needs it or else the game will lose it's flavor. Faction imbalances let the different factions have flavor, as well as let the meta ebb and flow so it doesn't become stale...
This is a terrible argument I often find being made by people who have never played any games other than 8e/9e 40k. There will always be some imbalance, sure, but it's an incredible leap from there to claiming that GW's complete lack of effort put into balance is somehow necessary for factions to have personality. You don't have to choose between GW's piles of dead units/dead Codexes and a perfectly symmetrical game with no faction identity; I've played loads of games that managed to both have distinct faction identities and make a large percentage of the units in the game playable, including older editions of 40k.
On top of that I find GW's complete lack of interest in balancing the game dilutes faction identities far more than it strengthens them these days. I don't know about you but things like White Scars killing Knights by stabbing them in the shins with D2 knives throws the whole identity of Knights for a loop to me.
Absolutely agree. The "Imbalance" only makes sense inside your codex, but once you look outside of it - it's a complete dog's breakfast.
As for me, I hate GW as a company. I think it is almost despicable how they treat consumers (fyi, I'm an Australian, we got that aussie tax) and their total contempt for updating older factions or maintaining that semblance of balance ruins it for me.
I paid ~$100 for that Psychic Awakening book only to get what, a reprint of the inquisition rules released months earlier in the White Dwarf? Feth GW.
That being said, I'm a big fan of the casual gaming hobby - catching up with people and using W40k as an excuse to just drink some pretzels and eat beer is great.
I'm just... disappointed seeing this constant disregard for balance and greed for $$.
Apple fox wrote: GW probably rely on the miserable and disappointing feelings(even if they don’t know it) they create to push people around to try new army’s and buy more, with many players feeling trapped or unable to start a new game.
Often even finding a single player can be a lot of work for other games. So moving to another faction to at least be less miserable is seen as a good option.
I don't think that's GW's plan. FOMO, sure. Making people upset to get them to switch armies seems too likely to backfire.
I agree, it's not GW's plan. They just disregard balance and take a "Card Rotation" approach because it prints more money.
As to the OP's original question the reason I still stick around in 40k communities is because I'm baffled and appalled at the kind of Stockholm-syndrome cheerleading I see in said communities. Wargaming doesn't have to be horrendously expensive, it doesn't have to be ruled by GW's balance dartboard, you shouldn't have to have three or four armies because only one's ever playable at a time, and you shouldn't have to sit around speculating on which of your models is going to get squatted/have their loadout disappear/get nerfed into unplayability next, but because GW is so much more visible than the rest of the industry people come into 40k and get fed this line by the GW fanboys about how all the gakky things GW does to their game and their players are par for the course and to be expected. If I decide to just feth off because I'm personally not enjoying 9th then a) I leave the 40k community without a dissenting voice, which is going to present a rosy and flattering trap to other people trying to come into 40k who might appreciate a warning before they end up as frustrated as I am, and b) more people get to assume that because GW has all the money and the shelf space they define tabletop wargaming, and I want to try and point out that there are other players in the space who are infinitely less awful to deal with.
In short: I'm not fighting the GW fanboys because I expect to convince them of anything, I'm fighting the GW fanboys because if someone else comes into the room I want them to be able to make an informed decision based on multiple viewpoints, not just get the "it's all rosy here, don't worry, just buy a new army if you're losing, edition changes that render all your stuff illegal/unplayable are a fact of life, don't worry about them!" party line.
AnomanderRake wrote: As to the OP's original question the reason I still stick around in 40k communities is because I'm baffled and appalled at the kind of Stockholm-syndrome cheerleading I see in said communities. Wargaming doesn't have to be horrendously expensive, it doesn't have to be ruled by GW's balance dartboard, you shouldn't have to have three or four armies because only one's ever playable at a time, and you shouldn't have to sit around speculating on which of your models is going to get squatted/have their loadout disappear/get nerfed into unplayability next, but because GW is so much more visible than the rest of the industry people come into 40k and get fed this line by the GW fanboys about how all the gakky things GW does to their game and their players are par for the course and to be expected. If I decide to just feth off because I'm personally not enjoying 9th then a) I leave the 40k community without a dissenting voice, which is going to present a rosy and flattering trap to other people trying to come into 40k who might appreciate a warning before they end up as frustrated as I am, and b) more people get to assume that because GW has all the money and the shelf space they define tabletop wargaming, and I want to try and point out that there are other players in the space who are infinitely less awful to deal with.
In short: I'm not fighting the GW fanboys because I expect to convince them of anything, I'm fighting the GW fanboys because if someone else comes into the room I want them to be able to make an informed decision based on multiple viewpoints, not just get the "it's all rosy here, don't worry, just buy a new army if you're losing, edition changes that render all your stuff illegal/unplayable are a fact of life, don't worry about them!" party line.
Look on the bright side Anomander, you'll get to live old enough to see all those fan boys eventually forget about GW or become and old grumbler.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...
I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"
Some armies never had a place until 7th or later. i have an admech force i run in 5th edition but the codex i use is from 7th because it is the first and only compatible one. some things just have to be brought into line with 5th ed USRs
As far as editions go the core rules for 5th were the overall best but needed a few tweaks as in some of the versions in 4th or 7th for the same rule were better than they were in 5th. but importing those into 5th was very easy to do.
I liked the Witch Hunter dex, which was 3rd ed. That dex continued to be used in 4th. The game felt fine to me at the time, and if I had a friend who wanted to have a retro game, I would, and I'm sure it would be fun. The 5th ed White Dwarf dex killed the army almost as much as the lack of model support- a mistake compounded in 6th. If the 5th ed herohammer/ retro set insists on using that WD dex because those were the official rules, I can bet you don't have many sisters players at the table.
What it looks like to me is that your having codex issues like many people did. are group allows all codexes from 3rd-7th to be used in our 5th ed games and some obviously stand out above the others. there has never been a better lore based codex with all the build options since the 3.5 chaos codex. in fact many of the 3rd and 4th ed codexes and even a few from 5th were the high water mark for their factions.
Well first off, I'm not having Codex issues so far; I like the current version of the game and I am satisfied with the two 9th edition dexes I have so far.
3rd-5th was a decent era for most dexes; there was a kind of flexibility and customization which no longer exists- a sense of "Build your own dudes." In a lot of cases, that was good because if you had a vision of how a unit should play, you could use the "build your own" rules to get there. The Witch Hunter dex was good, but it didn't have that "build your own" feel, and as mentioned above, 5th ed killed it.
Personally, I feel that 9th has as much or more customizability, but it is a different kind of flexibility. Load-outs are nowhere near as flexible, but synergies between Warlord Traits, Chapter Tactics, Relics and Strats as well as unit auras yield a surprising number of combinations, and I feel they give more depth to unit than mere load-out options. I also like how many of these traits really do define the subfactions and/or units to which they apply: I've always said that fluff is BS- rules do a far better job of actually defining the characteristics and behaviour of a unit than a bunch of flowery adjectives and some artwork; all the novels in the world that say a certain unit behaves a certain way in battle aren't worth the paper they're printed on when the rules say it ain't so.
Adding Crusade into the mix takes customizability off the charts, and the thing about these customizations is that they have to be earned inn battle, so they mean more, and their gradual application over time builds a story in a way that picking from a list of "build your own" options at the list building stage never could. Man I can hardly wait to see what getting a chaos mark, becoming possessed, possessing others looks like once chaos gets its bespoke crusade content.
I also played SOB between 3rd and 4th but it was not my main army (that belonged to dark angels and tau).
So you played them when the dex was decent and the range felt somewhat current (by which I mean we got models in 3rd; I don't think we got any in 4rth, and I know we didn't in 5th or 6th; I think in 7th Forgeworld gave us to the Avenger fighter). You also likely don't play sisters now- if you did, I doubt you'd be wanting to go back in time.
In my book strats are garbage because you have to use a resource mechanic to enable things that were previously built in to the faction as natural abilities or equipment you could buy from the armory.
Some strats were previously available as abilities or equipment- I'm not terribly keen on those myself, to be honest. But most of my favourites were not; Blessed Bolts and Burning Descent are amazing, fluffy strats; they were never available as equipment or abilities, and they'd be far too powerful if they were. I love them because they feel like cinematic moments and story events. I can't use all of them every game- not even all of my favourites, so I really have to pick how and when to use them, which reinforces the feeling of being in a story. I also love the fact that there are subfaction specific strats to further define the characteristics and behaviour of that subfaction.
additionally the amount of time it adds to the game is glaring i can see why they dropped the additional 6th and 7th turns. i can get through 7 turns of our hybrid 5th ed game in the time it takes our 9th ed players to get through 3. i should note that the pandemic only briefly shut down my gaming group, so i managed to observer many games of 9th all through 2020, so this is not coming from a position of inexperience with the new edition.
I don't doubt this at Strike Force or Onslaught level. The mechanic of rerolling is more common than it ever has been, and speed rolling rerolls is a real skill, and realistically, choosing and adjudicating strats probably does add some time. But the thing about 5th is that you probably have three or four or even more years of experience gleaned at a time in your life where you had greater neuroplasticity than you do now, a decade later, whereas the greatest amount of experience you could possibly have for 9th is what, ten months? I'm not saying you're in experienced with 9th- I'm saying you're more experienced with 5th.
I also don't know if your group does what I do- which is put my strats on colour coded cards which I am constantly shuffling through and arranging based on what my opponent is doing. I also practice the crap out of speed rolling, and make sure I use dice trays.
Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..
You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.
others gave you the options to build your force in line with specific subfactions by army composition and equipment for your leaders,
And yes, I too liked some of those options, I particularly LOVED Platoons for guard for example. But I feel like I have more options now than I ever did.
in the case of SOB rather you went puritan or radical you still had 6 orders to choose from, although it required some effort to research the fighting style and duties of each when designing your army.
See, here's what I'm talking about right here: I'll give you this- Inquisitorial Henchman were way better in those days, and I liked having elite level inquisitors in addition to HQ's. I think the only impact of the choice to be radical or puritan on your army was the selection of henchman available. And the choice between playing one order over another meant squat, no matter how much research you did there were no order traits, no warlord traits, no unique strats, no dedicated relics- nothing.
The inquisition in 9th could use some work, but there are some things I really like about them. I'm not holding my breath for it, but I hope the inquisition get a nudge this edition. It's worth pointing out that while you may have loved the Witch Hunter and Daemon Hunter dexes, you never did get an Alien Hunter book to go with it, so it isn't accurate at all to think of this as a golden age for the Inquisition. These days there are specific WL traits for Radicals, Puritans and each of the Ordos, there are specific relics and psychic abilities for Ordos; Inquisitors have two different ways they can join Imperial armies, and they can ally with ANY Imperial army, not just their respective Chambers Militant and the ubiquitous Stormtroopers.
Crusade is an absurdly complex campaign system that is a rework of the old 4th ed kill team campaign rules that consisted of 2 pages-a wound effects chart and an experience progression chart.
It may be absurd to you, but to me it is probably the best thing that has ever happened to the game- I've wanted something like this since I first started playing in 1989. I loved the previous kill team rules and combat patrol. Neither of them hold a candle to Crusade. Faction specific progression systems are a revolutionary development for GW that is light years ahead of Kill Team and Combat Patrol.
there were also loads of optional missions in the old editions such as combat patrols and kill team missions in the 4th ed rulebook that allowed the players to create their own campaign. they didn't need GW to tell them how to do it.
So in terms of missions, just for Crusade, I got 3 combat patrols, 6 Incursions, 6 Strike Forces and 3 Onslaughts and that's just from the BRB. Any of these can be modified by any Theatre of War so that even the same mission never has to feel the same way twice. I also picked up both Beyond the Veil and Plague Purge- which gave me an additional 12 of each of the four categories of missions.
And in terms of campaigns- you still very much have to build them- you just have more tools now than you've ever had before. If you prefer to create your own campaigns and missions and theatres of war, go ahead. If you choose to use some of it, go ahead. If you choose to use all of it, go ahead. You can say people don't need GW to tell them how to build campaigns, but if you're using something scratchbuilt and houseruled, you've got to find buy in. That isn't always a problem, but it can be. Telling a group: hey, I want to run an Obolis Invasion Crusade Campaign, really lets people know what to expect. But because the material is presented as layers of optional content, selecting, combining and arranging whichever resources you choose to use allows you to create a unique narrative.
There is a lot you can do with what GW has given you. Combining the Argovon campaign from WD with Beyond the Veil and Crusade was an awesome campaign, and the monthly changes in theme were brilliant. As for Charadon, we have even more to work with. There are so many options available for crafting Obolis invasions, I'd stake money that no two are exactly alike unless one is intentionally copying the successful format of the other.
there is nothing about 9th edition or any of it's codexes i find decent or worth my time. to me the game isn't even 40k anymore.
This is your truth; I can't change that. It sounds like you've found some people to play with who will play older versions of the game and even allow you to take models from later editions backwards- good for you. I love this version of the game, so I'll keep playing it.
PenitentJake wrote: ...I liked the Witch Hunter dex, which was 3rd ed. That dex continued to be used in 4th. The game felt fine to me at the time, and if I had a friend who wanted to have a retro game, I would, and I'm sure it would be fun. The 5th ed White Dwarf dex killed the army almost as much as the lack of model support- a mistake compounded in 6th. If the 5th ed herohammer/ retro set insists on using that WD dex because those were the official rules, I can bet you don't have many sisters players at the table...
When was the last time you dealt with a dogmatic tournament retrohammer group that's trying to play some very specific set-in-stone combination of books and has no flexibility for people who might want to use a compatible version of their Codex they actually liked?
ClockworkZion wrote: ...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...
I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"
I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be.
And yes, there are people who want the game to be more finely tuned to the point that only skill matters. It's a mindset I've seen in some competitive players, though thankfully a minority. Now maybe you can address the "fat middle" point instead of pretending I sincerely believe the entire community wants chess with boltguns?
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be...
I am repeatedly cherry-picking that one line because I'm pissed off about the specific use of that one line. Can you find a way to describe the awful horror that would result from a better-balanced game without saying "chess with boltguns," maybe?
ClockworkZion wrote: Let's not white knight the black knights. Dakka may not crack down on threads that often but let's be honest: there is a tendency to browbeat anyone who takes a positive stance regarding GW.
I won't call them trolls for the most part, but we do have a contingent of peopoe who will ascribe malice for everything GW does and spin any arguement of why their claims are ridiculious into simping for GW.
GW is now a corporation. Their primary goal is gain capital to pay investors. A primary way to go about this that is also tried and tested is to give the least amount of product/quality for the most amount of money. I wont say there are not some fair minded people in GW, but at the end of the day its about revenue at the top. Policies originate at the top and flow down to the "creatives".
The customers goal is to get the most out of a transaction as possible (in theory, some people just like buying things or status purchases). These two goals are at odds. This isnt a GW problem. This is a problem with the corporation system. GW just happens to be one that dominates a very niche market (growing in recent times).
The point I am making is that there is a level of malice inherent at a fundamental level. Perhaps malice is to strong of a word. Opposition would be better. But often the losing side of a opposed function will see malice in place of opposition.
My personal take is that GW coasts by the fact they have near market dominance and have a desirable IP that one cannot partake in anywhere else. Are they evil and anti-consumer? Well, all corporations are anti-consumer at a fundamental level. Take for instance the recent Fallen update. The least amount of effort. That is the goal. Sometimes the creatives save it, many times they do not. As a longtime player and poster/lurker on Dakka I can tell you without bias that the happiest players tend to be imperial players while chaos players complain the most. Its a bit of hyperbole, sure. But where there is smoke there is fire. A reason for the season.
When factoring peoples complaints it helps to look at it from another perspective. As for ruining peoples vibe (negative threads), thats on them. They have the option to ignore it. But it is a core facet of discussion and it isnt going away. Not all of this post was directed at you, obviously.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be...
I am repeatedly cherry-picking that one line because I'm pissed off about the specific use of that one line. Can you find a way to describe the awful horror that would result from a better-balanced game without saying "chess with boltguns," maybe?
Again, you ignored the 45-65% win rate range I feel codexes should be in to hyper-focus on a line that describes the game balanced to something like a 49-51% win rate. I don't think most of us want a win rate that tight, but I've heard enough competitive players push for "more balance" even with books that are in that fat middle that I felt it was worth saying. The fact you're tunneling on that point and not addressing where I feel the game would be healthy means you're missing the point entirely.
ClockworkZion wrote: Let's not white knight the black knights. Dakka may not crack down on threads that often but let's be honest: there is a tendency to browbeat anyone who takes a positive stance regarding GW.
I won't call them trolls for the most part, but we do have a contingent of peopoe who will ascribe malice for everything GW does and spin any arguement of why their claims are ridiculious into simping for GW.
GW is now a corporation. Their primary goal is gain capital to pay investors. A primary way to go about this that is also tried and tested is to give the least amount of product/quality for the most amount of money. I wont say there are not some fair minded people in GW, but at the end of the day its about revenue at the top. Policies originate at the top and flow down to the "creatives".
The customers goal is to get the most out of a transaction as possible (in theory, some people just like buying things or status purchases). These two goals are at odds. This isnt a GW problem. This is a problem with the corporation system. GW just happens to be one that dominates a very niche market (growing in recent times).
The point I am making is that there is a level of malice inherent at a fundamental level. Perhaps malice is to strong of a word. Opposition would be better. But often the losing side of a opposed function will see malice in place of opposition.
My personal take is that GW coasts by the fact they have near market dominance and have a desirable IP that one cannot partake in anywhere else. Are they evil and anti-consumer? Well, all corporations are anti-consumer at a fundamental level. Take for instance the recent Fallen update. The least amount of effort. That is the goal. Sometimes the creatives save it, many times they do not. As a longtime player and poster/lurker on Dakka I can tell you without bias that the happiest players tend to be imperial players while chaos players complain the most. Its a bit of hyperbole, sure. But where there is smoke there is fire. A reason for the season.
When factoring peoples complaints it helps to look at it from another perspective. As for ruining peoples vibe (negative threads), thats on them. They have the option to ignore it. But it is a core facet of discussion and it isnt going away. Not all of this post was directed at you, obviously.
I both agree and disagree with you. I'd agree there is malice when it comes to the business decisions made at the top, but when it comes from what comes from the studio team in terms of lore, model design, rules or even paint schemes (and by god do they need to learn how to properly paint a female face) I don't ascribe malice.
Pricing has malice behind it. GW knee-jerk reacting to a balance issue only to over correct and nerf something into the ground and then never buff it again for the rest of the edition I ascribe to "good intentions". As in the "road to hell is paved with good intentions".
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be...
I am repeatedly cherry-picking that one line because I'm pissed off about the specific use of that one line. Can you find a way to describe the awful horror that would result from a better-balanced game without saying "chess with boltguns," maybe?
Again, you ignored the 45-65% win rate range I feel codexes should be in to hyper-focus on a line that describes the game balanced to something like a 49-51% win rate. I don't think most of us want a win rate that tight, but I've heard enough competitive players push for "more balance" even with books that are in that fat middle that I felt it was worth saying. The fact you're tunneling on that point and not addressing where I feel the game would be healthy means you're missing the point entirely.
I don't think tournament winrates are a meaningful metric of the health of the game/health of a Codex, just because the statistic completely ignores internal balance. If a Codex has one netlist with a 55% winrate and the entire rest of the Codex has a 0% winrate if you use any of it the Codex will show a 55% tournament winrate because tournament players will only use that one netlist. The GK Codex is a good example here; they "fixed" it in PA by making one powerhouse deathstar Paladin build work, and the whole rest of the book is still pretty crap.
I don't define balance in terms of how close everything is to a 50% winrate, I define it in terms of whether there's a reason to use everything in the game. There should never be a dead unit that you should never buy, a dead Codex that nobody should ever use, or on the flipside always-take units/Codexes. Not everything needs to be equal for everything to be able to participate.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be...
I am repeatedly cherry-picking that one line because I'm pissed off about the specific use of that one line. Can you find a way to describe the awful horror that would result from a better-balanced game without saying "chess with boltguns," maybe?
Again, you ignored the 45-65% win rate range I feel codexes should be in to hyper-focus on a line that describes the game balanced to something like a 49-51% win rate. I don't think most of us want a win rate that tight, but I've heard enough competitive players push for "more balance" even with books that are in that fat middle that I felt it was worth saying. The fact you're tunneling on that point and not addressing where I feel the game would be healthy means you're missing the point entirely.
I don't think tournament winrates are a meaningful metric of the health of the game/health of a Codex, just because the statistic completely ignores internal balance. If a Codex has one netlist with a 55% winrate and the entire rest of the Codex has a 0% winrate if you use any of it the Codex will show a 55% tournament winrate because tournament players will only use that one netlist. The GK Codex is a good example here; they "fixed" it in PA by making one powerhouse deathstar Paladin build work, and the whole rest of the book is still pretty crap.
I don't define balance in terms of how close everything is to a 50% winrate, I define it in terms of whether there's a reason to use everything in the game. There should never be a dead unit that you should never buy, a dead Codex that nobody should ever use, or on the flipside always-take units/Codexes. Not everything needs to be equal for everything to be able to participate.
I agree win rates aren't perfect, but they are a barometer for overall health of the game (though I feel there is an arguement excluding top table results in that metric due to the skill gap boosting win rates). GW has a bad habit over the years hammering things down without coming back to boost them up, but so far this edition they've been finally giving the game a rework to try and boost things and encourage better internal balance thanks to the reintroduction of limits to certain chaffe units. I don't like the fact they refuse to FAQ some of these changes as a patch, but I'll at least credit them for making changes for the better.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...
I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"
I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be.
And yes, there are people who want the game to be more finely tuned to the point that only skill matters. It's a mindset I've seen in some competitive players, though thankfully a minority. Now maybe you can address the "fat middle" point instead of pretending I sincerely believe the entire community wants chess with boltguns?
You do nothing to really prove otherwise with the garbage idea that some imbalance is actually healthy somehow.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I agree win rates aren't perfect, but they are a barometer for overall health of the game (though I feel there is an arguement excluding top table results in that metric due to the skill gap boosting win rates). GW has a bad habit over the years hammering things down without coming back to boost them up, but so far this edition they've been finally giving the game a rework to try and boost things and encourage better internal balance thanks to the reintroduction of limits to certain chaffe units. I don't like the fact they refuse to FAQ some of these changes as a patch, but I'll at least credit them for making changes for the better.
I don't think they have made things better. They're changing points more, but they haven't gotten any better at it; damage creep has gotten so out of control you have to leave maximum points in Reserves to prevent the person who goes first from tabling the other guy, the only things that get meaningful FAQ patches are nerfs to things that have too-high tournament winrates (underperforming/underused units almost never get anything), they're still doing the Codex model of dumping lump changes to each army and then not touching them again for years, stratagems just represent a monumental extra pile of bloat, and they're still trying to band-aid patch things instead of fixing the underlying problems to the point that there are math errors they made in the 8e Indexes that we're still paying the price for today.
Everything that's wrong with 40k right now is the exact same stuff that's been wrong since 5th. Nothing's changed.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...
I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"
I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be.
And yes, there are people who want the game to be more finely tuned to the point that only skill matters. It's a mindset I've seen in some competitive players, though thankfully a minority. Now maybe you can address the "fat middle" point instead of pretending I sincerely believe the entire community wants chess with boltguns?
Hey, I want chess with boltguns! Well, not meaning the differences between factions but rather the feel of the game. I'd like to have gampelay time spent mostly on thinking, planning, strategizing (so the game should reward those) not on the menial chore of generating random numbers.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...
I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"
I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be.
And yes, there are people who want the game to be more finely tuned to the point that only skill matters. It's a mindset I've seen in some competitive players, though thankfully a minority. Now maybe you can address the "fat middle" point instead of pretending I sincerely believe the entire community wants chess with boltguns?
You do nothing to really prove otherwise with the garbage idea that some imbalance is actually healthy somehow.
Maybe because this has literally been argued to death and I've staked my flag on a "fat middle" being the healthiest place for the game to be, while you've done nothing to discuss that point.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...I agree win rates aren't perfect, but they are a barometer for overall health of the game (though I feel there is an arguement excluding top table results in that metric due to the skill gap boosting win rates). GW has a bad habit over the years hammering things down without coming back to boost them up, but so far this edition they've been finally giving the game a rework to try and boost things and encourage better internal balance thanks to the reintroduction of limits to certain chaffe units. I don't like the fact they refuse to FAQ some of these changes as a patch, but I'll at least credit them for making changes for the better.
I don't think they have made things better. They're changing points more, but they haven't gotten any better at it; damage creep has gotten so out of control you have to leave maximum points in Reserves to prevent the person who goes first from tabling the other guy, the only things that get meaningful FAQ patches are nerfs to things that have too-high tournament winrates (underperforming/underused units almost never get anything), they're still doing the Codex model of dumping lump changes to each army and then not touching them again for years, stratagems just represent a monumental extra pile of bloat, and they're still trying to band-aid patch things instead of fixing the underlying problems to the point that there are math errors they made in the 8e Indexes that we're still paying the price for today.
Everything that's wrong with 40k right now is the exact same stuff that's been wrong since 5th. Nothing's changed.
I was thinking more how they've been changing statlines for units and wargear than what the FAQ has been doing. That said, they should have just FAQ'd everything all at once instead of forcing it to be a codex only update.
And I'm mixed on stratagems. I like the concept, but not so much the execution. Maybe it they were dialed in like AoS' Command Abilities I'd like them more instead of this massive list of stratagems where most of them are almost never used.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...40k doesn't need to be chess with boltguns, and I get I may not be popular for saying it, but there should be a little imbalance floating around, but that should be a lot closer than where it currently sits...
I'm trying to point out that this is a horrible and misleading false dichotomy that gets thrown around to prop up an utterly indefensible position. NOBODY WANTS CHESS WITH BOLTGUNS. We just want to stop being told "Oh, you're losing, wait years for a new Codex/buy a different army and you'll be fine!" or "Don't buy/use the minis you like, they're bad and you'll lose!"
I like how you cherry picked that one line and ignored where I feel the game should be.
And yes, there are people who want the game to be more finely tuned to the point that only skill matters. It's a mindset I've seen in some competitive players, though thankfully a minority. Now maybe you can address the "fat middle" point instead of pretending I sincerely believe the entire community wants chess with boltguns?
Hey, I want chess with boltguns! Well, not meaning the differences between factions but rather the feel of the game. I'd like to have gampelay time spent mostly on thinking, planning, strategizing (so the game should reward those) not on the menial chore of generating random numbers.
That level of simulation play is better for computers (Total War: Warhammer 40k does sound a little cool though). I'd rather the game be a little looser and more abstract than too simulationy. Probably why I'd rather we do wounds and casualties like Apoc instead of pulling them right away.
What it looks like to me is that your having codex issues like many people did. are group allows all codexes from 3rd-7th to be used in our 5th ed games and some obviously stand out above the others. there has never been a better lore based codex with all the build options since the 3.5 chaos codex. in fact many of the 3rd and 4th ed codexes and even a few from 5th were the high water mark for their factions.
Well first off, I'm not having Codex issues so far; I like the current version of the game and I am satisfied with the two 9th edition dexes I have so far.
3rd-5th was a decent era for most dexes; there was a kind of flexibility and customization which no longer exists- a sense of "Build your own dudes." In a lot of cases, that was good because if you had a vision of how a unit should play, you could use the "build your own" rules to get there. The Witch Hunter dex was good, but it didn't have that "build your own" feel, and as mentioned above, 5th ed killed it.
Personally, I feel that 9th has as much or more customizability, but it is a different kind of flexibility. Load-outs are nowhere near as flexible, but synergies between Warlord Traits, Chapter Tactics, Relics and Strats as well as unit auras yield a surprising number of combinations, and I feel they give more depth to unit than mere load-out options. I also like how many of these traits really do define the subfactions and/or units to which they apply: I've always said that fluff is BS- rules do a far better job of actually defining the characteristics and behaviour of a unit than a bunch of flowery adjectives and some artwork; all the novels in the world that say a certain unit behaves a certain way in battle aren't worth the paper they're printed on when the rules say it ain't so.
Adding Crusade into the mix takes customizability off the charts, and the thing about these customizations is that they have to be earned inn battle, so they mean more, and their gradual application over time builds a story in a way that picking from a list of "build your own" options at the list building stage never could. Man I can hardly wait to see what getting a chaos mark, becoming possessed, possessing others looks like once chaos gets its bespoke crusade content.
If you really want to go that line down, i am sorry but no neither stratagems nor warlord traits nor subfactions increased customizability. Simply put: F.e. the CSM dex, is absolute horsegak in that regard. The stratagems singlehandedly destroyed internal balance to the point where subfactions that can't have access to slaanesh will never pick certain units like havocs and obliterators f.e. The warlord traits are for the most part severly limited, unless you play BL, or AL, of which the later is still more limmited then the Posterboys of chaos. Most of the warlord traits are also outright aurahammer rubish which don't let me represent how an unit actually fights if it is 6.1 " away from my chaos lord or whatever i have as a warlord.Nvm that for some factions the traits are basically a given and turn themselves from a narrative nice to have ability to a solved puzzle. Unit loadout customizability being gone is just the next step of the simplification route and stratagems like AA missiles really just highlight the problem with the stratagem system itself. Stuff like Red Butchers being an stratagem increases the lack of customizability via simply existing as a one off, and further cripple balance, just like cacophony does the same to shooting units in an extreme. Subfaction traits are a other exemple, there's no timeline in which a free general upgrade for being a specific colour will be balanced. There's clear objectively better options in most dexes, leading to those players that are narratively minded with bad traits or disfunctional traits or just simply not even fitting traits to basically be sabotaged.
In my book strats are garbage because you have to use a resource mechanic to enable things that were previously built in to the faction as natural abilities or equipment you could buy from the armory.
Some strats were previously available as abilities or equipment- I'm not terribly keen on those myself, to be honest. But most of my favourites were not; Blessed Bolts and Burning Descent are amazing, fluffy strats; they were never available as equipment or abilities, and they'd be far too powerful if they were. I love them because they feel like cinematic moments and story events. I can't use all of them every game- not even all of my favourites, so I really have to pick how and when to use them, which reinforces the feeling of being in a story. I also love the fact that there are subfaction specific strats to further define the characteristics and behaviour of that subfaction.
Cinematic is fine and dandy, but if it actively leads to disadvantages for other subfactions within the same dex to the point where it's x or bust like the CSM dex it's a disadvantage and further decreases customizability and narrative capabilities.
Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..
You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.
No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.
others gave you the options to build your force in line with specific subfactions by army composition and equipment for your leaders,
And yes, I too liked some of those options, I particularly LOVED Platoons for guard for example. But I feel like I have more options now than I ever did.
No, i have less options. Subfaction traits are even less encouraging to build a narrative army , since if they are internally badly balanced there's no reason to pick some of them. Same with stratagems. Unlike IA13 where the traits did cost pts via demagogue devotions and unlocked far more than just got handed freely i am also not encouraged to build my OWN background or USE the wierder niches aswell, simply because it's clear which is better.
there is nothing about 9th edition or any of it's codexes i find decent or worth my time. to me the game isn't even 40k anymore.
This is your truth; I can't change that. It sounds like you've found some people to play with who will play older versions of the game and even allow you to take models from later editions backwards- good for you. I love this version of the game, so I'll keep playing it.
This is true, but don't proclaim that subfaction traits or stratagems did increase narrative capability. They did not or had significant balance cost to the point where balance becomes an issue even for the narrative side of the game-.
I know we're past the original topic and into a gripe about what we don't like about 40k/GW again but I invite the OP to go look at my posts from 8th, where I actually enjoyed and defended it to my recent posts about how I quit the game and wish my group would be more open to playing other games. People have already explained why they stick around and hope for things to get better and its the same for me. If GW ever get rid of stratagems, secondaries, doctrine type round-to-round bonuses and all the extra book keeping and all the other bloat they're claiming to be strategy and give units back their character and return the Your Dudes feel I'll play again. I haven't felt like any army has had much character since 7th. I know I'll get gak for this but I unironically really liked Matt Ward's rules because everything felt characterful and unique and he actually tried to capture the character of an army or unit. Currently it seems like the rules writers have a handful of abilities (cause additional Mortal Wounds on an unmodified 6, reroll 1s on hits, -1 when attacking etc) and trying to make them work for everything and then giving it a unique name and trying to pass that off as "character". Best example I can think of is the Necron Lychguard shield, which went from literally reflecting shots back at enemies to just an invuln save. It just makes everything feel super bland and boring.
Sim-Life wrote: I know we're past the original topic and into a gripe about what we don't like about 40k/GW again but I invite the OP to go look at my posts from 8th, where I actually enjoyed and defended it to my recent posts about how I quit the game and wish my group would be more open to playing other games. People have already explained why they stick around and hope for things to get better and its the same for me. If GW ever get rid of stratagems, secondaries, doctrine type round-to-round bonuses and all the extra book keeping and all the other bloat they're claiming to be strategy and give units back their character and return the Your Dudes feel I'll play again. I haven't felt like any army has had much character since 7th. I know I'll get gak for this but I unironically really liked Matt Ward's rules because everything felt characterful and unique and he actually tried to capture the character of an army or unit. Currently it seems like the rules writers have a handful of abilities (cause additional Mortal Wounds on an unmodified 6, reroll 1s on hits, -1 when attacking etc) and trying to make them work for everything and then giving it a unique name and trying to pass that off as "character". Best example I can think of is the Necron Lychguard shield, which went from literally reflecting shots back at enemies to just an invuln save. It just makes everything feel super bland and boring.
Agree with most of this. Andy Chambers is another example of a great codex writer for "your dudes", just a fun as hell designer all round. These days there'd be fury over the "randumb" and having to take a negative with the positives though.
Hey, notices a few folk seem to be confused on wither Warhammer is a hobby. It isn't, it is a game in the greater hobby of wargaming, which incorporates many different games throughout history, ranging from fantasy to historicals, and of course scifi. People saying leaving GW as equivalent to leaving the hobby is as weird as saying that by never using a Xerox product you will never laminate anything ever.
It's a shame to have such beautiful models hampered by a clunky and unbalanced ruleset.
Being vocal about it is the only way for people to reach out to GW.
It may or may not have any effect; it's also a trend in the entertaining industry to blame the vocal critics instead of looking earnestly at your product to make it better (or making people pay to beta test your product).
I understand that GW balance rules with individual units sales in mind Instead of the game as a whole, and that it's unlikely to change, which lead me to appreciate the hobby for its miniatures more than the game itself.
Sim-Life wrote: I know we're past the original topic and into a gripe about what we don't like about 40k/GW again but I invite the OP to go look at my posts from 8th, where I actually enjoyed and defended it to my recent posts about how I quit the game and wish my group would be more open to playing other games. People have already explained why they stick around and hope for things to get better and its the same for me. If GW ever get rid of stratagems, secondaries, doctrine type round-to-round bonuses and all the extra book keeping and all the other bloat they're claiming to be strategy and give units back their character and return the Your Dudes feel I'll play again. I haven't felt like any army has had much character since 7th. I know I'll get gak for this but I unironically really liked Matt Ward's rules because everything felt characterful and unique and he actually tried to capture the character of an army or unit. Currently it seems like the rules writers have a handful of abilities (cause additional Mortal Wounds on an unmodified 6, reroll 1s on hits, -1 when attacking etc) and trying to make them work for everything and then giving it a unique name and trying to pass that off as "character". Best example I can think of is the Necron Lychguard shield, which went from literally reflecting shots back at enemies to just an invuln save. It just makes everything feel super bland and boring.
Agree with most of this. Andy Chambers is another example of a great codex writer for "your dudes", just a fun as hell designer all round. These days there'd be fury over the "randumb" and having to take a negative with the positives though.
You can't balance a game where everyone have different abilities and statlines.
You need to homogenize most of it for balance purpose.
Character is good, balance (or aiming for balance) is better.
Now I completely agree that the bazillions stratagems, unbalanced doctrines within a codex and between codexes, reroll rules, and multiplication of -1/+1 rules on every datasheet is just either plain boring, outright broken, and mostly tedious micromanagement.
Hey, notices a few folk seem to be confused on wither Warhammer is a hobby. It isn't, it is a game in the greater hobby of wargaming, which incorporates many different games throughout history, ranging from fantasy to historicals, and of course scifi. People saying leaving GW as equivalent to leaving the hobby is as weird as saying that by never using a Xerox product you will never laminate anything ever.
I get your point, and you're not wrong, but for some people, it IS the whole hobby. For example, where I live, if you want to have a community, and other players where you can get regular games, painting competitions, etc, it's pretty much GW or nothing. If you only paint the models, then sure, in a place like mine, you can buy whatever and paint it, but those other games have no support around here. Years ago, I was the one at several different LGS's picking up games like Starship Troopers, VOR, Warzone, Chronopia, etc, and getting others into it. But without fail, these other games eventually disappear the second you get any kind of community built up.
Fortunately, the local 40k community is a pretty good one that I tend to enjoy. But like I said, if I were to look to another system, there is ZERO established community, and zero interest. The only community that ever came close was Warmahordes, but that just up and vanished probably 6 or 7 years ago and never came back. So .... pretty much 40k or nothing at this point.
It still doesn't change the fact it isnt a hobby, just a facet of it. Part of this hobby is the modeling and painting as well.
I mentioned that in my post. But for so many people, it's about painting and playing. Not just painting. I know I have a lot more fun in the hobby aspect of building/painting if I know I'll be taking the army to the LGS to see how awesome my friend's new models look. It's very motivating and way more enjoyable (for me personally) than just painting and dropping them on a shelf and leaving it at that. So again, in places like where I live, if that is how you want to hobby, it's GW or nothing.
Totally fine if someone else just wants to paint and not play. That's cool too. Just pointing out why some people may be appearing to consider GW "the whole hobby".
But its just a brand. Its like saying every copier is a Xerox or every soda a Coke, or every car a Ford.
Or you know, every restaurant a Taco Bell.
If some only by a specific brand, that's... not relevant. They can do it if they want, but it doesn't change the category from 'brand' to 'hobby,' let alone the whole hobby.
Its like inviting someone to play some multiplayer Call of Duty when you actually mean Civilization. Or rather, inviting someone to 'play Activision.'
If some only by a specific brand, that's... not relevant. They can do it if they want, but it doesn't change the category from 'brand' to 'hobby,' let alone the whole hobby.
Its like inviting someone to play some multiplayer Call of Duty when you actually mean Civilization. Or rather, inviting someone to 'play Activision.'
You're misunderstanding me to a pretty wide degree. Of course it's not literally the entire hobby, but functionally, in some locales, it is, quite literally, the only option if your vision of the hobby is, building, painting, AND PLAYING/having a community around you to enjoy the hobby with. In your analogy, it would be like saying "Do you want to play Civilazation instead of CoD today" and every person saying "no".
Many towns just don't have the support of multiple systems. They just don't. I have a closet full of games I've worked really hard to get started that aren't 40k. They never go anywhere substantial. So like I said, that's great if you are fine with just building/painting. In some cases that's actually better. You can do what you want and not worry about a thing. But if you also enjoy having a community, and playing actual games with real people as part of your hobby experience, then again, unfortunately, in many places, it tends to be 40k or nothing. For some, it's just not as simple as "go pick up another game".
Voss wrote: But its just a brand. Its like saying every copier is a Xerox or every soda a Coke, or every car a Ford.
Or you know, every restaurant a Taco Bell.
If some only by a specific brand, that's... not relevant. They can do it if they want, but it doesn't change the category from 'brand' to 'hobby,' let alone the whole hobby.
Its like inviting someone to play some multiplayer Call of Duty when you actually mean Civilization. Or rather, inviting someone to 'play Activision.'
Then again it is in the same kind of person that would think that if someone stopped playing Dungeons and Dragons that they stopped playing tabletop entirely, when D&D has become a catchall nickname for all TTRPGs even though they may be playing a game of Deadlands or Pathfinder.
I don't care if 40k is the only game you can find, it is still idiotic to say that leaving it is the equivalent of leaving the hobby of wargaming in general.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It also goes heavily into GW's marketing strategy. There are no competitors, regardless of size, they don't exist in their world they want to create for the customer. Not to complain about that, it is rather effective after all.
I don't care if 40k is the only game you can find, it is still idiotic to say that leaving it is the equivalent of leaving the hobby of wargaming in general.
Scenario:
You're in an area where 40k is literally the only game in town, and you can't get any interest generated in other games. Your vision of the hobby involves playing the game you are into as well as painting (it's only fun for you if all of those aspects are present). You decide to leave 40k for whatever reason - what does that leave you with? You have no other options. You can't jump to another game because there isn't one. No one else will play anything outside of 40k. You have, in effect, left the hobby. That's the reality of a lot of people. Sure, again, if you enjoy it differently that's cool. You're good with just painting and don't need/want the social aspect? More power to you. You're fine playing against yourself in your basement? Go for it.
Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. If you want to split hairs and deliberately misinterpret, that's fine too. Just pointing out a legitimate situation many people are in that contributes to why they don't leave. Again, you can say all you want, "There's other options, you're playing into their marketing strategy, etc etc" but the reality is, in many places, rolling up to the LGS and saying "Who wants to play Infinity today?" just isn't a realistic expectation. And I'm saying this as someone who has spent a ton of money on non-GW systems over the years. I have multiple armies for Vor, Chronopia, Warzone, Crucible (company went under before I was even done painting ...), Starship Troopers, and a few other more obscure systems, so it's not like I didn't try.
This situation comes up enough on Dakka that to think it's "stupid" you must live in a place that's got a lot of support for other systems (good for you), or again, just deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying.
At the end of the day, people choose to be miserable and spiteful or to try to find the positives in it. I don't love everything GW does, far from it, but I do try to look more at the things I love vs the things I hate about this hobby.
Mostly, I like to play games. I like to put models on the table and roll dice and see what happens. I try to learn from my mistakes, and I accept that perfect balance is impossible.
BlackoCatto wrote: Hey, notices a few folk seem to be confused on wither Warhammer is a hobby. It isn't, it is a game in the greater hobby of wargaming, which incorporates many different games throughout history, ranging from fantasy to historicals, and of course scifi. People saying leaving GW as equivalent to leaving the hobby is as weird as saying that by never using a Xerox product you will never laminate anything ever.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but 40K is my hobby.
I collect, paint, and play with 40K miniatures because I am invested in the 40K setting. For the same reason, I read Black Library books, and have played the Rogue Trader, Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, and Black Crusade RPGs.
I have no interest in any other miniatures, be it Warmahordes, Malifaux, Battletech, and least of all historicals. Were I to become estranged from the 40K setting, I would simply ditch painting and modelling altogether outside of what I might need for RPGs. I did it before when The Old World got canned in favour of AoS, which holds no interest for me.
You can't balance a game where everyone have different abilities and statlines.
You need to homogenize most of it for balance purpose.
Character is good, balance (or aiming for balance) is better.
Now I completely agree that the bazillions stratagems, unbalanced doctrines within a codex and between codexes, reroll rules, and multiplication of -1/+1 rules on every datasheet is just either plain boring, outright broken, and mostly tedious micromanagement.
You can have a semblance of balance and still retain character. Its just that GW have no interest or talent for doing so. 40k in its current state would be impossible to balance in the way people want it to be without stripping out a lot of the gunk but I would rather have a fun, characterful, unbalanced game than a boring, homogemised unbalanced game.
You can have a semblance of balance and still retain character. Its just that GW have no interest or talent for doing so. 40k in its current state would be impossible to balance in the way people want it to be without stripping out a lot of the gunk but I would rather have a fun, characterful, unbalanced game than a boring, homogemised unbalanced game.
I think they do have an interest in it. I just don't think they quite know how. Remember that there's still a MASSIVE disconnect between how the designers think of the game and how even the casual customer play/understand the game. They've gotten a lot better at this to be fair, but there's still just a lot of "Well it doesn't matter if we do "X" because OF COURSE no one will interpret/play it like that. That would be madness. There's no way anyone would do that ...."
I also think they're hampered a bit by the required sales cycles which doesn't make things easier. I do think, on the whole, they've made great strides in that area though. Drukhari aside (not quite sure what happened there).
You can have a semblance of balance and still retain character. Its just that GW have no interest or talent for doing so. 40k in its current state would be impossible to balance in the way people want it to be without stripping out a lot of the gunk but I would rather have a fun, characterful, unbalanced game than a boring, homogemised unbalanced game.
I think they do have an interest in it. I just don't think they quite know how. Remember that there's still a MASSIVE disconnect between how the designers think of the game and how even the casual customer play/understand the game. They've gotten a lot better at this to be fair, but there's still just a lot of "Well it doesn't matter if we do "X" because OF COURSE no one will interpret/play it like that. That would be madness. There's no way anyone would do that ...."
I also think they're hampered a bit by the required sales cycles which doesn't make things easier. I do think, on the whole, they've made great strides in that area though. Drukhari aside (not quite sure what happened there).
honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DEDT shenanigans.
honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DEDT shenanigans.
Agree with all of this, although the IH fiasco is a head scratcher and points to the disconnect on the designers part IMO. GW have publicly stated that the play testers flagged that book. GW released it anyway. This is likely due to a move by corporate sales rather than the design staff (who were left in an awkward spot), but at the same time, how did they not see how bad that book was before it even got to the testers?
honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DEDT shenanigans.
Agree with all of this, although the IH fiasco is a head scratcher and points to the disconnect on the designers part IMO. GW have publicly stated that the play testers flagged that book. GW released it anyway. This is likely due to a move by corporate sales rather than the design staff (who were left in an awkward spot), but at the same time, how did they not see how bad that book was before it even got to the testers?
In true GW fashion, it's fully possible the book was already being printed while being playtested.
If some only by a specific brand, that's... not relevant. They can do it if they want, but it doesn't change the category from 'brand' to 'hobby,' let alone the whole hobby.
Its like inviting someone to play some multiplayer Call of Duty when you actually mean Civilization. Or rather, inviting someone to 'play Activision.'
You're misunderstanding me to a pretty wide degree. Of course it's not literally the entire hobby, but functionally, in some locales, it is, quite literally, the only option if your vision of the hobby is, building, painting, AND PLAYING/having a community around you to enjoy the hobby with. In your analogy, it would be like saying "Do you want to play Civilazation instead of CoD today" and every person saying "no".
I'm not misunderstanding you at all. I get that people don't play everything, and many people say no to other games. That does not change a brand to the entire hobby. Its purely a matter of nomenclature.
If 40k is the only wargame you play, that still doesn't make 40k the only wargame or the entirety of the hobby. If people are refusing to play Civ to only play Call of Duty (brands), they aren't refusing all computer games (hobby).
For some, it's just not as simple as "go pick up another game".
I.. never claimed it was. That isn't even weird or unusual. But wargaming is still the hobby, and Warhammer is still a specific brand.
honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DEDT shenanigans.
Agree with all of this, although the IH fiasco is a head scratcher and points to the disconnect on the designers part IMO. GW have publicly stated that the play testers flagged that book. GW released it anyway. This is likely due to a move by corporate sales rather than the design staff (who were left in an awkward spot), but at the same time, how did they not see how bad that book was before it even got to the testers?
In true GW fashion, it's fully possible the book was already being printed while being playtested.
Or, like they did with Dark Eldar, changed after playtesting and then printed without playtesting the changes. Apparently Dark Lances got changed after playtesting and weren't re-tested after being changed.
In true GW fashion, it's fully possible the book was already being printed while being playtested.
Also possible!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not misunderstanding you at all. I get that people don't play everything, and many people say no to other games. That does not change a brand to the entire hobby. Its purely a matter of nomenclature.
You understand completely. You're just splitting hairs.
The thread is asking why people seem to stay if they don't like GW. I gave an answer. I'm willing to bet that's probably the most common answer too. For a large portion of gamers there's no other option. So for them, unfortunately, it effectively is the hobby. Saying "But no it's not because Coke doesn't represent all soda" is being pedantic for pedantry's sake and doesn't change the reality of how hard it is (nigh impossible in many places) to play something other than 40k or AoS.
I even said previously that it's not literally the whole hobby. I'm just explaining a situation many are in.
True. Where I live the options are historicals, w40k, AoS or 9th age and infinity. Warmachine was once huge, from what I have been told, but sometime in the past the company just decided to stop selling models to stores and the game died out.
It is hard to start a game, which maybe is ideal for you, when the store doesn't support it, because they prioritise table tame for ccg and table tops they sell.
Or, like they did with Dark Eldar, changed after playtesting and then printed without playtesting the changes. Apparently Dark Lances got changed after playtesting and weren't re-tested after being changed.
The double funny from this is that the playtesters were leaking that DE are going to be very powerful as far as last year. And if they thought DE were powerful with the old rules, this means that the up comming books that are suppose to reign them it could be changed too. We could have 2.0 levels or castelan era of fun, in the middle of an edition.
It is hard to start a game, which maybe is ideal for you, when the store doesn't support it, because they prioritise table tame for ccg and table tops they sell.
Yeah, no one really plays CCGs where I am anymore, but they were almost 100% responsible for the downfall of SST and one of the last editions of Warzone. Both of which came out at a time when my local community wasn't playing much GW at all and were shifting laregly to card games. Now all of those games are non-existent. GW or paint in your basement alone. Or both
For a large portion of gamers there's no other option. So for them, unfortunately, it effectively is the hobby. Saying "But no it's not because Coke doesn't represent all soda" is being pedantic for pedantry's sake and doesn't change the reality of how hard it is (nigh impossible in many places) to play something other than 40k or AoS.
Point here-
We have a guy who after several years is FINALLY branching out trimming down his 40K army collections and buying minis for the other game systems he always said he wanted to play. currently he is building up his legion of everblight for our fun warmahordes group.
We play loads of different games at our FLGS and i personally bring multiple armies for other players to use to introduce them to new games or just flat out give them something else to play without obligation to build an army from another system. I have gotten positive results with many people jumping into these other games once they realize how good(and cheap) they are compared to GW games. including people who do not normally play miniature games-one of our MTG players now has a huge DUST SSU army and an epic thousand sons chaos army
You will never break people out of the GW cycle unless you take the incentive to promote it yourself.
I know in Karol's case he does not have the money to do what i do, as i have been at this hobby collecting for over 20 years and have a good paying job to support it
Just in my normal "toolbox" i bring with me to the store every saturday-
.2 infinity armies
.a couple classic battletech lances (or if we plan it ahead i have entire case of minis for dozens of armies i can bring in)
.3 DUST 1947 armies at 150 points
.2 warmachine armies at 50 points
.5 epic 40K armies
.2 fleets for a B5 wars conversion battle game (currently star wars armada scale)
.2 fleets for victory at sea
.2 monpoc factions (by request only due to space constraints)
And that is not counting my own chaos fleet for BFG and my admech army for regular 5th ed 40K .
I used to be able to bring all of it but now that i can no longer store my terrain collection at the store i have to bring that as well so it cuts down on transport space.....needless to say my little scion is packed full on game day (i bring a cooler with food and drink as well, since i am there for 12+ hours)
honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DEDT shenanigans.
Agree with all of this, although the IH fiasco is a head scratcher and points to the disconnect on the designers part IMO. GW have publicly stated that the play testers flagged that book. GW released it anyway. This is likely due to a move by corporate sales rather than the design staff (who were left in an awkward spot), but at the same time, how did they not see how bad that book was before it even got to the testers?
In true GW fashion, it's fully possible the book was already being printed while being playtested.
you know, i have an inkling that this is happening the whole time, but the concern of failure has worn off so the rules designer are less concerned unlike when 8th launched initially and got improved, until Sm2.0.. Basically 7th was too close initially so they actually attempted to work competently and now that they are again having highwater (and a medicore PR department that deletes negative comments cue basically 0 contents remaining in regards to elysian and R&H on their FB site f.e.) they feel overconfident again.
You will never break people out of the GW cycle unless you take the incentive to promote it yourself.
Yes, I have made several references to doing exactly that in this thread. There have been times where it worked for maybe 6 months to a year, but those days are long past. Our town is done to a GW store and an LGS. The LGS no longer even carries much else besides GW and boardgames due to anything else being a drag on the inventory budget.
When SST came out, I actually bought 4 starters from an LGS and GAVE THEM AWAY to get interest started. It worked for a time, but so many companies have come and gone, and the hobby is just expensive enough that at least in my area, it's not really feasible anymore. When 40k started flagging in 7th, people didn't even switch games. They just stopped playing. No one here wants to take that risk anymore (which I understand). Some areas you will have success promoting other systems. Some you won't. I'm fine w/it as my local GW scene is generally pretty chill. I just know there are players who are stuck in a similar spot, but with TERRIBLE communities.
you know, i have an inkling that this is happening the whole time, but the concern of failure has worn off so the rules designer are less concerned unlike when 8th launched initially and got improved, until Sm2.0.. Basically 7th was too close initially so they actually attempted to work competently and now that they are again having highwater (and a medicore PR department that deletes negative comments cue basically 0 contents remaining in regards to elysian and R&H on their FB site f.e.) they feel overconfident again.
Probably an accurate assessment. Could also see a situation in which sales is still meddling a bit too much in the design space (like when they pretty ran much ran roughshod in the Kirby/7th ed era) and the designers have just said "Stuff it. We're just going to design however we design because there's no way for us to put a proper process in place anyway." In which case I feel for them. As a Creative Director I've seen creative teams stuck in that spot more times than I care to remember.
Someone else hinted at this earlier, but one of the problems we run into is that the product doesn't have to be GOOD. It just needs to be "good enough" to meet their numbers. Which is why some of these things happen (and that's not a dig at GW - it's the same everywhere)...
I know in Karol's case he does not have the money to do what i do, as i have been at this hobby collecting for over 20 years and have a good paying job to support it
In general, I think that aside for a few outliers, when you are 13-16 you play very different games then people in their late 20s, mid 30s. And it more or less shows its impact in every aspect of the hobby. Telling a 35y old that he hast to spend 100-150$ on anything, is drasticaly different to telling the same to someone half the age or less. The questions don't make sense, the anwsers don't make sense. When a 30+ year old hears that that painting an army costs too much, he thinks that it is stupid. But he doesn't have to leave on a 30$ hobby budget per month. At the same time stuff like playing at home i WAY different, when you are a bachelor living in your own flat and when you are 15 and trying to explain to you mother why a dude who is her age is going to come in a few hours to play toy soliders then you.
Just in my normal "toolbox" i bring with me to the store every saturday-
Let me guess, I don't suppose you use a bus or train or a bike to transport those tool boxs?
Karol wrote: At the same time stuff like playing at home i WAY different, when you are a bachelor living in your own flat and when you are 15 and trying to explain to you mother why a dude who is her age is going to come in a few hours to play toy soliders then you.
This is funny to me because we had a guy who was 18 join the group for a period and he just WOULD NOT travel to our regular playing house to play (he did have a car) and would insist that we come round to his parents house and play in his sisters room (who was at college so its okay). We kept trying to get it through to him that a bunch of men his parents age hanging around his sisters room is a bit awkward for everyone but he just wouldn't listen.
Well with 6+ bilion people many things are possible. Plus I imagine, that if I had scooter or motor bike, and had to pay for the gas at 18. I would rather play at my home too. Assuming of course my step dad saying it is okey, which it wouldn't be, but I am just assuming.
I'm personally responsible for getting the LOTR and 30k communities started (yes those are both GW games, but LOTR especially is different enough as to be another game entirely).
I'm a founding member of the Chain of Command community, which is growing (mostly outside the club, but growing nonetheless).
That said, let me count the number of games I have tried (or participated in trying to start) and failed at:
1) Flames of War (I can't get it off the ground since the latest edition came out, though I didn't try right when the edition dropped and possibly too long).
2) Bolt Action (a "worse" CoC)
3) A variety of ancients games (Field of Glory was the main one I pushed because I love that game)
4) Elder Scrolls Miniatures Game
5) Fallout Minis
6) SAGA (both historical and Age of Magic)
Looking at all those games and at the money spent on them makes me physically cringe that I can't play them anymore. At least the Bolt Action minis can be used for Chain of Command. The rest languish unused, and while cheaper than 40k/AOS, were not cheap. Plus, the emotional effort of getting involved - getting invested in your minis and their paintjobs (rip Elder Scrolls minis, I love you guys), doing solo and duo demo games while other people are having fun playing 40k in the same room....
starting up a new game community from literally scratch is not a trivial process, at least for me, and has significant costs.
honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DEDT shenanigans.
Agree with all of this, although the IH fiasco is a head scratcher and points to the disconnect on the designers part IMO. GW have publicly stated that the play testers flagged that book. GW released it anyway. This is likely due to a move by corporate sales rather than the design staff (who were left in an awkward spot), but at the same time, how did they not see how bad that book was before it even got to the testers?
In true GW fashion, it's fully possible the book was already being printed while being playtested.
you know, i have an inkling that this is happening the whole time, but the concern of failure has worn off so the rules designer are less concerned unlike when 8th launched initially and got improved, until Sm2.0.. Basically 7th was too close initially so they actually attempted to work competently and now that they are again having highwater (and a medicore PR department that deletes negative comments cue basically 0 contents remaining in regards to elysian and R&H on their FB site f.e.) they feel overconfident again.
They also probably think that if something is broken they can just "fix it later in a FAQ". Which is a prevailing problem with companies these days: "Video game doesn't work right? Fix it later with a patch", "Broken rules in a codex? Fix it later with a FAQ", "Car randomly bursts into flames when you put it in reverse? Fix it later with a recall". Few companies seem to want to go to the effort to make sure things work right on Day 1.
I think people are quitting GW when they are unhappy, but you have to look at GW as a collection of games/products rather than as a single entity.
Some players boycott/quit their accessories, some their paints and some their rule books.
Then, look at the games. My experience at the FLGS I went to weekly was:
Aeronautica/Titanicus/Kill Team/Necromunda/Warcry/Blood Bowl - Some purchases, zero games after the first month. Occasionally a new product results in a one week return. These games were increasingly becoming DOA as people got used to the GW model. So there was a lot of interest in Necromunda initially but after everyone saw the book shovelling model I think they avoided the later games like Aeronautica/Warcry.
AoS/Underworlds/Middle Earth - More purchases and you can expect to see someone playing it once a month. Most of the AoS armies are older armies with the occasional completely new AoS force showing up.
40k - See multiple people buying something each week, see multiple games every week.
You also have to look closely at the 40k players and their buying habits as they aren't all the same. I've already mentioned some don't use the GW paints, accessories, books. But, then some also only buy second hand off ebay, others convert, a small number use third party bits, a few have a "russian/chinese friend" and a lot of resin models. Some just have a large but old collection and rarely purchase anything new.
I've also noticed the few "whale" 40k players in our group stopped buying collectors editions in 9th edition after being disappointed with them in 8th. Another expressed dissapointment with the Psychic Awakening books, he hasn't mentioned getting any of the warzone books yet.
So when someone talks about hating GW, they could be hating on the 90% of the products they don't buy anymore.
ClockworkZion wrote: The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.
They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.
No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.
ClockworkZion wrote: The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.
They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.
That would just leave more factions waiting even longer for sorely needed updates. They just need to hire more rules writers, and someone to coordinate all of the various teams. It wouldn't hurt if they didn't drag their feet so much on getting the FAQs out either. I can understand if it's something that requires a major rework, but obviously broken interactions, like the 32 attack Succubus or the unkillable IH Leviathans, should be handled quickly. It's pretty obvious stuff like that aren't what the designers intended, so they should know it needs fixing without months of data collection.
If you really want to go that line down, i am sorry but no neither stratagems nor warlord traits nor subfactions increased customizability.
I understand how you can make this point- it has to do with how you define customizability. A load out, or an always on ability feels more like customization than a strat does because it stays with the unit forever. With strats, however, each unit has access to a list of abilities that they can choose to use or not use; some will be granted on the basis of unit type, some on the basis of legion affiliation etc. Most units are going to have an option to access five or more different strats. Because these stack with WL traits, chapter tactics and relic effects, they act as a multiplier. Load out options, conversely, are set at list building so once the first turn begins, you lose access to all the ones you didn't pick; the build your own abilities that you could take are multipliers for the loadout options you do select, but that's your only multiplier.
Simply put: F.e. the CSM dex, is absolute horsegak in that regard.
If you check the edition number on your chaos dex, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say 9th. Now I realize that GW should have made some FAQ adjustments to the Chaos dex to bring it more in line with the rest of 9th; why they didn't boost wound counts is beyond me. But it sounds like you're doing a lot of judging of 9th based on a faction which we don't actually know how well it will or will not perform in 9th.
The stratagems singlehandedly destroyed internal balance to the point where subfactions that can't have access to slaanesh will never pick certain units like havocs and obliterators f.e. The warlord traits are for the most part severly limited, unless you play BL, or AL, of which the later is still more limmited then the Posterboys of chaos.
Some traits are better than others, that's true. It's also true that some traits could have been replaced with other traits which more accurately reflected a given legion. All of them will be reviewed and updated when the 9th dex drops, and based on what I've seen of 9th so far, I think some of the particularly weak ones will get better. As I said, I haven't played out of the 8th dex yet- I've used it to theory-craft a hypothetical Slaanesh army, but that's about it, and I also don't have an accessible copy of the PA that dealt with CSM, so I yield to your superior knowledge specifically of CSM. There may be some units and combinations that are really, really good and others that are really really bad, but generally when I see these comments about dexes with which I am more familiar, the differences between what is spoken of as auto take and what is spoken of as trash are not as pronounced for non-tournament play. People whose favourite legion has a weak trait may be able to take other units to boost and buff- and they may whine about it because they don't feel they should have to, or maybe they don't particularly like the unit they can take to provide the buff, but that doesn't mean they don't have the option.
Most of the warlord traits are also outright aurahammer rubish which don't let me represent how an unit actually fights if it is 6.1 " away from my chaos lord or whatever i have as a warlord.
And this is where your credibility starts to tank. There are 13 WL traits in the dex. Two are aura abilities. TWO. There is a third that extends the range of aura abilities- so we'll count that as an aura ability too. This is not "Most" of a pool of 13. I equate this level of misinformation with the previous post I responded to where someone implied that if you did enough research in the Witch Hunter dex, you could make an Order play differently than another when there were absolutely no rule differences between orders in the book at all.
I'm pretty careful about disclaiming I'm not an expert on chaos. I try not to make over the top assertions; even though you made this obvious and objectively visible error, I still concede that your knowledge of how chaos played in 8th and previous editions is likely greater than mine.
Nvm that for some factions the traits are basically a given and turn themselves from a narrative nice to have ability to a solved puzzle.
Again, more true when your primary concern is winning than when it's the story- but I will concede the possibility that some units may genuinely be liability and others might be lynchpins; in the armies that I play extensively enough to comment upon (Sisters and GSC) I don't find this to be a problem for me.
Unit loadout customizability being gone is just the next step of the simplification route and stratagems like AA missiles really just highlight the problem with the stratagem system itself.
I don't entirely disagree here- as I've said before, I'm not necessarily a fan of equipment becoming a strat... However, consider that a unit that actually pays for AA missiles has wasted it's points against any army that doesn't include aircraft, whereas the army that has access to AA strat looses NOTHING against that ground army. And again, when the unit that pays for AA missiles takes out an aircraft,,, that's just a unit doing its job. But when a unit that can't otherwise fire AA weapons decides to burn a strat to make it happen, it becomes a story. "While the squad would normally not be able to hit that dreaded Hemlock Wraithfighter, she who thirsts has granted her champion some fraction of her sight, that she may see the soul for which she hungers. This gift allows the unit to fire." vs "Yep, that's a flakk gun, so it does its job and shoots."
Stuff like Red Butchers being an stratagem increases the lack of customizability via simply existing as a one off, and further cripple balance, just like cacophony does the same to shooting units in an extreme.
I think what you're getting at here is that the power level of some strats has an impact on GW's ability to effectively assign points to load-out options, since the point cost has to account for the possibility of the strat being used with that option. My difficulty is that you seem to disparage the limits to usage of the strat, implying that somehow, we'd be better off if this supposedly OP could instead be used by multiple units every turn. I mean, yeah... it would be easier to assign a high point value to that ability if it was "always on" and sure, it would be easier point a non affected version of the weapon low... But if it's as OP auto-take as you seem to imply it is, would multiple units being able to use it every turn really make it less OP and Auto-take at any cost?
Concede that I may have misunderstood the point you're trying to make here.
Subfaction traits are a other exemple, there's no timeline in which a free general upgrade for being a specific colour will be balanced. There's clear objectively better options in most dexes, leading to those players that are narratively minded with bad traits or disfunctional traits or just simply not even fitting traits to basically be sabotaged.
That's because "Balance" isn't a matter of this Order Trait vs. that Order Trait. It is the whole suite of faction linked abilities vs the whole suite of faction based abilities that determines balance. So if one faction trait is clearly better than another, maybe the better of those two orders has a worse Relic, which balances out the superiority of it's Trait. Or maybe the bespoke WL trait isn't as good. On the external balance front, an army that includes psykers or chaplain types will have stronger faction identities than armies that don't, because armies without these units don't have the capacity to express their identity via bespoke psychic powers or prayers.
When you love a subfaction that happens to get stuck with a trait that doesn't feel as powerful as it should, that's when you look to synergies; for example, there's a DE Coven whose domain is fear- their chapter specific WL trait and Obsession tweak the fear of their enemies. Now obviously, other Covens have better traits- currently, a competitive minded tourney player might be inclined to say "Dark technomancers is auto take and every other coven trait is gak." But see, what I do is bring all the venoms with grisly trophies and take the agenda which allows me to modify objective markers so that they case fear. And suddenly that weak obsession has more teeth.
Some strats were previously available as abilities or equipment- I'm not terribly keen on those myself, to be honest. But most of my favourites were not; Blessed Bolts and Burning Descent are amazing, fluffy strats; they were never available as equipment or abilities, and they'd be far too powerful if they were. I love them because they feel like cinematic moments and story events. I can't use all of them every game- not even all of my favourites, so I really have to pick how and when to use them, which reinforces the feeling of being in a story. I also love the fact that there are subfaction specific strats to further define the characteristics and behaviour of that subfaction.
Cinematic is fine and dandy, but if it actively leads to disadvantages for other subfactions within the same dex to the point where it's x or bust like the CSM dex it's a disadvantage and further decreases customizability and narrative capabilities.
There's a bit to unpack here: we're talking about the cinematics of strats, so by "disadvantaging other subfactions" you're refering to the fact that you think all subfaction specific strats should be equal. As with subfaction traits, this is a fallacy; balance between factions doesn't have to mean that all subfaction strats have to be equally good; it means that the whole suite of faction locked abilities has to be equally good.
The next is the "x or bust part" which again is more of an issue if winning is highest priority. I'll concede that there might be some subfactions in dexes with which I am less familiar- including the chaos dex, but in the dexes with which I am familiar, for the most part, every subfaction has at least one build that is viable enough for a non-tournament game.
The next is the decreasing customizability part. I'll concede that this is true enough for equipment strats that I won't argue the point, and I'll extend the concession to also include strats that were previously available as datacard abilities. That still leaves a lot of extra strats which in no way whatsoever impact customizability.
And the last thing is that strat access limits narrative possibilities, which is certainly untrue. I've already explained how a strat is more of a story event than something that a unit can do all the time. A hydra that takes out an aircraft? Absolutely nothing special about that- it's all going according to plan. But burning a strat to give a unit an ability it wouldn't otherwise have in order to achieve the same effect might go down in the history of your army. In a Crusade game, I'm probably not marking that hydra for greatness, because it was just doing the job for which it was designed. But the unit that burned that strat demonstrated an uncommon level of tactical acumen to do what the did, and that's perfect story hook to mark them for greatness.
Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..
You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.
No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.
Now that I know that you're an R&H player, that goes a ways toward explaining your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. I do feel for you; you genuinely have more reason than most to dislike 8th/9th. I do empathize with you; in your shoes I'd be disillusioned too- after all, the exclusion of my preferred factions from 5th- 8th was a cause for my disillusionment too.
My empathy for your justifiable disillusionment makes it hard to say this next part without sounding like a jerk, but I feel like it should be pretty self evident to anyone whose army relies on Forgeworld to be functional that they are taking a risk by continuing to play that army. I like many of the models Forgeworld makes, but I HATE the fact that they aren't all just GW kits available through the same channels as GW products. I don't know if R&H had an actual GW dex in 6th or 7th, but if not, THAT is when your armies died, not 8th/ 9th. You may have been able to continue to play them with FW rules, just like the Tim Huckleberry/ Citadel Journal dex allowed me to keep playing GSC in 3rd ed- but I was well aware that without actual, official GW rules, the army was dead, and I'm surprised you didn't feel that way sooner than 8th about R&H.
And yes, I too liked some of those options, I particularly LOVED Platoons for guard for example. But I feel like I have more options now than I ever did.
No, i have less options. Subfaction traits are even less encouraging to build a narrative army , since if they are internally badly balanced there's no reason to pick some of them. Same with stratagems. Unlike IA13 where the traits did cost pts via demagogue devotions and unlocked far more than just got handed freely i am also not encouraged to build my OWN background or USE the wierder niches aswell, simply because it's clear which is better.
Look, when you pick a subfaction for CSM, you get in addition to your chapter tactic ability, a bespoke warlord trait, relic, strat, and in many but not all cases a bespoke psychic power and prayer. As mentioned above, if one of these things that you get for that subfaction is weak, you look for synergies in the "available to everyone" units will help bolster that weakness. And while you may feel that IA13 did some things better for some armies than GW products do, IA products are not GW products, and anyone who really wants them to be treated as such is taking a risk. The thing about 8th/ 9th subfaction traits is that they exist for all armies. You've never been able to say that about any of the perks that some IA products granted to some armies, even if the IA rules that did exist happened to be particularly good for a handful of armies.
As for not being incentivized to build your own background, admittedly, that's best left to Crusade, which is why it's my preferred style of play.
This is your truth; I can't change that. It sounds like you've found some people to play with who will play older versions of the game and even allow you to take models from later editions backwards- good for you. I love this version of the game, so I'll keep playing it.
This is true, but don't proclaim that subfaction traits or stratagems did increase narrative capability. They did not or had significant balance cost to the point where balance becomes an issue even for the narrative side of the game-.
Well first of all, that's not how reciprocity works- I left space for your point of view, and had expected the same courtesy. Since you're not willing to entertain a possibility where both of our truths can stand in coexistence, I'll retract my previous offer; here's what that looks like:
It is an indisputable objective truth that all six Orders of the Adepta Sororitas are narratively different. It is also an objective truth that until 8th, there was no way to demonstrate this on the table. Same for each of the Kabals, Covens, Cults of the DE. While previous editions allowed build your own systems which approximated this level of fluff expressed via rules for all subfactions of a handful of armies, and for some subfactions of another handful of armies, there has never been a time before 8th when it was done for all subfactions of all armies, except for those which were hanging on by the most tenuous of Forgeworld threads, which most of us had the foresight to realize were already dead. And therefore, you are objectively wrong.
There. Did that feel better to you than my previous acceptance of your point of view?
And for the record, or for those who might reply: Nowhere in any of my posts in this thread did I indicate that the innovations of 8th and 9th did anything for balance- I like balance, and think that the game should ideally try to move in that direction, but as a narrative focussed player, my priority is always the number of storytelling tools I have at my disposal, and I don't mind if that comes at a cost to balance; it's never been my priority. Second, I acknowledge that "faction identity" would have been a better choice of words than "faction trait" because faction identity unlocks bespoke WL Traits, Relics, stats and in some cases, psychic powers and prayers.
ClockworkZion wrote: The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.
They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.
No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.
Meh, I'd rather we see beta rules or something at the start of the edition to give a boost to the books that won't release right away than keep a cycle that pushes to cram the entire game into a 3 year cycle and still misses updating armies.
ClockworkZion wrote: The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.
They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.
No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.
Meh, I'd rather we see beta rules or something at the start of the edition to give a boost to the books that won't release right away than keep a cycle that pushes to cram the entire game into a 3 year cycle and still misses updating armies.
That is a good idea, and I'd welcome an edition that lasted longer than 3 years. But the key thing is that they don't charge for those beta rules, otherwise you're just giving them another chance to double dip players for rules.
Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..
You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.
No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.
Now that I know that you're an R&H player, that goes a ways toward explaining your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. I do feel for you; you genuinely have more reason than most to dislike 8th/9th. I do empathize with you; in your shoes I'd be disillusioned too- after all, the exclusion of my preferred factions from 5th- 8th was a cause for my disillusionment too.
My empathy for your justifiable disillusionment makes it hard to say this next part without sounding like a jerk, but I feel like it should be pretty self evident to anyone whose army relies on Forgeworld to be functional that they are taking a risk by continuing to play that army. I like many of the models Forgeworld makes, but I HATE the fact that they aren't all just GW kits available through the same channels as GW products. I don't know if R&H had an actual GW dex in 6th or 7th, but if not, THAT is when your armies died, not 8th/ 9th. You may have been able to continue to play them with FW rules, just like the Tim Huckleberry/ Citadel Journal dex allowed me to keep playing GSC in 3rd ed- but I was well aware that without actual, official GW rules, the army was dead, and I'm surprised you didn't feel that way sooner than 8th about R&H.
Forge World is "actual, official, gw rules". Forge World is a gw subsidiary, all of the money goes to exactly the same place, and there are links to fw on the gw website. All of the 9th edition rules for fw units are in the Imperial Armour Compendium, which was written by the same people as all 9th edition codexes and the BRB. R&H was supported by both the rules in IA13 and models in 6th/7th. There was no reason for anyone playing the army at that time to expect them to become completely unsupported in the next edition. People who play fw armies or units should have no reason to think that they are "taking a risk", because our money is going to the exact same company as anyone buying what you consider "actual, official, gw rules".
ClockworkZion wrote: The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.
They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.
No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.
Meh, I'd rather we see beta rules or something at the start of the edition to give a boost to the books that won't release right away than keep a cycle that pushes to cram the entire game into a 3 year cycle and still misses updating armies.
That is a good idea, and I'd welcome an edition that lasted longer than 3 years. But the key thing is that they don't charge for those beta rules, otherwise you're just giving them another chance to double dip players for rules.
Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..
You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.
No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.
Now that I know that you're an R&H player, that goes a ways toward explaining your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. I do feel for you; you genuinely have more reason than most to dislike 8th/9th. I do empathize with you; in your shoes I'd be disillusioned too- after all, the exclusion of my preferred factions from 5th- 8th was a cause for my disillusionment too.
My empathy for your justifiable disillusionment makes it hard to say this next part without sounding like a jerk, but I feel like it should be pretty self evident to anyone whose army relies on Forgeworld to be functional that they are taking a risk by continuing to play that army. I like many of the models Forgeworld makes, but I HATE the fact that they aren't all just GW kits available through the same channels as GW products. I don't know if R&H had an actual GW dex in 6th or 7th, but if not, THAT is when your armies died, not 8th/ 9th. You may have been able to continue to play them with FW rules, just like the Tim Huckleberry/ Citadel Journal dex allowed me to keep playing GSC in 3rd ed- but I was well aware that without actual, official GW rules, the army was dead, and I'm surprised you didn't feel that way sooner than 8th about R&H.
[/spoiler]
Gadzilla666 wrote: Forge World is "actual, official, gw rules". Forge World is a gw subsidiary, all of the money goes to exactly the same place, and there are links to fw on the gw website. All of the 9th edition rules for fw units are in the Imperial Armour Compendium, which was written by the same people as all 9th edition codexes and the BRB. R&H was supported by both the rules in IA13 and models in 6th/7th. There was no reason for anyone playing the army at that time to expect them to become completely unsupported in the next edition. People who play fw armies or units should have no reason to think that they are "taking a risk", because our money is going to the exact same company as anyone buying what you consider "actual, official, gw rules".
On that last bit you are incorrect. You are buying GW product &, although you weren't aware of it, they are not adverse to dropping product lines. Never have been. R&H is not the 1st faction/models GW has ever dropped. For example;
*Squats. My Space Dwarves last had Index style rules at the dawn of 2e & then the models were phased out. 3e - present = :( Where do you think the term "Squatting" comes from in relation to GW?
*Bretonians & Tomb Kings for AoS.
*There's plenty more examples.
Honestly it'd be unreasonable to assume GW will support every product ever created forever. Stuff eventually has to go at some point. I know I've annoyed people by pointing out that the Space Marine codex is way to overbloated and it's time to just pull the bandage off and start culling first born (I'm NOT saying all of them at once, but they could start with the old bikes and anything still in Finecast). That book has over a hundred datasheets and is in some desperate need of pruning.
ClockworkZion wrote: The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.
They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.
No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.
Meh, I'd rather we see beta rules or something at the start of the edition to give a boost to the books that won't release right away than keep a cycle that pushes to cram the entire game into a 3 year cycle and still misses updating armies.
That is a good idea, and I'd welcome an edition that lasted longer than 3 years. But the key thing is that they don't charge for those beta rules, otherwise you're just giving them another chance to double dip players for rules.
Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..
You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.
No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.
Now that I know that you're an R&H player, that goes a ways toward explaining your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. I do feel for you; you genuinely have more reason than most to dislike 8th/9th. I do empathize with you; in your shoes I'd be disillusioned too- after all, the exclusion of my preferred factions from 5th- 8th was a cause for my disillusionment too.
My empathy for your justifiable disillusionment makes it hard to say this next part without sounding like a jerk, but I feel like it should be pretty self evident to anyone whose army relies on Forgeworld to be functional that they are taking a risk by continuing to play that army. I like many of the models Forgeworld makes, but I HATE the fact that they aren't all just GW kits available through the same channels as GW products. I don't know if R&H had an actual GW dex in 6th or 7th, but if not, THAT is when your armies died, not 8th/ 9th. You may have been able to continue to play them with FW rules, just like the Tim Huckleberry/ Citadel Journal dex allowed me to keep playing GSC in 3rd ed- but I was well aware that without actual, official GW rules, the army was dead, and I'm surprised you didn't feel that way sooner than 8th about R&H.
[/spoiler]
Gadzilla666 wrote: Forge World is "actual, official, gw rules". Forge World is a gw subsidiary, all of the money goes to exactly the same place, and there are links to fw on the gw website. All of the 9th edition rules for fw units are in the Imperial Armour Compendium, which was written by the same people as all 9th edition codexes and the BRB. R&H was supported by both the rules in IA13 and models in 6th/7th. There was no reason for anyone playing the army at that time to expect them to become completely unsupported in the next edition. People who play fw armies or units should have no reason to think that they are "taking a risk", because our money is going to the exact same company as anyone buying what you consider "actual, official, gw rules".
On that last bit you are incorrect. You are buying GW product &, although you weren't aware of it, they are not adverse to dropping product lines. Never have been. R&H is not the 1st faction/models GW has ever dropped. For example;
*Squats. My Space Dwarves last had Index style rules at the dawn of 2e & then the models were phased out. 3e - present = :( Where do you think the term "Squatting" comes from in relation to GW?
*Bretonians & Tomb Kings for AoS.
*There's plenty more examples.
I'm well aware of that. Perhaps I should have said "People who play fw armies or units should have no more reason to think that they are "taking a risk" than players of "actual, official, gw armies and units". Yes, gw can drop any army at any time, but being from fw doesn't have anything to do with it, as your own examples show.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly it'd be unreasonable to assume GW will support every product ever created forever. Stuff eventually has to go at some point. I know I've annoyed people by pointing out that the Space Marine codex is way to overbloated and it's time to just pull the bandage off and start culling first born (I'm NOT saying all of them at once, but they could start with the old bikes and anything still in Finecast). That book has over a hundred datasheets and is in some desperate need of pruning.
Well it would be nice then, if they said this somewhere. Like something in the line, guys this product line exists only, because we did it in the past and there are people with the models already, but we don't really plan to update it or fix it, buy something else, unless you don't really care what your money is being spent on. You know the way supplements or shots go, when your MD and trainer tell you that you can go on this and it works, but it is finite , because companies stoped producing it or you can get the new stuff, which generaly is more expensive, but at least you know you could be using it for the next 2 years. At least on the local level.
Heres the rub, people can have actual, real complaints and voice them. Believe it or not life isn't love it or leave it, if something is wrong we should speak out about it.
Now this is just a hobby, but it doesn't mean GW doesn't really screw thing sup. ( Hey there 6th into 7th ). Echo chambers do nothing for the good of the game or society at large and believe it or not a vocal group wanting positive change is good for the game.
Whats not good is if everyone quietly quits and all anyone says is positive stuff while the game dies off. So I'd be worried more if I didn't hear heated discussions over the game.
In the end even the people who get most worked up, most of them, want positive change. It doesn't really feel like GW does that, they just keep doing swings and roundabouts to keep the game in never really balanced flux until they bloat it out and kill it and it needs a reset. At a certain point it just gets old. That would rightly annoy anyone.
If you really want to go that line down, i am sorry but no neither stratagems nor warlord traits nor subfactions increased customizability.
I understand how you can make this point- it has to do with how you define customizability. A load out, or an always on ability feels more like customization than a strat does because it stays with the unit forever. With strats, however, each unit has access to a list of abilities that they can choose to use or not use; some will be granted on the basis of unit type, some on the basis of legion affiliation etc. Most units are going to have an option to access five or more different strats. Because these stack with WL traits, chapter tactics and relic effects, they act as a multiplier. Load out options, conversely, are set at list building so once the first turn begins, you lose access to all the ones you didn't pick; the build your own abilities that you could take are multipliers for the loadout options you do select, but that's your only multiplier.
Which would be fine and dandy, if they were better balanced and not outright loopsided. And in regards to access to strats, IF all i do is summarised in the playstyle of buffstacking, which is in essence what CSM did and what many other dexes STILL do then you can't tell me that it is narrative that got increased, when the lists look like cookie cutter buildblocks which you can preciscly point to the role of a unit within and which stratagems it's going to use for those "cinematic" moments.
Simply put: F.e. the CSM dex, is absolute horsegak in that regard.
If you check the edition number on your chaos dex, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say 9th. Now I realize that GW should have made some FAQ adjustments to the Chaos dex to bring it more in line with the rest of 9th; why they didn't boost wound counts is beyond me. But it sounds like you're doing a lot of judging of 9th based on a faction which we don't actually know how well it will or will not perform in 9th.
Irrelevant, the system has crippled CSM all through 8th edition.It has done the same to GSC. The edition change has highlighted that issue, due to a lack of cp for these factions specifically. And i do a lot of judging on the system and how it impacts the factions, and stratagems still play a too big role ontop of often being lacklusterly designed. As an aside, the last good narrative thematic CSM list was the 3.5 chaos dex, and that one was also broken as gak. After that you were not able to field a narrative functioning csm army anymore until 7th legion supplement and still had constantly broken stuff in there. It's streamlining and GW doesn't do it good. So yes i have 0 expectations that the CSM dex will be any good in that regard narratively.
The stratagems singlehandedly destroyed internal balance to the point where subfactions that can't have access to slaanesh will never pick certain units like havocs and obliterators f.e. The warlord traits are for the most part severly limited, unless you play BL, or AL, of which the later is still more limmited then the Posterboys of chaos.
Some traits are better than others, that's true. It's also true that some traits could have been replaced with other traits which more accurately reflected a given legion. All of them will be reviewed and updated when the 9th dex drops, and based on what I've seen of 9th so far, I think some of the particularly weak ones will get better. As I said, I haven't played out of the 8th dex yet- I've used it to theory-craft a hypothetical Slaanesh army, but that's about it, and I also don't have an accessible copy of the PA that dealt with CSM, so I yield to your superior knowledge specifically of CSM. There may be some units and combinations that are really, really good and others that are really really bad, but generally when I see these comments about dexes with which I am more familiar, the differences between what is spoken of as auto take and what is spoken of as trash are not as pronounced for non-tournament play. People whose favourite legion has a weak trait may be able to take other units to boost and buff- and they may whine about it because they don't feel they should have to, or maybe they don't particularly like the unit they can take to provide the buff, but that doesn't mean they don't have the option.
The problem is even IF PA helps / or a dex update, the access to warlord traits is severly limited and so far tied to a ressource CSM don't have readily access, unless of course you play RC, but then you forfeit access to the other stratagem making your units work... because VotLW is that warping an stratagem. I won't even go torwards the whining part, it's simply put a sad fact that WB beyond Possessed suck and right now, that's not the insane Dark paladin mirror they should be with a foci on summoning and possessed of which only 1 thing "works".
Most of the warlord traits are also outright aurahammer rubish which don't let me represent how an unit actually fights if it is 6.1 " away from my chaos lord or whatever i have as a warlord.
And this is where your credibility starts to tank. There are 13 WL traits in the dex. Two are aura abilities. TWO. There is a third that extends the range of aura abilities- so we'll count that as an aura ability too. This is not "Most" of a pool of 13. I equate this level of misinformation with the previous post I responded to where someone implied that if you did enough research in the Witch Hunter dex, you could make an Order play differently than another when there were absolutely no rule differences between orders in the book at all.
I'm pretty careful about disclaiming I'm not an expert on chaos. I try not to make over the top assertions; even though you made this obvious and objectively visible error, I still concede that your knowledge of how chaos played in 8th and previous editions is likely greater than mine.
The problem is that the WL traits specifically get often chosen for either purely killing power, or auras / aura increases they provide. PA has a good exemple for IW etc. The other traits often don't even matter in the broad context of the faction at hand. Take PAWE, You even have some decen WL traits, except, you only get 1 singular. Now you also play WE, so you want to get into melee. There's excactly ONE trait that facilitates that, violent urgency. By the very nature of most WE lists you can't skip it. And if you intend to run a WE list you are already gunning for a narrative aligned experience. Sure you can argue that "just skip it", but WE doesn't forgive that and will by consequence start to work even less on the field like they should.
Nvm that for some factions the traits are basically a given and turn themselves from a narrative nice to have ability to a solved puzzle.
Again, more true when your primary concern is winning than when it's the story- but I will concede the possibility that some units may genuinely be liability and others might be lynchpins; in the armies that I play extensively enough to comment upon (Sisters and GSC) I don't find this to be a problem for me.
GSC? GSC revolved extensivly arround a trait if i am not mistaken during 8th and specific stratagems. And the primary concern winning, no, however winning is par for the point of a wargame, so i think even if you intend to go as casual or narrative as possible you still would want an army list that atleast can work somewhat. And that is the core problem.
Unit loadout customizability being gone is just the next step of the simplification route and stratagems like AA missiles really just highlight the problem with the stratagem system itself.
I don't entirely disagree here- as I've said before, I'm not necessarily a fan of equipment becoming a strat... However, consider that a unit that actually pays for AA missiles has wasted it's points against any army that doesn't include aircraft, whereas the army that has access to AA strat looses NOTHING against that ground army. And again, when the unit that pays for AA missiles takes out an aircraft,,, that's just a unit doing its job. But when a unit that can't otherwise fire AA weapons decides to burn a strat to make it happen, it becomes a story. "While the squad would normally not be able to hit that dreaded Hemlock Wraithfighter, she who thirsts has granted her champion some fraction of her sight, that she may see the soul for which she hungers. This gift allows the unit to fire." vs "Yep, that's a flakk gun, so it does its job and shoots."
Nr: 1 maybe i am old school but i don't think 4 havocs with lascannons should be able to take a dedicated fighter or bomber out of the air. Period or at least should get really lucky. At the end of the day i am playing a wargame. The stratagems don't facilitate that. Nr: 2 Fine and dandy in regards to the gift, only shame when you have no CP , does your aeon old champion just plain out not have the favour anymore? Nr: 3. Considering that GW has refused to pad strategic baseline shortcomings of many factions via refusal to implement proper AA f.e. It’s entirely the wrong way to go and pad capabilities of factions via limited one time / turn use of a resource. FWIW the missile launcher should’ve come baseline with an AA missile but then again GW’s not interested in solving issues of their own creation.
Stuff like Red Butchers being an stratagem increases the lack of customizability via simply existing as a one off, and further cripple balance, just like cacophony does the same to shooting units in an extreme.
I think what you're getting at here is that the power level of some strats has an impact on GW's ability to effectively assign points to load-out options, since the point cost has to account for the possibility of the strat being used with that option. My difficulty is that you seem to disparage the limits to usage of the strat, implying that somehow, we'd be better off if this supposedly OP could instead be used by multiple units every turn. I mean, yeah... it would be easier to assign a high point value to that ability if it was "always on" and sure, it would be easier point a non affected version of the weapon low... But if it's as OP auto-take as you seem to imply it is, would multiple units being able to use it every turn really make it less OP and Auto-take at any cost?
Concede that I may have misunderstood the point you're trying to make here.
Partially, See Cacophony made obliterators and terminators overpriced for any non Slaanesh variant. Yet the non slaanesh variants make it so that the stratagem still is used on “underpriced” baseline model stats. That’s the balance side of the problem, even worse in regards to VotLW, since gw also has right now one of the worst iterations of a wounding chart… but .. sideshow. The issue with the red butchers stratagem goes into that since it grants double fighting at no cost unlike khorneberzerkers which pay for it, but also is narratively just asinine because you can use it 1, ONCE, per game on a <terminator> modell type unit. Aka either your lord is a Red butcher, or one squad of terminators is your red butcher. If it were an actual upgrade then the balance aspect would fall to the side and WE players might actually could field a terminator spearhead of their “special” type of terminator.
Subfaction traits are a other exemple, there's no timeline in which a free general upgrade for being a specific colour will be balanced. There's clear objectively better options in most dexes, leading to those players that are narratively minded with bad traits or disfunctional traits or just simply not even fitting traits to basically be sabotaged.
That's because "Balance" isn't a matter of this Order Trait vs. that Order Trait. It is the whole suite of faction linked abilities vs the whole suite of faction based abilities that determines balance. So if one faction trait is clearly better than another, maybe the better of those two orders has a worse Relic, which balances out the superiority of it's Trait. Or maybe the bespoke WL trait isn't as good. On the external balance front, an army that includes psykers or chaplain types will have stronger faction identities than armies that don't, because armies without these units don't have the capacity to express their identity via bespoke psychic powers or prayers.
When you love a subfaction that happens to get stuck with a trait that doesn't feel as powerful as it should, that's when you look to synergies; for example, there's a DE Coven whose domain is fear- their chapter specific WL trait and Obsession tweak the fear of their enemies. Now obviously, other Covens have better traits- currently, a competitive minded tourney player might be inclined to say "Dark technomancers is auto take and every other coven trait is gak." But see, what I do is bring all the venoms with grisly trophies and take the agenda which allows me to modify objective markers so that they case fear. And suddenly that weak obsession has more teeth.
Sure. I know how synergies work, I however also know when it’s a farce. Take AL f.e. When you want decent cultists you need to pick a warlord trait, that’s the only synergy you have with cultists. In an army that has the most extensive use of cultists and should get more out of them than any other legion. Summa sumarum, you still pick cultists, because Cheaper than the lackluster CSM, but you don’t do it out of a narrative reason, and if you do, what you get is not an actual working AL cultist list, but a gimmick, and a bad one at that. Trust me , i tried. So narratively you got nothing out of the subfaction rules, incidentally and funnily enough you still have the best Plague marines in the game though. Basically i can't make the narrative choice work and that is the problem for a lot of CSM archetypes. And similarly shared by a lot of lists and codices.
Some strats were previously available as abilities or equipment- I'm not terribly keen on those myself, to be honest. But most of my favourites were not; Blessed Bolts and Burning Descent are amazing, fluffy strats; they were never available as equipment or abilities, and they'd be far too powerful if they were. I love them because they feel like cinematic moments and story events. I can't use all of them every game- not even all of my favourites, so I really have to pick how and when to use them, which reinforces the feeling of being in a story. I also love the fact that there are subfaction specific strats to further define the characteristics and behaviour of that subfaction.
Cinematic is fine and dandy, but if it actively leads to disadvantages for other subfactions within the same dex to the point where it's x or bust like the CSM dex it's a disadvantage and further decreases customizability and narrative capabilities.
There's a bit to unpack here: we're talking about the cinematics of strats, so by "disadvantaging other subfactions" you're refering to the fact that you think all subfaction specific strats should be equal. As with subfaction traits, this is a fallacy; balance between factions doesn't have to mean that all subfaction strats have to be equally good; it means that the whole suite of faction locked abilities has to be equally good.
As a matter of fact no. I am talking about strats being so overpowered that you need access to them or else a whole slew of the codex just died as a valid (i.e. workable) option since the balance had to allocate a higher cost to the units.
The next is the "x or bust part" which again is more of an issue if winning is highest priority. I'll concede that there might be some subfactions in dexes with which I am less familiar- including the chaos dex, but in the dexes with which I am familiar, for the most part, every subfaction has at least one build that is viable enough for a non-tournament game.
The problem is that a faction should work as intended in a non tournament setting. When I then however am forced to build around specific stratagems (and spam them in the case of CSM… because great general design) and am locked in as with the WE exemple into a warlord trait. That’s not anymore my dudes.
The next is the decreasing customizability part. I'll concede that this is true enough for equipment strats that I won't argue the point, and I'll extend the concession to also include strats that were previously available as datacard abilities. That still leaves a lot of extra strats which in no way whatsoever impact customizability.
Actually yes they do, cacophony and VotWL singlehandedly make markbound non legion heretic astartes orders in 3 /4 times a non choice since the pts are with the stratagems in mind balanced. And whilest one was at one point or the other an “equipment upgrade” the other was not.
And the last thing is that strat access limits narrative possibilities, which is certainly untrue. I've already explained how a strat is more of a story event than something that a unit can do all the time. A hydra that takes out an aircraft? Absolutely nothing special about that- it's all going according to plan. But burning a strat to give a unit an ability it wouldn't otherwise have in order to achieve the same effect might go down in the history of your army. In a Crusade game, I'm probably not marking that hydra for greatness, because it was just doing the job for which it was designed. But the unit that burned that strat demonstrated an uncommon level of tactical acumen to do what the did, and that's perfect story hook to mark them for greatness.
The greatness moment is allready there in the dice. As is the utter failure. There’s no need for the stratagem system in that regard. And it’s extremely cynical when it limits the options that should be important for a narrative army to f.e. 1 time useage. E.g. Red butchers. Or indirectly limits your narrative list, by forcing factions that don’t have access to certain strats to pay the bill for the times the strat is in a specific subfaction op. In a way it limits the narrative and customizability part of factions via externalising pts cost of units to other subfactions within that same dex. That is the problem. Also i will give you an anecdote, i have a khorne berzerker champion with a powerfist that carries a huge trophy on his back. He earned that in a match by singlehandedly slaying a ctan shard when they were introduced, alone. Just through dice gods being that day with him. If i could've popped the stratagems, the ctan shard wouldn't even have survived the 4 other khorne berzerkers chainswords, if one is to hyperbolicaly overdraw that situation. Which was more impressive for a narrative?
Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..
You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.
No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.
Now that I know that you're an R&H player, that goes a ways toward explaining your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. I do feel for you; you genuinely have more reason than most to dislike 8th/9th. I do empathize with you; in your shoes I'd be disillusioned too- after all, the exclusion of my preferred factions from 5th- 8th was a cause for my disillusionment too.
That’s only half the problem, after all until 6th late there was no real working R&H list either. But when the other part of the equation aka my CSM (2 types even) also run into the same problem because I can’t field my vision of my dudes then what’s the point for my narrative factions to play.
My empathy for your justifiable disillusionment makes it hard to say this next part without sounding like a jerk, but I feel like it should be pretty self evident to anyone whose army relies on Forgeworld to be functional that they are taking a risk by continuing to play that army. I like many of the models Forgeworld makes, but I HATE the fact that they aren't all just GW kits available through the same channels as GW products. I don't know if R&H had an actual GW dex in 6th or 7th, but if not, THAT is when your armies died, not 8th/ 9th. You may have been able to continue to play them with FW rules, just like the Tim Huckleberry/ Citadel Journal dex allowed me to keep playing GSC in 3rd ed- but I was well aware that without actual, official GW rules, the army was dead, and I'm surprised you didn't feel that way sooner than 8th about R&H.
Yes I had rules actual rules until 6-7th. So no, I can pinpoint where my faction died, solely on the back of GW. And you know what. They couldn’t even make the last Huzzah worth a damn. So no. GW is not interested in narrative and most certainly it has internal politicking issues, Because FW is GW. It’s just separated to be a boutique brand for monetary reasons.
And yes, I too liked some of those options, I particularly LOVED Platoons for guard for example. But I feel like I have more options now than I ever did.
No, i have less options. Subfaction traits are even less encouraging to build a narrative army , since if they are internally badly balanced there's no reason to pick some of them. Same with stratagems. Unlike IA13 where the traits did cost pts via demagogue devotions and unlocked far more than just got handed freely i am also not encouraged to build my OWN background or USE the wierder niches aswell, simply because it's clear which is better.
Look, when you pick a subfaction for CSM, you get in addition to your chapter tactic ability, a bespoke warlord trait, relic, strat, and in many but not all cases a bespoke psychic power and prayer. As mentioned above, if one of these things that you get for that subfaction is weak, you look for synergies in the "available to everyone" units will help bolster that weakness. And while you may feel that IA13 did some things better for some armies than GW products do, IA products are not GW products, and anyone who really wants them to be treated as such is taking a risk. The thing about 8th/ 9th subfaction traits is that they exist for all armies. You've never been able to say that about any of the perks that some IA products granted to some armies, even if the IA rules that did exist happened to be particularly good for a handful of armies.
As for not being incentivized to build your own background, admittedly, that's best left to Crusade, which is why it's my preferred style of play.
Irrelevant in case of CSM. Because it’s such a shitshow thanks to the stratagem system that it runs into the same repeat cycle of how the match plays out. Sure I can adapt. I like my cultists, sure I can build a list around that. And why yes I can and did, just, there’s nothing unknown, the game is decided before the models hit the table and how it mostly plays out. It’s predictable and boring. It’s also an illusion of choice, what i mean by that, even if i intend to go for a cultists list it's still the same stratagems in the same cycle of use. And the other parts. It’s entirely irrelevant that IA granted that. GW could’ve done the same for their mainline product. Indeed i dare say it was a superior system SINCE IT HAD PTS ALOCATED TOIT ONTOP OF STIPULATIONS. What GW designers instead did, because they couldn’t seemingly swallow the pill that FW produced better standard quality rules during 6-7th edition was to just outright politicking and backstabbing and replace it with a system which turned the game from “your dudes” to either Skin and trait appropriation or official TM Subfaction TM of your choice.
This is your truth; I can't change that. It sounds like you've found some people to play with who will play older versions of the game and even allow you to take models from later editions backwards- good for you. I love this version of the game, so I'll keep playing it.
This is true, but don't proclaim that subfaction traits or stratagems did increase narrative capability. They did not or had significant balance cost to the point where balance becomes an issue even for the narrative side of the game-.
Well first of all, that's not how reciprocity works- I left space for your point of view, and had expected the same courtesy. Since you're not willing to entertain a possibility where both of our truths can stand in coexistence, I'll retract my previous offer; here's what that looks like:
It is an indisputable objective truth that all six Orders of the Adepta Sororitas are narratively different. It is also an objective truth that until 8th, there was no way to demonstrate this on the table. Same for each of the Kabals, Covens, Cults of the DE. While previous editions allowed build your own systems which approximated this level of fluff expressed via rules for all subfactions of a handful of armies, and for some subfactions of another handful of armies, there has never been a time before 8th when it was done for all subfactions of all armies, except for those which were hanging on by the most tenuous of Forgeworld threads, which most of us had the foresight to realize were already dead. And therefore, you are objectively wrong.
First off: I want to see where I was rude to you, I had an argument about your generalising proclamation that the new system improved narrative formations and quite easily pointed out that it is either fake choice, crippling the books for the other subfactions within due to bad balance of the system. So no, for non official subfactions the new system has done NOTHING. Second off: the FW is not GW argument is a lie as already multiple times explained to people so I wont bother. Third off: The narrative aspect of my units, armies , etc. has massively suffered. To the point that guard has to trigger “grenadiers” to use frag greanades properly. Truly great narrative system…
There. Did that feel better to you than my previous acceptance of your point of view?
I attacked your argument that the new system in GENERAL is better, it’s not. It’s in many cases FAKE choice, not your dudes anymore or outright broken. Its also corporate greed that plays into the new system, because GW can easier sell rules piecemeal. At no point did I attack your opinion that it is better. I just stated that it ISN’T a general improvement. There was also absolutely no reason to behave like a absolute ass.
And for the record, or for those who might reply: Nowhere in any of my posts in this thread did I indicate that the innovations of 8th and 9th did anything for balance- I like balance, and think that the game should ideally try to move in that direction, but as a narrative focussed player, my priority is always the number of storytelling tools I have at my disposal, and I don't mind if that comes at a cost to balance; it's never been my priority. Second, I acknowledge that "faction identity" would have been a better choice of words than "faction trait" because faction identity unlocks bespoke WL Traits, Relics, stats and in some cases, psychic powers and prayers.
But that is not true. Simply because some factions have such massive internal problems thanks to the new system that faction identity simply doesn’t work anymore in some cases. And yes it’s great potential, but the potential is for one tied to your faction being able to appropriate a skin for use that fits or being of said faction, or even existing at all, or be stuck with a collection that you once upon a time could use to your liking with upgrades and on unit abilities in a functioning manner which was easier to adapt to change. And the other problem is , that it is GW and GW has right now highwater since 8th and 9th sofar have been massive successes, but the trait and subfaction system right now have been not good for the game and not good for the customer, and especially not good for balance. And that is why i am further massively critical of it. It's nice to have supplements, it's less nice when they are completely broken (in either direction of the chart) or are simply cut content.
If anything that last point shows that regardless where you fall Penitent, that your enjoying 40k falls very much still within the case of if GW throws something out or not for your faction(s). And sure, you can argue that the subfaction traits and the corresponding options did increase your narrative capability. But it has nothing to do with narrative and everything to do with GW handing your faction the tools to do so, and if the tools are actually working. And especially the later is far from guaranteed nevermind that it potentially forces you to buy even more rulessources because of course....
As an aside, GW is also extremely tonedeaf, cue the last regimental standard.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly it'd be unreasonable to assume GW will support every product ever created forever. Stuff eventually has to go at some point. I know I've annoyed people by pointing out that the Space Marine codex is way to overbloated and it's time to just pull the bandage off and start culling first born (I'm NOT saying all of them at once, but they could start with the old bikes and anything still in Finecast). That book has over a hundred datasheets and is in some desperate need of pruning.
Considering how out of balance most of their systems end up anyways I don't think it's expecting too much for them to keep supporting models they made with rules. It costs them literally nothing but some time and brain power and how much time does it take them to say, think up rules for Ogryns which have been pretty crap a long long time. Marines are pretty easy to point balance and give stats to, they are literally the standard by which everyone else measures themselves. So no I don't think it's at all unreasonable especially when you've paid them many hundreds of dollars for them. They aren't tech which breaks down, they are a table top representation for rules, rules should be easy for the workshop of games to make.
ClockworkZion wrote: The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.
They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.
No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.
Meh, I'd rather we see beta rules or something at the start of the edition to give a boost to the books that won't release right away than keep a cycle that pushes to cram the entire game into a 3 year cycle and still misses updating armies.
I mean that allready would be a massive improvement aswell...
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly it'd be unreasonable to assume GW will support every product ever created forever. Stuff eventually has to go at some point. I know I've annoyed people by pointing out that the Space Marine codex is way to overbloated and it's time to just pull the bandage off and start culling first born (I'm NOT saying all of them at once, but they could start with the old bikes and anything still in Finecast). That book has over a hundred datasheets and is in some desperate need of pruning.
Considering how out of balance most of their systems end up anyways I don't think it's expecting too much for them to keep supporting models they made with rules. It costs them literally nothing but some time and brain power and how much time does it take them to say, think up rules for Ogryns which have been pretty crap a long long time. Marines are pretty easy to point balance and give stats to, they are literally the standard by which everyone else measures themselves. So no I don't think it's at all unreasonable especially when you've paid them many hundreds of dollars for them. They aren't tech which breaks down, they are a table top representation for rules, rules should be easy for the workshop of games to make.
You are literally using sunk cost fallacy as justification here.
Considering how out of balance most of their systems end up anyways I don't think it's expecting too much for them to keep supporting models they made with rules. It costs them literally nothing but some time and brain power and how much time does it take them to say, think up rules for Ogryns which have been pretty crap a long long time. Marines are pretty easy to point balance and give stats to, they are literally the standard by which everyone else measures themselves. So no I don't think it's at all unreasonable especially when you've paid them many hundreds of dollars for them. They aren't tech which breaks down, they are a table top representation for rules, rules should be easy for the workshop of games to make.
If you can say "they aren't tech which breaks down" concerning model (and rules) across editions, I have to conclude that you've never actually played a game across rules editions.
Because there are lots of models that GW puts out that end up being "This models concept is that it's a bit better than that other model in this situation, and it ends up that way using this mechanic." How many times has GW redone the close combat rules, and the related morale rules? And every single time, that's invalidated model concepts.
If you went back to the 3.5 Chaos Space Marine codex, and looked at the some of the model options there, you'd be able to find all sorts of upgrades where the effect didn't matter or didn't exist (or wouldn't work) in the next edition of the rules.
Previous editions of the rules allowed mixed toughness in units, and dealt with mixed stats in a unit to greater or lesser success. And in previous editions, there were upgrades and model concepts that centered around exploiting that mechanic. Simplify the rules in a new edition (9th edition compared to 5th), and those model concepts get invalidated.
Specific example: A T4 leader model. Add a bunch of T6 'body guard' models. In edition X, you just put the leader model and the body guards in the same unit and you're done--it's harder to wound the leader while the body guards exist. In 9th, in order to make the body guards work, you need special rules.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly it'd be unreasonable to assume GW will support every product ever created forever. Stuff eventually has to go at some point. I know I've annoyed people by pointing out that the Space Marine codex is way to overbloated and it's time to just pull the bandage off and start culling first born (I'm NOT saying all of them at once, but they could start with the old bikes and anything still in Finecast). That book has over a hundred datasheets and is in some desperate need of pruning.
Considering how out of balance most of their systems end up anyways I don't think it's expecting too much for them to keep supporting models they made with rules. It costs them literally nothing but some time and brain power and how much time does it take them to say, think up rules for Ogryns which have been pretty crap a long long time. Marines are pretty easy to point balance and give stats to, they are literally the standard by which everyone else measures themselves. So no I don't think it's at all unreasonable especially when you've paid them many hundreds of dollars for them. They aren't tech which breaks down, they are a table top representation for rules, rules should be easy for the workshop of games to make.
You are literally using sunk cost fallacy as justification here.
Yeah I paid for them, I want to keep using them, period. I really don't need more justification than that. They want to drive away any money they will get from me, squat all my old marines.It may not matter to them just me, others ? It just may. The customer is who they need to keep happy, or they don't have anything of worth. I know it's cool we bow down before the corpo overlords of our day, but we are the ones with the ultimate power. Whales won't keep them afloat forever and ever rising costs will eventually push even them out. So yeah, keep my old marines around, in like a decade, I don't give a crap as I may not even still play then let them eat Primaris cake all they want.
Considering how out of balance most of their systems end up anyways I don't think it's expecting too much for them to keep supporting models they made with rules. It costs them literally nothing but some time and brain power and how much time does it take them to say, think up rules for Ogryns which have been pretty crap a long long time. Marines are pretty easy to point balance and give stats to, they are literally the standard by which everyone else measures themselves. So no I don't think it's at all unreasonable especially when you've paid them many hundreds of dollars for them. They aren't tech which breaks down, they are a table top representation for rules, rules should be easy for the workshop of games to make.
If you can say "they aren't tech which breaks down" concerning model (and rules) across editions, I have to conclude that you've never actually played a game across rules editions.
Because there are lots of models that GW puts out that end up being "This models concept is that it's a bit better than that other model in this situation, and it ends up that way using this mechanic." How many times has GW redone the close combat rules, and the related morale rules? And every single time, that's invalidated model concepts.
If you went back to the 3.5 Chaos Space Marine codex, and looked at the some of the model options there, you'd be able to find all sorts of upgrades where the effect didn't matter or didn't exist (or wouldn't work) in the next edition of the rules.
Previous editions of the rules allowed mixed toughness in units, and dealt with mixed stats in a unit to greater or lesser success. And in previous editions, there were upgrades and model concepts that centered around exploiting that mechanic. Simplify the rules in a new edition (9th edition compared to 5th), and those model concepts get invalidated.
Specific example: A T4 leader model. Add a bunch of T6 'body guard' models. In edition X, you just put the leader model and the body guards in the same unit and you're done--it's harder to wound the leader while the body guards exist. In 9th, in order to make the body guards work, you need special rules.
I don't see how any of that somehow means they can't keep making rules for the models, unless I'm missing something.
Your argument is like insisting that Ford still make parts for the Model T just because you bought one. At some point it becomes untenable to continue supporting legacy products and they have to be dropped.
Marines have reached levels of codex bloat that push that up even sooner. You may not like it, but something has to give in that book. When they go to legends just use them as Primaris and you'll be fine.
I think that would be less of a problem if GW wasn't surrounded by the "cult of officialdom."
If you have a Model T, you can make your own parts (or have a mechanic/machinist make your parts).
If you have an old GW model, you could, similarly, just write rules for them in the current edition...
...but you lose the inherent advantage 40k has over other wargames in that you can play it anytime, anywhere, with anyone (at least by comparison). Because the average 40ker is a cultist of officialdom and is hesitant to step out of that comfort zone against a stranger or acquaintance, especially for a pickup game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think that would be less of a problem if GW wasn't surrounded by the "cult of officialdom."
If you have a Model T, you can make your own parts (or have a mechanic/machinist make your parts).
If you have an old GW model, you could, similarly, just write rules for them in the current edition...
...but you lose the inherent advantage 40k has over other wargames in that you can play it anytime, anywhere, with anyone (at least by comparison). Because the average 40ker is a cultist of officialdom and is hesitant to step out of that comfort zone against a stranger or acquaintance, especially for a pickup game.
That is very much an issue around GW, but more so around 40k. Blood Bowl for example has a massive homebrew community who will gladly tell GW to sod off if they don't like GW's rules, but that came out of them basically keeping the game alive for well over a decade and even adding to it over time. Inq28 spun off the original Inquisitor game, and I've heard of people doing stuff with Mordheim, and Battlefleet Gothic as well.
AoS seems like a more laidback community as well that's more open to casual experiences, while 40k has continued to double down (at least in the public discourse, less so in the actual community off the internet) on being a competitive game often to the detriment of the casual or homebrew experience, but that's solely on the community for that. I feel as a community we're the ones limiting our own fun in that regard.
Your argument is like insisting that Ford still make parts for the Model T just because you bought one. At some point it becomes untenable to continue supporting legacy products and they have to be dropped.
Marines have reached levels of codex bloat that push that up even sooner. You may not like it, but something has to give in that book. When they go to legends just use them as Primaris and you'll be fine.
How is something like a full plastic space marine , GK etc modeel line comperable to a model T ?
Your argument is like insisting that Ford still make parts for the Model T just because you bought one. At some point it becomes untenable to continue supporting legacy products and they have to be dropped.
Marines have reached levels of codex bloat that push that up even sooner. You may not like it, but something has to give in that book. When they go to legends just use them as Primaris and you'll be fine.
How is something like a full plastic space marine , GK etc modeel line comperable to a model T ?
I was talking about the Firstborn in Codex Space Marine. No one is talking about replacing Grey Knights when the Grey Knights don't even have Primaris Karol.
Well me too. The whole model line, is plastic models, with maybe some characters being in resin. Maybe if GW wanted to intreduced a new type of marine, instead of forcing people to rebuy their entire army. they should just have said this are the new bigger marines, we are going to be remaking models for them for the next few years. Marines players also wouldn't be in that strange limbo, of characters without jump packs or bikes, when they clearly could be an option, but GW will not print the rules for them without spreading the releases over 10 years.
Karol wrote: Well me too. The whole model line, is plastic models, with maybe some characters being in resin. Maybe if GW wanted to intreduced a new type of marine, instead of forcing people to rebuy their entire army. they should just have said this are the new bigger marines, we are going to be remaking models for them for the next few years. Marines players also wouldn't be in that strange limbo, of characters without jump packs or bikes, when they clearly could be an option, but GW will not print the rules for them without spreading the releases over 10 years.
We both know that while GW *should* do something, they won't do anything that threatens their bottom line.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think that would be less of a problem if GW wasn't surrounded by the "cult of officialdom."
If you have a Model T, you can make your own parts (or have a mechanic/machinist make your parts).
If you have an old GW model, you could, similarly, just write rules for them in the current edition...
...but you lose the inherent advantage 40k has over other wargames in that you can play it anytime, anywhere, with anyone (at least by comparison). Because the average 40ker is a cultist of officialdom and is hesitant to step out of that comfort zone against a stranger or acquaintance, especially for a pickup game.
I don't think its fair to keep referring to it as a cult. While GW fans do have issues with moving outside their comfort zone the reason so many stick to the official rules is more out of convenience than thinking they're the GOAT ruleset. Its much easier to organise a game by saying "2000pts, matched play?" and thats the end of the game arrangement discussion because everyone knows what that means.
But if that is the case, then if someone has an unupdatable army, the last few years they would just be wasting time and money, waiting for an update. Specially when GW told that they are going to support all factions, and they didn't finish updating all factions from 8th ed yet.
Karol wrote: But if that is the case, then if someone has an unupdatable army, the last few years they would just be wasting time and money, waiting for an update. Specially when GW told that they are going to support all factions, and they didn't finish updating all factions from 8th ed yet.
They haven't finished updating all factions from 7th yet, if you count FW stuff.
I mean they did update all the factions to 8th. Then they removed certain ones in 9th so they no longer had to update them.
I mean yeah RIP R&H but to me, they died in the switch to 8th when they became a flavourless army with nothing going for it.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.
Short answer: if they're shocked it's because they're stupid & clueless.
Longer answer: the above + a number of them just need something to be angry about/hold against GW each day.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.
Short answer: if they're shocked it's because they're stupid & clueless.
Longer answer: the above + a number of them just need something to be angry about/hold against GW each day.
I'm not shocked, but I feel GW dropped the ball on how they refuse to update statlines for many books until they get their proper books.
Honestly they need to just give every army a beta rule update at the start of every edition for free via FAQ.
It's silly to act shocked when GW is simply doing what they've always been doing.
The awareness doesn't make it any less frustrating, though. Having an army stuck in development hell, or even worse completely squatted, is always going to be a miserable bitter experience.
ClockworkZion wrote:You are literally using sunk cost fallacy as justification here.
ClockworkZion wrote:It's called a FALLACY for a reason.
Sunk cost fallacy is when you've invested in something but it isn't working, so you keep investing further into it to try to make it work, rather than getting out and trying something else. It's a psychological fallacy, not an argumentative one.
Dumping more and more money into a hobby you don't enjoy in the hopes that it will become good, simply because you're already so invested, would be a sunk cost fallacy.
Expecting continued support for the products you bought is not sunk cost fallacy. It might be unreasonable for other reasons. Throwing the names of fallacies around does not an argument make.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.
Short answer: if they're shocked it's because they're stupid & clueless.
Longer answer: the above + a number of them just need something to be angry about/hold against GW each day.
Gimme a break. Yeah, there's a pandemic, yeah it's forced GW to cut back on releases. But nobody said GW had to do "get you by" indexes for loyalist snowflake chapters AND IMMEDIATELY GIVE THEM SUPPLEMENTS as the edition launched. I don't even really begrudge GW for starting with Codex: Space Marines, we all know how that goes. But to prioritize the snowflakes *who had pretty solid stopgap rules* over real factions was just insane. Like, GW could've mostly covered the armies by now without amping up the number of releases they've done during the pandemic if they just prioritized a little better.
And I don't think what I'm saying is super naive either. Yeah, as I said above, loyalist SM will always get the attention. But in the past they didn't elevate the snowflake SM chapters to the exclusion of Chaos/Xenos like they did in 9e. That's new, it's bad, and your smugness on that topic is unearned
Karol wrote: Well me too. The whole model line, is plastic models, with maybe some characters being in resin. Maybe if GW wanted to intreduced a new type of marine, instead of forcing people to rebuy their entire army. they should just have said this are the new bigger marines, we are going to be remaking models for them for the next few years.
Only to howls of condescension and nerdrage and a million 'malibu Stacy, but now with a new hat!' memes from the simpsons with badly photoshopped images. Firstly im pretty certain gws perspective is a new line of primaris will sell better than redoing the old. I personally don't disagree.The same people complaining about how primaris are bad/don't fit would just be complaining about gw being lazy and incompetent ('they had this great opportunity to introduce something NEW, maybe even refresh the line, but instead they bottled it and just made 'bigger' marines as a lazy cash grab. And I already have marines, there's no way in hell I'm forking over any cash for something this blatant when I don't need to') because the whole point is that its about complaining about a decision gw makes, whatever that is. Doesn't matter if its good or bad or makes sense from this perspective or that, the hobby is complaining about gw. Gw can't win, regardless of what they do, don't do or try to do or whether they do the other thing instead.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.
Short answer: if they're shocked it's because they're stupid & clueless.
Longer answer: the above + a number of them just need something to be angry about/hold against GW each day.
Gimme a break. Yeah, there's a pandemic, yeah it's forced GW to cut back on releases. But nobody said GW had to do "get you by" indexes for loyalist snowflake chapters AND IMMEDIATELY GIVE THEM SUPPLEMENTS as the edition launched. I don't even really begrudge GW for starting with Codex: Space Marines, we all know how that goes. But to prioritize the snowflakes *who had pretty solid stopgap rules* over real factions was just insane. Like, GW could've mostly covered the armies by now without amping up the number of releases they've done during the pandemic if they just prioritized a little better.
And I don't think what I'm saying is super naive either. Yeah, as I said above, loyalist SM will always get the attention. But in the past they didn't elevate the snowflake SM chapters to the exclusion of Chaos/Xenos like they did in 9e. That's new, it's bad, and your smugness on that topic is unearned
it's even more funny when we consider that instead of releasing the book of rust separately, increasing logistical burden that way, they quite likely could've been more consumer friendly and released the cut content in the respective dexes... So basically their greed is sabotaging them more than the pandemic.
Especially considering that other companies don't have nearly as much logistical pains.
Gert wrote: I mean they did update all the factions to 8th. Then they removed certain ones in 9th so they no longer had to update them.
I mean yeah RIP R&H but to me, they died in the switch to 8th when they became a flavourless army with nothing going for it.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.
I'm not shocked that all 9th edition codexes are updated.
I'm frustrated that WHICH 9th edition codexes have gotten updated so far is so clearly and obviously just tied to GW's marketing strategies rather than them attempting to make the game as good as possible. You'll notice that my example of 'where we could be' is based on the assumption that GW would only be able to release the same quantity of rules they've released right now in the time frame between the launch of 9th and now.
Deadnight wrote: ... Doesn't matter if its good or bad or makes sense from this perspective or that, the hobby is complaining about gw. Gw can't win, regardless of what they do, don't do or try to do or whether they do the other thing instead.
I don't agree. If GW started listening to their playtesters, distributed rules for free instead of insisting that the overpriced artbooks are somehow crucial to their business model, did smaller updates to more armies at once instead of locking in their math errors for editions at a time, tried to make sure everyone's models stayed legal from book to book, stopped wiping their asses with Forge World and telling us we should be grateful for any rules at all, and tried to spread releases out more evenly instead of doing a whole new Space Marine range every other edition and giving everyone else nothing for decades at a time I bet they'd see a lot less complaining, not more.
Gert wrote: I mean they did update all the factions to 8th. Then they removed certain ones in 9th so they no longer had to update them.
I mean yeah RIP R&H but to me, they died in the switch to 8th when they became a flavourless army with nothing going for it.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.
I'm not shocked that all 9th edition codexes are updated.
I'm frustrated that WHICH 9th edition codexes have gotten updated so far is so clearly and obviously just tied to GW's marketing strategies rather than them attempting to make the game as good as possible. You'll notice that my example of 'where we could be' is based on the assumption that GW would only be able to release the same quantity of rules they've released right now in the time frame between the launch of 9th and now.
Why would you operate under the assumption that GW could only release the quantity of rules they have released? They could have released updates for everyone in this time. It is an intentional act that they have no released updates for all armies. Just as it is intentional what armies have gotten updates. You should be frustrated. We all are.
Gert wrote: I mean they did update all the factions to 8th. Then they removed certain ones in 9th so they no longer had to update them.
I mean yeah RIP R&H but to me, they died in the switch to 8th when they became a flavourless army with nothing going for it.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.
I'm not shocked that all 9th edition codexes are updated.
I'm frustrated that WHICH 9th edition codexes have gotten updated so far is so clearly and obviously just tied to GW's marketing strategies rather than them attempting to make the game as good as possible. You'll notice that my example of 'where we could be' is based on the assumption that GW would only be able to release the same quantity of rules they've released right now in the time frame between the launch of 9th and now.
Why would you operate under the assumption that GW could only release the quantity of rules they have released? They could have released updates for everyone in this time. It is an intentional act that they have no released updates for all armies. Just as it is intentional what armies have gotten updates. You should be frustrated. We all are.
Wait, I'm confused. Is GW a major company that could produce "good" rules (here at least meaning "new") and has chosen not to for nefarious reasons, or are they a collection of incompetents that couldn't produce good rules to save their own lives? I've heard both arguments now, and they feel mutually exclusive.
Octopoid wrote: Wait, I'm confused. Is GW a major company that could produce "good" rules (here at least meaning "new") and has chosen not to for nefarious reasons, or are they a collection of incompetents that couldn't produce good rules to save their own lives? I've heard both arguments now, and they feel mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily - they could be generally nefarious but incompetent to the point that their plans only work occasionally.
Note: I don't think that's the case, I suspect general incompetence/apathy to be the root cause instead of outright malice.
Octopoid wrote: ...Wait, I'm confused. Is GW a major company that could produce "good" rules (here at least meaning "new") and has chosen not to for nefarious reasons, or are they a collection of incompetents that couldn't produce good rules to save their own lives? I've heard both arguments now, and they feel mutually exclusive.
GW has chosen a business model reliant on producing bad rules because the advantages for their profit margin outweigh the effect of bleeding players who've been through a nerf cycle and no longer care. The business model they've deliberately chosen for nefarious reasons relies on being a collection of incompetents that couldn't produce good rules to save their own lives.
Well its not like they couldn't hire better rules writers. There are literally hundreds of new games published every year with concise, clear and balanced rules and it wouldn't be difficult for them to pick up a few of these designers and have them work together to revamp 40k, but they don't. Instead they seem to hire GW store staff who've never actually designed a game and hope for the best.
Like if GW hired the designers of Forbidden Stars, Root and War Of The Ring together to design 40k 10th Ed and didn't interfere with their process/playtesting I would travel to Nottingham to shove my money directly into their face.
what i really do not understand is...how could someone who is completely uninitiated not look at how the rules for the current game look and run screaming in the other direction?
you now have to track like seven different layers of various army-wide rules to run any given faction. The space marine codex is an absolute nightmare of hundreds of datasheets and statlines and unit entries. The missions are wildly obtuse.40k is simultaneously the most simplistic (in terms of decision making) and the most complicated (in terms of how to resolve an action) wargame that I regularly play by a wide, wide margin. It outstrips the obscure, beardy wargames that I have played in the past before you even get to the stage of considering stratagems, relics, warlord traits, etc.
I feel like I only get how the rules actually function and fit together because I've been following along and playing continuously since the beginning of 8th. I've tracked how everything has changed and twisted, but even I let something slip under my radar every once in a while and when that happens I do something like open up the datasheet of mortarion's current rules and I go what the actual feth am I looking at, he has HOW many warlord traits and abilities and rules and powers and what the feth is a plague contagion???
the_scotsman wrote: what i really do not understand is...how could someone who is completely uninitiated not look at how the rules for the current game look and run screaming in the other direction?
you now have to track like seven different layers of various army-wide rules to run any given faction. The space marine codex is an absolute nightmare of hundreds of datasheets and statlines and unit entries. The missions are wildly obtuse.40k is simultaneously the most simplistic (in terms of decision making) and the most complicated (in terms of how to resolve an action) wargame that I regularly play by a wide, wide margin. It outstrips the obscure, beardy wargames that I have played in the past before you even get to the stage of considering stratagems, relics, warlord traits, etc.
I feel like I only get how the rules actually function and fit together because I've been following along and playing continuously since the beginning of 8th. I've tracked how everything has changed and twisted, but even I let something slip under my radar every once in a while and when that happens I do something like open up the datasheet of mortarion's current rules and I go what the actual feth am I looking at, he has HOW many warlord traits and abilities and rules and powers and what the feth is a plague contagion???
All these things you mention are only apparent when you go into the deeper aspects of the game. At a basic level 40k is still only a BRB and Codex game. If two 13 year olds wander into a Warhammer store the sales person doesn't sell them on secondaries, strats etc, they sell you on cool models, killing stuff and awesome lore. Its been years since I went near a GW store but if the demo games are like they were they definitly do not talk about anything beyond basic stats and weapons.
the_scotsman wrote: what i really do not understand is...how could someone who is completely uninitiated not look at how the rules for the current game look and run screaming in the other direction?
you now have to track like seven different layers of various army-wide rules to run any given faction. The space marine codex is an absolute nightmare of hundreds of datasheets and statlines and unit entries. The missions are wildly obtuse.40k is simultaneously the most simplistic (in terms of decision making) and the most complicated (in terms of how to resolve an action) wargame that I regularly play by a wide, wide margin. It outstrips the obscure, beardy wargames that I have played in the past before you even get to the stage of considering stratagems, relics, warlord traits, etc.
I feel like I only get how the rules actually function and fit together because I've been following along and playing continuously since the beginning of 8th. I've tracked how everything has changed and twisted, but even I let something slip under my radar every once in a while and when that happens I do something like open up the datasheet of mortarion's current rules and I go what the actual feth am I looking at, he has HOW many warlord traits and abilities and rules and powers and what the feth is a plague contagion???
Yeah, it is getting to be a huge problem forgetting new people into the hobby. It basically takes months and months of effort to get to the point where you have a solid grasp on the rules. And then for many months after that, someone gotchas you with a strat you didn't know about that they didn't tell you about (see that thread re: how many people think taking advantage of someone's lack of knowledge of your army's rules is kosher and "part of the strategy") and ruins a 3 hour game.
It's a lot to ask of new people. Hell, even veteran tournament players regularly submit illegal lists by mistake, the game is that obtuse.
Sim-Life wrote: ...All these things you mention are only apparent when you go into the deeper aspects of the game. At a basic level 40k is still only a BRB and Codex game. If two 13 year olds wander into a Warhammer store the sales person doesn't sell them on secondaries, strats etc, they sell you on cool models, killing stuff and awesome lore. Its been years since I went near a GW store but if the demo games are like they were they definitly do not talk about anything beyond basic stats and weapons.
I don't know about you but I think that's grossly misrepresenting the game to gee up the 13-year-olds. As soon as they walk into a game store looking to play with someone other than the GW manager running demos they're going to run into the whole wall of FAQs/tracking which version of the points are typos/what buffs to stack where and get eaten by people who do use the stratagems/relics/WTs/etc., even if they were lucky enough that the models they thought were cool were playable.
You can sell someone on 40k by not mentioning anything that's wrong with it, sure. That feels kind of dishonest to me.
Solution is to retcon everything that GW does that svqus e.g.two different kinds of marine with restartes only willing to travel in flying tanks, use any reasonable model we want at og 28 mm scale, go back to rules sets that rocked and were affordable, now basically free and with many community approved mods, remember why we bother, and take time to visit the local shop to backhand the meta game bullies who make newbie life hard.
Octopoid wrote: Wait, I'm confused. Is GW a major company that could produce "good" rules (here at least meaning "new") and has chosen not to for nefarious reasons, or are they a collection of incompetents that couldn't produce good rules to save their own lives? I've heard both arguments now, and they feel mutually exclusive.
When in doubt blame the knife-ears, both nefarious and incompetent. /sarcasm
I don't think they are exclusive. It can be both. Why try to balance stuff when it requires work, worse it goes against the steady sell of models policy.
Then come personal characteristics. Someone may really be exited to write rules for lets say new Ad Mecha. And it may show in rules and how optimised they are. The same person may later be send to do the rules for tyranids, and do a very bad job at it, because they don't aren't much interested in the army.
the_scotsman wrote: what i really do not understand is...how could someone who is completely uninitiated not look at how the rules for the current game look and run screaming in the other direction?
you now have to track like seven different layers of various army-wide rules to run any given faction. The space marine codex is an absolute nightmare of hundreds of datasheets and statlines and unit entries. The missions are wildly obtuse.40k is simultaneously the most simplistic (in terms of decision making) and the most complicated (in terms of how to resolve an action) wargame that I regularly play by a wide, wide margin. It outstrips the obscure, beardy wargames that I have played in the past before you even get to the stage of considering stratagems, relics, warlord traits, etc.
I feel like I only get how the rules actually function and fit together because I've been following along and playing continuously since the beginning of 8th. I've tracked how everything has changed and twisted, but even I let something slip under my radar every once in a while and when that happens I do something like open up the datasheet of mortarion's current rules and I go what the actual feth am I looking at, he has HOW many warlord traits and abilities and rules and powers and what the feth is a plague contagion???
I have 2 mates that would really Love to Start but basically just don't preciscly because of the rules salad gw attempts to force Players to buy...
That and the increased pricehikes that happen randomly have put them firmly in the nope camp.
Basically demo Games awesome , asks for reality in books --> Decide against it, after realising the pilenof books required. And they are comparatively lucky. In contrast to the many Players that Start an Edition blueeyed and basically drop out the Next or the one after that because they get smart...
the_scotsman wrote: what i really do not understand is...how could someone who is completely uninitiated not look at how the rules for the current game look and run screaming in the other direction?
You go in to the store, ask for demo games. Demo games are fun. You ask friends what armies they start, to not overlap. And check what stuff you like and can afford. You watch some games, played by other people. You ask about the army you picked at the store, and the sellers may give you two types of stories. Either that the army is great, or even that everything is great, or they tell you the truth, but to a level where you still want to buy the stuff.
You check the forums and you can enough conflicting info to know absolutly nothing. Because you get anwsers ranging from X is OP to X is trash. At the same time you get the whole play what you like, every army gets updated and has its time to shine etc. So you buy your army and start playing, with an assumption, that if something costs so much, it should more or less work to some degree.
The truth you find out only after you start playing the game. And sometimes you get lucky and the army is really good, sometimes it is something in the middle, and sometimes you find out that the people that said it was trash were right.
the_scotsman wrote: what i really do not understand is...how could someone who is completely uninitiated not look at how the rules for the current game look and run screaming in the other direction?
you now have to track like seven different layers of various army-wide rules to run any given faction. The space marine codex is an absolute nightmare of hundreds of datasheets and statlines and unit entries. The missions are wildly obtuse.40k is simultaneously the most simplistic (in terms of decision making) and the most complicated (in terms of how to resolve an action) wargame that I regularly play by a wide, wide margin. It outstrips the obscure, beardy wargames that I have played in the past before you even get to the stage of considering stratagems, relics, warlord traits, etc.
I feel like I only get how the rules actually function and fit together because I've been following along and playing continuously since the beginning of 8th. I've tracked how everything has changed and twisted, but even I let something slip under my radar every once in a while and when that happens I do something like open up the datasheet of mortarion's current rules and I go what the actual feth am I looking at, he has HOW many warlord traits and abilities and rules and powers and what the feth is a plague contagion???
It's funny to hear someone saying this in 2021.
7th ed 40k, and by extension Horus Heresy, requires you to completely memorize 35 pages of rules just to be able to move a unit from standing out in the open, into cover. A game of 7th edition, even before the powercreep, required almost 300 pages of absolutely mandatory memorization before you could even realistically put even a small army on the table. To actually PLAY an army was another 100-150 of pages of memorization from your codex.
Now, I know this isn't a great example because 7th edition was terrible but every single previous generation of 40k also required hundreds of pages of perfect knowledge (and often dozens of pages of FAQs) just to be able to pick a model, move it, shoot it, figure out if you killed your target. Same with WHFB honestly. And both of those were successful for a very, very long time.
Now I'll admit that getting up to speed in the current edition is a bit rough, certainly the roughest it's been since the indexes, but 40k has always been nonsensically opaque in its rules.
the_scotsman wrote: what i really do not understand is...how could someone who is completely uninitiated not look at how the rules for the current game look and run screaming in the other direction?
You go in to the store, ask for demo games. Demo games are fun. You ask friends what armies they start, to not overlap. And check what stuff you like and can afford. You watch some games, played by other people. You ask about the army you picked at the store, and the sellers may give you two types of stories. Either that the army is great, or even that everything is great, or they tell you the truth, but to a level where you still want to buy the stuff.
You check the forums and you can enough conflicting info to know absolutly nothing. Because you get anwsers ranging from X is OP to X is trash. At the same time you get the whole play what you like, every army gets updated and has its time to shine etc. So you buy your army and start playing, with an assumption, that if something costs so much, it should more or less work to some degree.
The truth you find out only after you start playing the game. And sometimes you get lucky and the army is really good, sometimes it is something in the middle, and sometimes you find out that the people that said it was trash were right.
This is why buying for power is always a stupid idea when you first start. Pick what you like, figure out how to make it work later. It's not like you'll be going up against expert tournament players 90% of the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think that would be less of a problem if GW wasn't surrounded by the "cult of officialdom."
If you have a Model T, you can make your own parts (or have a mechanic/machinist make your parts).
If you have an old GW model, you could, similarly, just write rules for them in the current edition...
...but you lose the inherent advantage 40k has over other wargames in that you can play it anytime, anywhere, with anyone (at least by comparison). Because the average 40ker is a cultist of officialdom and is hesitant to step out of that comfort zone against a stranger or acquaintance, especially for a pickup game.
So what you're butthurt about here is that people don't want to play against legends stuff because it's fallen out of standardization and there's no value for them to play against it? Do you also cry every time a Model T (to continue the metaphor) isn't allowed into a Nascar event?
If you want to play legends, the vast majority of people don't care and the ones that do are allowed to make the choice to not play against it. In tournaments Legends are excluded because they've fallen out of standardization and are deemed a liability for the integrity of the event, which is something literally every competitive environment in history does. You can't use a Volleyball at the World Cup either, just FYI.
Calling it a 'cult' because you want to do something other people don't is pretty pathetic.
ERJAK wrote: ...It's funny to hear someone saying this in 2021.
7th ed 40k, and by extension Horus Heresy, requires you to completely memorize 35 pages of rules just to be able to move a unit from standing out in the open, into cover. A game of 7th edition, even before the powercreep, required almost 300 pages of absolutely mandatory memorization before you could even realistically put even a small army on the table. To actually PLAY an army was another 100-150 of pages of memorization from your codex.
Now, I know this isn't a great example because 7th edition was terrible but every single previous generation of 40k also required hundreds of pages of perfect knowledge (and often dozens of pages of FAQs) just to be able to pick a model, move it, shoot it, figure out if you killed your target. Same with WHFB honestly. And both of those were successful for a very, very long time...
If you want to claim that you have to perfectly memorize the whole hardback rulebook to play, including fluff and alternate play modes, 9th is, what, 360 pages?
If you want to be honest and actually count only the amount of material you actually need to play the 7e core rulebook is maybe 40 pages, counting diagrams. You've never had to memorize the points costs of options you weren't taking to play Warhammer, which makes up the bulk of any Codex, unless you're trying to claim that "playing Warhammer" includes building a list from memory on a clock. If you want to actually try and count the amount of bloat and memorization involved I'd suggest you try building a few representative 2,000pt lists in 7th and then in 9th, use Battlescribe's print army list function, and compare the page counts there. Possibly with the addition of two or three pages of stratagems to the 9e list, depending on the army book (some armies' stratagems are more relevant than others).
If you want to compare the amount of effort required at the table I'd encourage you to try rolling a Bad Moons unit with random damage against an enemy unit with FNPs in 9th. Hit, hit reroll, exploding hits, exploding hit reroll, wound, wound reroll, save, then go through one at a time and roll damage/FNPs to see how much actually dies isn't an improvement in speed of play over hit/wound/save or hit/armour pen/save/damage table.
7th gets held up as a representative example of bloat and crappy design a lot, but personally I find 7th much clearer, better-written, and more playable than 9th.
the_scotsman wrote: what i really do not understand is...how could someone who is completely uninitiated not look at how the rules for the current game look and run screaming in the other direction?
you now have to track like seven different layers of various army-wide rules to run any given faction. The space marine codex is an absolute nightmare of hundreds of datasheets and statlines and unit entries. The missions are wildly obtuse.40k is simultaneously the most simplistic (in terms of decision making) and the most complicated (in terms of how to resolve an action) wargame that I regularly play by a wide, wide margin. It outstrips the obscure, beardy wargames that I have played in the past before you even get to the stage of considering stratagems, relics, warlord traits, etc.
I feel like I only get how the rules actually function and fit together because I've been following along and playing continuously since the beginning of 8th. I've tracked how everything has changed and twisted, but even I let something slip under my radar every once in a while and when that happens I do something like open up the datasheet of mortarion's current rules and I go what the actual feth am I looking at, he has HOW many warlord traits and abilities and rules and powers and what the feth is a plague contagion???
Yeah, it is getting to be a huge problem forgetting new people into the hobby. It basically takes months and months of effort to get to the point where you have a solid grasp on the rules. And then for many months after that, someone gotchas you with a strat you didn't know about that they didn't tell you about (see that thread re: how many people think taking advantage of someone's lack of knowledge of your army's rules is kosher and "part of the strategy") and ruins a 3 hour game.
In general this is not my observation concerning our new players.
Half the players in my local shops started with 9th last summer/fall. And most of them dove right into Crusade. They had no major problems.
If it took months and then many more months for them to have a decent grasp of the rules? Then the local shops would be considerably emptier as many of them would've quit.
We're still adding new players btw.
Age ranges are 16 - late 40s.
They also don't seemed phased by the fact that they don't know everything about every other army than their own.
People have been hating on GW since the 80's and they are still going strong. There are many reasons but I think a big part of it is that people get into the hobby and that is their favorite edition. All the know is the ruleset and meta they joined and they love it. Then at some point GW changes the rules and makes some peoples army suck. Or they hate change. Not everyone but enough so they get upset and bitter. They complain and possibly even quit. Then GW does it again - changes the rules or releases an OP codex. So more people get upset and drop out.
So this goes on or decades with more people coming in but a slow but steady outflux of disgruntled gamers who complain until it has reached critical mass where there is always a certain amount of malcontents who hang around and poison everyone's ears with their anger. It gets to the point it is almost cool to complain.
This is not the only reason but i think it is the reason GW generates so much hate yet is still so popular. Any other company with this much bad publicity would have folded ages ago. Personally, I think the 8th/9th edition was a nice change of the rules (I liked 8th better than 9th but its still good).
D&D goes through this too the big difference is that people just keep playing the edition of D&D they like and don't go to the new one which keeps the anger down a bit. For some reason it is really rare to see people playing an old edition of 40k.
ERJAK wrote: It's funny to hear someone saying this in 2021.
7th ed 40k, and by extension Horus Heresy, requires you to completely memorize 35 pages of rules just to be able to move a unit from standing out in the open, into cover. A game of 7th edition, even before the powercreep, required almost 300 pages of absolutely mandatory memorization before you could even realistically put even a small army on the table. To actually PLAY an army was another 100-150 of pages of memorization from your codex.
Now, I know this isn't a great example because 7th edition was terrible but every single previous generation of 40k also required hundreds of pages of perfect knowledge (and often dozens of pages of FAQs) just to be able to pick a model, move it, shoot it, figure out if you killed your target. Same with WHFB honestly. And both of those were successful for a very, very long time.
Now I'll admit that getting up to speed in the current edition is a bit rough, certainly the roughest it's been since the indexes, but 40k has always been nonsensically opaque in its rules.
Suppose you are new and don't know what Genestealers can do.
If it's 3rd Ed, you look at the codex entry for Genestealers. You see their statline, and that they have Fleet of Claw (defined right there). They have Rending Claws, so you flip over to the wargear page and it tells you what Rending Claws do. And now you understand Genestealers.
If it's 9th Ed, you look at the codex entry for Genestealers. You see their statline, and that they have Flurry of Claws, Lightning Reflexes, and Swift and Deadly. Well, all of those are defined right there, so that's not so bad. They have Rending Claws too, but this time the rules are given on the entry. And now you understand Genestealers.
Sike! I slap them with Opportunistic Advance and/or the Swarmlord's double-move ability and they slingshot three feet across the board before charging your most vulnerable unit. Sorry, you didn't look at the rest of my codex to see what combo abilities I have; nor did you look at my extensive list of Stratagems, nor did you look at all the Hive Fleet subfaction traits. Oh, you did look at those? Joke's on you, I'm using a custom fleet from Psychic Awakening and another half dozen stratagems to blindside you.
Comparing to 7th is a low bar, but at least in 7th there were far fewer things completely outside of a unit's codex entry that could radically shape its performance. It's not enough to see what abilities a unit has in 9th; you have to understand all the stratagems, subfaction traits, and combo abilities that also feed into it. And if you're a new player and you don't, you get blindsided by ridiculous nonsense like Genestealers moving faster than attack jets, flying across the board before you can react like Monty Python's Lancelot.
I've observed this with several new players: It's not just the complexity of the rules, or even the number of different rules sources, or inconsistency across similar abilities, that catches newbies in 9th. It's the lack of predictable behaviors or consistent ground rules. You can't take anything for granted, and you don't fully understand a unit until you've collated six different sources across three books.
I'm just here to pit my little green men against whatever unfair, unbalanced, and psychotic force the Universe and GW can throw at them. Winning was probably never an option, and yet we stand.
Put it another way, what do you learn about yourself if you have the advantage, can assure victory by following a list or a script. You learn more when you're outmatched and in over your head sometimes.
RegularGuy wrote: I'm just here to pit my little green men against whatever unfair, unbalanced, and psychotic force the Universe and GW can throw at them. Winning was probably never an option, and yet we stand.
Put it another way, what do you learn about yourself if you have the advantage, can assure victory by following a list or a script. You learn more when you're outmatched and in over your head sometimes.
RegularGuy wrote: I'm just here to pit my little green men against whatever unfair, unbalanced, and psychotic force the Universe and GW can throw at them. Winning was probably never an option, and yet we stand.
Put it another way, what do you learn about yourself if you have the advantage, can assure victory by following a list or a script. You learn more when you're outmatched and in over your head sometimes.
Bring it.
The problem is that when I go and try to figure out why I lost a game of 40k the answer is almost always "you bought the wrong little green men, there's no way to win unless you throw them all out and buy a different army."
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think that would be less of a problem if GW wasn't surrounded by the "cult of officialdom."
If you have a Model T, you can make your own parts (or have a mechanic/machinist make your parts).
If you have an old GW model, you could, similarly, just write rules for them in the current edition...
...but you lose the inherent advantage 40k has over other wargames in that you can play it anytime, anywhere, with anyone (at least by comparison). Because the average 40ker is a cultist of officialdom and is hesitant to step out of that comfort zone against a stranger or acquaintance, especially for a pickup game.
I mean.. this is how most people play other games too. Framing it as a Cult of Officaldom (Really?) because people want to actually play the rules of the game as written is the oddest thing I've seen on Dakka in a while.
We wrote: People have been hating on GW since the 80's and they are still going strong. There are many reasons but I think a big part of it is that people get into the hobby and that is their favorite edition. All the know is the ruleset and meta they joined and they love it. Then at some point GW changes the rules and makes some peoples army suck. Or they hate change. Not everyone but enough so they get upset and bitter. They complain and possibly even quit. Then GW does it again - changes the rules or releases an OP codex. So more people get upset and drop out.
So this goes on or decades with more people coming in but a slow but steady outflux of disgruntled gamers who complain until it has reached critical mass where there is always a certain amount of malcontents who hang around and poison everyone's ears with their anger. It gets to the point it is almost cool to complain.
This is not the only reason but i think it is the reason GW generates so much hate yet is still so popular. Any other company with this much bad publicity would have folded ages ago. Personally, I think the 8th/9th edition was a nice change of the rules (I liked 8th better than 9th but its still good).
D&D goes through this too the big difference is that people just keep playing the edition of D&D they like and don't go to the new one which keeps the anger down a bit. For some reason it is really rare to see people playing an old edition of 40k.
Ditto on the D&D comparison. still have all my 3.5 books no need to play any other edition. the GM can clamp down on any player abuses as needed.
Index 8th was far to simple for full scale 40K but we have found that it makes for a great template for use in epic scale you just need to halve all the ranges.
5th is still the gold standard for core rules of full scale 40K play as far as our group is concerned that is why we still play it. granted it wasn't perfect, but a few house rules/imports form other editions fixed all the problems.
You know, I remember being a teenager. Those damned kids are sponges when it comes to soaking up info. All of school is a lot of rote repetition and verbatim absorbing of boatloads of information- that's literally how their brains are designed and how they work when they're that age. Teenagers can handle learning the rules side of 40k even if it is in a dozen books.
ZebioLizard2 798400 11130199 wrote: I mean.. this is how most people play other games too. Framing it as a Cult of Officaldom (Really?) because people want to actually play the rules of the game as written is the oddest thing I've seen on Dakka in a while.
He's not wrong though. Neither are you, but I think you're maybe not aware of where he is coming from.
Playing 'rules as written' in theory is fine, but I've yet to.come across a rules system that didn't have grey areas or ambiguities. 'Rules as intended' is a thing too.ultimately everyone wants something different, I personally don't think it's wrong to accommodate, forcing a 'one size fits all, proper way to play, anything else is badwrongfun' approach causes its own problems.
The 'cult of officialdom' refers more to how a lot of gamers settle on a narrowly defined 'default play' - say, 1500pts matched play based on these half dozen scenarios, this one list and refuse to step outside its boundaries - anything else is not 'proper' 40k. the hundreds of 'legal scenarios' and alternative ways of approaching the game might as well not exist. Keep an eye out, you'll see this more often than you realise. There's plenty anecdotes on dakka from.folks saying how others were bamboozled even to find 'there were other scenarios in the game?!'
I don't always agree with Unit but I've read enough on how he plays here to appreciate that he, and folks who play like him will find thid narrow approach stifling.
Youll see The other more extreme manifestations of the cult of officialdom where ypu see posts basically stating the rules must be followed even if they're crap and you're a white knight/tfg/apologist/beaten spouse/bad person if you homebrew or tweak or ignore the broken rules(or even worse, suggest these things, or gasp! even consider you have responsibilities yourself!) and where you see things like folks complaining how x is broken and ruining the game, then taking ten of x, bludgeoning their opponents with them, shrugging off any sense of responsibilities and saying 'meh it's in the rules' so it's not my fault and there nothing I can do about it or should do about it. Suck it up'. Folks like me will say gw screw up plenty, and often, at best, their rules don't help, but they're only one side of the coin.
In general this is not my observation concerning our new players.
Half the players in my local shops started with 9th last summer/fall. And most of them dove right into Crusade. They had no major problems.
If it took months and then many more months for them to have a decent grasp of the rules? Then the local shops would be considerably emptier as many of them would've quit.
We're still adding new players btw.
Age ranges are 16 - late 40s.
They also don't seemed phased by the fact that they don't know everything about every other army than their own.
I think that biggest rules problems come from people who are way older then teens, and played in prior editions. Maybe they played for some time in 8th, but then they quit etc. There are some very unfun moments, when you have to go all, sorry sir I know you are 3 times as old as me, but the rules do not work that way. The only people my age or close to my age who didn't learn to rules , were those who didn't want to learn them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK 798400 11130066 wrote:This is why buying for power is always a stupid idea when you first start. Pick what you like, figure out how to make it work later. It's not like you'll be going up against expert tournament players 90% of the time.
Well what if you bought it not for power, but it doesn't work and GW doesn't do anything to fix it? Or the fix is, well you just have to invest another 600-700$, and the army will still be kind of a bottom tier? And again this is big assumption that a new player will think that if he pays big money for an army it can just not work, maybe never get fixed or outright removed. Just imagine what you just said to someone who in end WFB bought in to a bretonian army, because they like knights.
ERJAK 798400 11130066 wrote:
So what you're butthurt about here is that people don't want to play against legends stuff because it's fallen out of standardization and there's no value for them to play against it? Do you also cry every time a Model T (to continue the metaphor) isn't allowed into a Nascar event?
If you want to play legends, the vast majority of people don't care and the ones that do are allowed to make the choice to not play against it. In tournaments Legends are excluded because they've fallen out of standardization and are deemed a liability for the integrity of the event, which is something literally every competitive environment in history does. You can't use a Volleyball at the World Cup either, just FYI.
Calling it a 'cult' because you want to do something other people don't is pretty pathetic.
That is a strange example, because people in general do not own a Ford T and if they do, they can make money out of it, even if it is in rough shape. And the comment, that people don't care, if something is legends or not, is just not true. Just go to this forums lists section and check how many lists have legends units in them or use legends rules, comparing to those that don't.
Also why wouldn't you be able to use a volleybale at a World Cup. Is it some sort of an idiom?
Experienced people miss-remember rules because of previous rule editions. New people miss remember rules because of inexperience.
Both groups will forget things, so its nothing really unique to either group. It's just part of playing a real world game that does have rule changes as opposed to a computer game where its impossible to break the rules*
*Unless you hack/cheat or otherwise modify the game.
Your argument is like insisting that Ford still make parts for the Model T just because you bought one. At some point it becomes untenable to continue supporting legacy products and they have to be dropped.
Marines have reached levels of codex bloat that push that up even sooner. You may not like it, but something has to give in that book. When they go to legends just use them as Primaris and you'll be fine.
Yes, because they need to keep putting out parts for my already made and built models, thats exactly what I am saying. I mean it isn't but if you want to keep on with it, fine. They can, forever, use the human mind to keep thinking up rules for my old marines, unless your telling me they can't possibly find the brain power for that after a point, at which point, sounds pretty sad for them. Requires them to produce nothing even close to a part for a ford model T. One of those things requires imagination, which I'd hope game designers have a lot of, the other requires actuall tools and factories to produce them.
I couldn't care any less how you don't like the marine bloat, I want my first born marines rules. Maybe your caring needs to give and not my enjoyment of my guys. Just get over it and maybe you will be fine.
Why are people still shocked that all of the 9th Codexes aren't out when they were never going to be at this stage and that tiny little problem of a global pandemic is still going on and keeps getting worse.
Short answer: if they're shocked it's because they're stupid & clueless.
Longer answer: the above + a number of them just need something to be angry about/hold against GW each day.
My dude creature, GW shouldn't have released 9th during a pandemic, if they chose to do so regardless of circumstances people can be annoyed because we know what pace they want to poop out editions. The odds some armies may not even update to 9th or be just out when it rotates to 10th at this point feel pretty good, and that is a really suck feeling. GW is a victim of their own choices and shallow release windows. Maybe they should slow down enough people can actually enjoy an edition and people wouldn't get quite so annoyed at their pacing.
the_scotsman wrote: 40k is simultaneously the most simplistic (in terms of decision making) and the most complicated (in terms of how to resolve an action) wargame
This is exactly my perception of WH40K at the moment, perfectly summarized. A short moment of mostly obvious decision making followed by 20 minutes of boring dice rolling and other resolution chores.
This is also my answer for the question in the starting post. I rarely play wh40k now and when I do I am mostly disappointed by how boring it is, but I still follow the game waiting for the moment when the proportions switch and we'll have plenty of interesting, deep decision making, considering and reconsidering moves followed by quick and neat, unobtrusive resolution as befits a game designed in 2020's.
I'd love to take my Eldar and Tyranids to battle again in a game that is elegant, interesting and modern.
Until then, when asked for opinion, I can hardly give one which isn't at least a bit negative, because that's what I think about the game as it is.
RegularGuy wrote: I'm just here to pit my little green men against whatever unfair, unbalanced, and psychotic force the Universe and GW can throw at them. Winning was probably never an option, and yet we stand.
Put it another way, what do you learn about yourself if you have the advantage, can assure victory by following a list or a script. You learn more when you're outmatched and in over your head sometimes.
Bring it.
The problem is that when I go and try to figure out why I lost a game of 40k the answer is almost always "you bought the wrong little green men, there's no way to win unless you throw them all out and buy a different army."
You could look at it that way, and with some armies perhaps that might be a problem. Or you could (for a guard player), go back to your tool kit, challenge your assumptions, and see if you can bring something stronger next time, then stronger, then stronger. If winning is your goal, I recognize that will not be satisfying. If being stronger every time is your goal though, I don't think army swapping each time the meta shifts is the best way. But I'm not here to tell people what and how to enjoy the hobby within their own tastes and interests.
This is why buying for power is always a stupid idea when you first start. Pick what you like, figure out how to make it work later. It's not like you'll be going up against expert tournament players 90% of the time.
This. GW isn't just selling a competitive game, it's selling a whole hobby. It took me like 3-4 years to put together a functioning army when a was a kid, but in the meantime I enjoyed my 40k even without playing with the miniatures.
People that demand a collection of models that is immediately functioning, does require 5 minutes to learn all the rules, and will work forever have simply made a mistake in joining this hobby.
Players that are interested in competitive games and tournaments should go into that kind of games after years and years into the hobby. Like most of the guys have done before them.
the_scotsman wrote: 40k is simultaneously the most simplistic (in terms of decision making) and the most complicated (in terms of how to resolve an action) wargame
This is exactly my perception of WH40K at the moment, perfectly summarized. A short moment of mostly obvious decision making followed by 20 minutes of boring dice rolling and other resolution chores.
This is also my answer for the question in the starting post. I rarely play wh40k now and when I do I am mostly disappointed by how boring it is, but I still follow the game waiting for the moment when the proportions switch and we'll have plenty of interesting, deep decision making, considering and reconsidering moves followed by quick and neat, unobtrusive resolution as befits a game designed in 2020's.
I'd love to take my Eldar and Tyranids to battle again in a game that is elegant, interesting and modern.
Until then, when asked for opinion, I can hardly give one which isn't at least a bit negative, because that's what I think about the game as it is.
This is exactly how I feel. Hell I was even coming around to giving it another go when the new Sisters book comes out but I attended a game my friends were having and if it wasn't for the fact that it was a group of friends getting together it would have been a miserable night.
I'm still floating around here because I'd like to get back into wargaming and GW games are an easy way in. Unfortunately, both of the big games have serious problems that are really offputting to me, so I am watching and waiting to see how things develop (they release new editions very fast now, so I don't have to wait too long each time).
I'm not miserable, I'm actually quite content, but I'm also pretty sure of my tastes in games and I know that I will dislike the stratagem focus in 40K and how spread out all the rules are quite a bit. The basic chassis for the rules seems better than in 6e and 7e but all the additions kinda kill it for me. With AoS I'm almost there but for Double Turn, which to me is just terrible design that I would not be able to tolerate.
But I'd like to be persuaded otherwise, because it would be convenient for me to enjoy GW games again. In the meantime I've got One Page Rules and playing games with my wife if she feels like it or teaching people from my D&D group how to wargame with those simpler rulesets. Only downside is I have to provide everything myself, but that's just a big hobby project really, isn't it?
The Warhammer + announcement made me pretty miserable.
They're literally gating all of the new animations behind a subscription, on a website only some fans even knows exists. Instead of you know, putting them on a streaming platform for the masses to see.
Jarms48 wrote: The Warhammer + announcement made me pretty miserable.
They're literally gating all of the new animations behind a subscription, on a website only some fans even knows exists. Instead of you know, putting them on a streaming platform for the masses to see.
Warhammer + is a bloody joke.
Brow beating free youtube content with thinly veiled blackmail and forcing them to partner with Games Workshop and then paywalling it? LMFAO.
Jarms48 wrote: The Warhammer + announcement made me pretty miserable.
They're literally gating all of the new animations behind a subscription, on a website only some fans even knows exists. Instead of you know, putting them on a streaming platform for the masses to see.
Warhammer + is a bloody joke.
Brow beating free youtube content with thinly veiled blackmail and forcing them to partner with Games Workshop and then paywalling it? LMFAO.
Pretty sure no one put a gun to their head. Blackmail, to my limited legal knowledge, is illegal in the UK. Forced labor would also be illegal.
Jarms48 wrote: The Warhammer + announcement made me pretty miserable.
They're literally gating all of the new animations behind a subscription, on a website only some fans even knows exists. Instead of you know, putting them on a streaming platform for the masses to see.
Warhammer + is a bloody joke.
Brow beating free youtube content with thinly veiled blackmail and forcing them to partner with Games Workshop and then paywalling it? LMFAO.
Pretty sure no one put a gun to their head. Blackmail, to my limited legal knowledge, is illegal in the UK. Forced labor would also be illegal.
It was certainly legal but let's be fair they were most likely told "Come work for us and we will let you continue your projects. Otherwise, expect a cease and desist in the mail shortly."
Jarms48 wrote: The Warhammer + announcement made me pretty miserable.
They're literally gating all of the new animations behind a subscription, on a website only some fans even knows exists. Instead of you know, putting them on a streaming platform for the masses to see.
Warhammer + is a bloody joke.
Brow beating free youtube content with thinly veiled blackmail and forcing them to partner with Games Workshop and then paywalling it? LMFAO.
Pretty sure no one put a gun to their head. Blackmail, to my limited legal knowledge, is illegal in the UK. Forced labor would also be illegal.
It was certainly legal but let's be fair they were most likely told "Come work for us and we will let you continue your projects. Otherwise, expect a cease and desist in the mail shortly."
It's their property, It is difficult for me to blame them. The characterization that this is blackmail or forced labor is absolutely ludicrous.
Thing is, these authors, using GW's property, something they did not own, and likely knew full well could have been given a C&D based on those facts, had so much love for the material that they dedicated what I could only guess is countless hours of labor into it because it spoke to them on both an achievement level, and on an entertainment level. Now they get to do that for a living. I've said it before, ill say it again. I pray we should all be so lucky.
Just imagine the technical skill required to create something like that. As a counselor, my brain doesn't function along the lines of vertices, angles, advanced geometry, calculus, and code. It just doesn't. For me to see someone do that, BECAUSE they love it, KNOWING it could get knocked down, is exactly who I WANT to support and subscribe to see their work. Maybe their first foray into the field won't be as impressive, maybe it'll have problems, but that level of dedication survives critique in my experience.
To have that level of dedication to something, and then be asked to be part of the team that does it, pays for it, and can help create it? With support, collaboration, and capability of others?
Jarms48 wrote: The Warhammer + announcement made me pretty miserable.
They're literally gating all of the new animations behind a subscription, on a website only some fans even knows exists. Instead of you know, putting them on a streaming platform for the masses to see.
Warhammer + is a bloody joke.
Brow beating free youtube content with thinly veiled blackmail and forcing them to partner with Games Workshop and then paywalling it? LMFAO.
Pretty sure no one put a gun to their head. Blackmail, to my limited legal knowledge, is illegal in the UK. Forced labor would also be illegal.
It was certainly legal but let's be fair they were most likely told "Come work for us and we will let you continue your projects. Otherwise, expect a cease and desist in the mail shortly."
It's their property, It is difficult for me to blame them. The characterization that this is blackmail or forced labor is absolutely ludicrous.
Thing is, these authors, using GW's property, something they did not own, and likely knew full well could have been given a C&D based on those facts, had so much love for the material that they dedicated what I could only guess is countless hours of labor into it because it spoke to them on both an achievement level, and on an entertainment level. Now they get to do that for a living. I've said it before, ill say it again. I pray we should all be so lucky.
Just imagine the technical skill required to create something like that. As a counselor, my brain doesn't function along the lines of vertices, angles, advanced geometry, calculus, and code. It just doesn't. For me to see someone do that, BECAUSE they love it, KNOWING it could get knocked down, is exactly who I WANT to support and subscribe to see their work. Maybe their first foray into the field won't be as impressive, maybe it'll have problems, but that level of dedication survives critique in my experience.
To have that level of dedication to something, and then be asked to be part of the team that does it, pays for it, and can help create it? With support, collaboration, and capability of others?
Like I said, should we all be so lucky.
That is a fine theory but how do we know it will lead to them having a fine career working for GW to do this ? What if it is just a single job or really nothing much at all outside a talk or a discussion or a PR move to toss a coin there way and strip down their work anyways ? So far we haven't seen how these jobs will turn out for them. Just because something was handled legally doesn't mean it will be good for them in the end.
Sure, I hope everything works out for them but you should know better than most how there isn't always a happy ending, life just doesn't work that way and companies don't really care if they make people happy or make dreams come true, they just care about our money.
These people were talented and skilled and even worse comes to worse they should be alright with the skills they have, this may be far from a dream come true for them though. The devil is always in details of which we currently know little.
Jarms48 wrote: The Warhammer + announcement made me pretty miserable.
They're literally gating all of the new animations behind a subscription, on a website only some fans even knows exists. Instead of you know, putting them on a streaming platform for the masses to see.
Warhammer + is a bloody joke.
Brow beating free youtube content with thinly veiled blackmail and forcing them to partner with Games Workshop and then paywalling it? LMFAO.
Pretty sure no one put a gun to their head. Blackmail, to my limited legal knowledge, is illegal in the UK. Forced labor would also be illegal.
It was certainly legal but let's be fair they were most likely told "Come work for us and we will let you continue your projects. Otherwise, expect a cease and desist in the mail shortly."
It's their property, It is difficult for me to blame them. The characterization that this is blackmail or forced labor is absolutely ludicrous.
Thing is, these authors, using GW's property, something they did not own, and likely knew full well could have been given a C&D based on those facts, had so much love for the material that they dedicated what I could only guess is countless hours of labor into it because it spoke to them on both an achievement level, and on an entertainment level. Now they get to do that for a living. I've said it before, ill say it again. I pray we should all be so lucky.
Just imagine the technical skill required to create something like that. As a counselor, my brain doesn't function along the lines of vertices, angles, advanced geometry, calculus, and code. It just doesn't. For me to see someone do that, BECAUSE they love it, KNOWING it could get knocked down, is exactly who I WANT to support and subscribe to see their work. Maybe their first foray into the field won't be as impressive, maybe it'll have problems, but that level of dedication survives critique in my experience.
To have that level of dedication to something, and then be asked to be part of the team that does it, pays for it, and can help create it? With support, collaboration, and capability of others?
Like I said, should we all be so lucky.
That is a fine theory but how do we know it will lead to them having a fine career working for GW to do this ? What if it is just a single job or really nothing much at all outside a talk or a discussion or a PR move to toss a coin there way and strip down their work anyways ? So far we haven't seen how these jobs will turn out for them. Just because something was handled legally doesn't mean it will be good for them in the end.
Sure, I hope everything works out for them but you should know better than most how there isn't always a happy ending, life just doesn't work that way and companies don't really care if they make people happy or make dreams come true, they just care about our money.
These people were talented and skilled and even worse comes to worse they should be alright with the skills they have, this may be far from a dream come true for them though. The devil is always in details of which we currently know little.
Honestly? While I hope it turns out well for them, in the end.... I don't really care.
And I don't mind at all if GW did this just to shut down these peoples 40k projects.
It's their property, It is difficult for me to blame them. The characterization that this is blackmail or forced labor is absolutely ludicrous.
Thing is, these authors, using GW's property, something they did not own, and likely knew full well could have been given a C&D based on those facts, had so much love for the material that they dedicated what I could only guess is countless hours of labor into it because it spoke to them on both an achievement level, and on an entertainment level. Now they get to do that for a living. I've said it before, ill say it again. I pray we should all be so lucky.
Just imagine the technical skill required to create something like that. As a counselor, my brain doesn't function along the lines of vertices, angles, advanced geometry, calculus, and code. It just doesn't. For me to see someone do that, BECAUSE they love it, KNOWING it could get knocked down, is exactly who I WANT to support and subscribe to see their work. Maybe their first foray into the field won't be as impressive, maybe it'll have problems, but that level of dedication survives critique in my experience.
To have that level of dedication to something, and then be asked to be part of the team that does it, pays for it, and can help create it? With support, collaboration, and capability of others?
Like I said, should we all be so lucky.
No. As someone who's brain DOES function along those lines, there are a lot of different ways GW could have handled this that would have protected their IP, given the creators MORE money, and still allowed them some degree of freedom for work outside of "Work for us or else." This kind of thing has been a plague in the industry for a long time. It's a lot less common now than it used to be, but yeah. This could have been handled a lot differently. I hope the creators end up in genuinely good spots. They are currently in extremely precarious positions with wildly uncertain futures, and GW's track record with creatives of this type is ... not good ...
The days of the "starving artist" are kind of over, and it's never been easier to make money with art/design/writing than it is right now. So it's not a case of "Look at GW elevating these poor starving artists and giving them a shot." It really isn't.
It's their property, It is difficult for me to blame them. The characterization that this is blackmail or forced labor is absolutely ludicrous.
Thing is, these authors, using GW's property, something they did not own, and likely knew full well could have been given a C&D based on those facts, had so much love for the material that they dedicated what I could only guess is countless hours of labor into it because it spoke to them on both an achievement level, and on an entertainment level. Now they get to do that for a living. I've said it before, ill say it again. I pray we should all be so lucky.
Just imagine the technical skill required to create something like that. As a counselor, my brain doesn't function along the lines of vertices, angles, advanced geometry, calculus, and code. It just doesn't. For me to see someone do that, BECAUSE they love it, KNOWING it could get knocked down, is exactly who I WANT to support and subscribe to see their work. Maybe their first foray into the field won't be as impressive, maybe it'll have problems, but that level of dedication survives critique in my experience.
To have that level of dedication to something, and then be asked to be part of the team that does it, pays for it, and can help create it? With support, collaboration, and capability of others?
Like I said, should we all be so lucky.
No. As someone who's brain DOES function along those lines, there are a lot of different ways GW could have handled this that would have protected their IP, given the creators MORE money, and still allowed them some degree of freedom for work outside of "Work for us or else." This kind of thing has been a plague in the industry for a long time. It's a lot less common now than it used to be, but yeah. This could have been handled a lot differently. I hope the creators end up in genuinely good spots. They are currently in extremely precarious positions with wildly uncertain futures, and GW's track record with creatives of this type is ... not good ...
The days of the "starving artist" are kind of over, and it's never been easier to make money with art/design/writing than it is right now. So it's not a case of "Look at GW elevating these poor starving artists and giving them a shot." It really isn't.
Can you help me understand how they could have done so? I truly don't understand what options were on the table for something like this. I don't see how they can achieve developer freedom, protecting their IP, and giving the creator more money at the same time, but I freely admit I don't know much about the creative licensing process and how art is bought and paid for in a situation like this.
Your reply is also plagued by a lot of assumptions. I'm not sure how much more precarious you can get than relying on patreon for support to keep making a series. We also have absolutely no clue if their futures are uncertain, and can we say that their futures are more uncertain now than they were when they were doing it for fun and pulling in support from Patreon? I know there was a lot of cash going into Patreon for some of the individual developers, but that is literally one month away from drying up, especially if nothing new is dropped. We see bursts of initiatives like this all the time only to fizzle out, despite the appreciation of the fans of it.
the last point I have to make is, well, It's their property. They are developing their own animated series, and if they don't want competition from their own IP, It's really hard for me to blame them. I also can't help but wonder how much more content we will get now that Astartes II has a development team on it. the first one was in total 12 or so minutes. A freaking GREAT 12 or so minutes, but 12 or so minutes. Now that is likely to change.
Now, if you feel it is immoral for GW to do that, that's a personal perspective and while I disagree, I can understand that, but looking at this from a position that all outcomes are negative feels like the positives are just being pushed over in the hopes of denigrating GW, and I'm not sure thats accurate.
Honestly? While I hope it turns out well for them, in the end.... I don't really care.
And I don't mind at all if GW did this just to shut down these peoples 40k projects.
Honestly? While I hope it turns out well for them, in the end.... I don't really care.
And I don't mind at all if GW did this just to shut down these peoples 40k projects.
How's that boot taste?
You've mistaken me for someone else.
For the record I'm in support of any IP holder, GW or otherwise,, exercising their rights. Always have been, always will be.
Coul be GW, Disney, who ever holds Harry Potter, Star Trek, Transformers, YOU (were you talented/lucky enough to own an IP), me, or fill in as many blanks as there are things people create FanFic projects for.
Nor do I care how the IP holders choose to exercise those rights. They could ignore it, they could send C&Ds, they could sorta accept it like a bunch of Trek stuff is, they could sue the offender into oblivion, or as with this buy it out & give the "fan" a job.
Wich they pick doesn't matter to me because it's thier property to manage.
As for these "fans", accepting Patreon $ to create stuff using someone else's IP?
They knew damned well what they were doing. They aren't some innocent being oppressed by the eeevil company. Nope, just talented IP violators who got lucky.
Can you help me understand how they could have done so? I truly don't understand what options were on the table for something like this. I don't see how they can achieve developer freedom, protecting their IP, and giving the creator more money at the same time, but I freely admit I don't know much about the creative licensing process and how art is bought and paid for in a situation like this.
Sure. In many such cases, particularly where you have a parent company (GW in this case) who has the IP but NOT the actual media/studio, and no pipeline for production or distribution, it's become pretty common place to do a combination of things. Typically, it involves treating the creators akin to private contractors who will have had to sign NDAs. Allowing them to work on the "GW" project while getting paid far more for the project and maintaining their freedom to do other things. Often also involves things like points on the back end for larger projects (major movies for example), or moderate royalties, getting a percentage of the subscriber fees, etc. In cases like this, it is, 95% of the time far more advantageous to the creator to remain independent. You never see these extra benefits when someone is brought "in-house". It's less money, less opportunity, and you no longer control your own destiny. I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, but in 22 years ... I've never seen someone get brought in house like this AND get the big money unless they were a really high-up studio head. GW did this because they had legal leverage, the people were high-end talent, and they could get them on the cheap. It's not the first time it's been done this way.
Your reply is also plagued by a lot of assumptions. I'm not sure how much more precarious you can get than relying on patreon for support to keep making a series. We also have absolutely no clue if their futures are uncertain, and can we say that their futures are more uncertain now than they were when they were doing it for fun and pulling in support from Patreon? I know there was a lot of cash going into Patreon for some of the individual developers, but that is literally one month away from drying up, especially if nothing new is dropped. We see bursts of initiatives like this all the time only to fizzle out, despite the appreciation of the fans of it.
Their futures are very uncertain. The last time GW tried their hand at this, they about put the studio they worked with out of business. It's a small industry. People talk. You can say "But that was a different GW!". In some ways yes. In many others no. Suffice it say, "Ultramarines" wasn't a flop because of the studio who made it ...
Now GW wants to try its hand at high-end content creation. They have mismanaged every single tech attempt they have ever tried. Utterly bungled. Even the website is fairly pants. What they're doing here is about to cost them a small fortune. I do not think they will have the stomach to maintain it once they realize how much of a drain it is on the bottom line. Even top studios run on razor thin margins. I don't see GW supporting this long - term, and they don't seem to be bringing in the people who know how to RUN something like the service they're trying to put together. It's an elephant balanced on a house of cards. As long as the cards are set just so, as long as the elephant doesn't shift at all, things will be totally fine. lol
Conversely, if you are a top content creator (as many of these folks are) generating money for your venture is insanely easy. You mention Patreon. No one who is worth anything uses JUST Patreon for this type of thing. Especially people like the Astartes creator. As an established industry vet, I'd be shocked if he didn't have multiple side-sources set up. For creators like this, Patreon is often the 3rd/4th source of cash flow and is rarely relied upon as the sole source (unless it'sa hobby type project like a lot of high-end podcasts, etc). There are some assumptions here yes. But not so many as you think.
the last point I have to make is, well, It's their property. They are developing their own animated series, and if they don't want competition from their own IP, It's really hard for me to blame them. I also can't help but wonder how much more content we will get now that Astartes II has a development team on it. the first one was in total 12 or so minutes. A freaking GREAT 12 or so minutes, but 12 or so minutes. Now that is likely to change.
Not at all clear that a "production team" is on it. We've seen marketing talk, but no real data. I would not at all be surprised if what we ended up with was more 1-3 minute clips. GW didn't go after these people to just shut down competition. What they did is a pretty classic entertainment industry move honestly. They picked these people because they got them far cheaper than bringing them in sans implied threat and setting up a studio proper. From what we've seen so far, and from the already troubled path Eisenhorn seems to be taking, I doubt very much it's a proper "studio". My guess is that it's a production coordinator, a marketing manager, and a handful of producers coordinating the creators who are working as they always have.
Now, if you feel it is immoral for GW to do that, that's a personal perspective and while I disagree, I can understand that, but looking at this from a position that all outcomes are negative feels like the positives are just being pushed over in the hopes of denigrating GW, and I'm not sure thats accurate.
Nowhere did I say it was "immoral". I've actually defended some of GW's copyright plays in the past as, often, due to a quirk in how UK IP law apparently works (as explained to me by an IP lawyer), they are kind of forced to be more "aggressive" than even they might want. I'm not looking at this as "all outcomes are negative" I'm looking at it as a professional in that industry who has seen this happen time and again and calling out the fact that some of these creators are being taken advantage of. That's kind of it. You're welcome to disagree as you yourself admit you don't know this area well, but the "we should all be so lucky comment" - no. Just no. Luck has nothing to do with it.
Most of these people were absolutely NOT making money from the GW projects either. If any of them were actually makig real money from it I'd be saying yeah - you all screwed up. But in most cases the patreons here were asking for better computers, better gear etc. It's a fine line that's fair. And I support IP holder's rights to defend their IP, but GW had options here that were better.
Of the routes GW could have gone, I'm bummed out this is the one they took. I said this earlier, but I really hope everything comes out awesome and these creators end up well treated and well compensated. But we're talking about a company with a BAD track record in this area and my hopes are not high.
Jarms48 wrote: The Warhammer + announcement made me pretty miserable.
They're literally gating all of the new animations behind a subscription, on a website only some fans even knows exists. Instead of you know, putting them on a streaming platform for the masses to see.
Warhammer + is a bloody joke.
Brow beating free youtube content with thinly veiled blackmail and forcing them to partner with Games Workshop and then paywalling it? LMFAO.
Can you help me understand how they could have done so? I truly don't understand what options were on the table for something like this. I don't see how they can achieve developer freedom, protecting their IP, and giving the creator more money at the same time, but I freely admit I don't know much about the creative licensing process and how art is bought and paid for in a situation like this.
Sure. In many such cases,
Spoiler:
particularly where you have a parent company (GW in this case) who has the IP but NOT the actual media/studio, and no pipeline for production or distribution, it's become pretty common place to do a combination of things. Typically, it involves treating the creators akin to private contractors who will have had to sign NDAs. Allowing them to work on the "GW" project while getting paid far more for the project and maintaining their freedom to do other things. Often also involves things like points on the back end for larger projects (major movies for example), or moderate royalties, getting a percentage of the subscriber fees, etc. In cases like this, it is, 95% of the time far more advantageous to the creator to remain independent. You never see these extra benefits when someone is brought "in-house". It's less money, less opportunity, and you no longer control your own destiny. I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, but in 22 years ... I've never seen someone get brought in house like this AND get the big money unless they were a really high-up studio head. GW did this because they had legal leverage, the people were high-end talent, and they could get them on the cheap. It's not the first time it's been done this way.
Your reply is also plagued by a lot of assumptions. I'm not sure how much more precarious you can get than relying on patreon for support to keep making a series. We also have absolutely no clue if their futures are uncertain, and can we say that their futures are more uncertain now than they were when they were doing it for fun and pulling in support from Patreon? I know there was a lot of cash going into Patreon for some of the individual developers, but that is literally one month away from drying up, especially if nothing new is dropped. We see bursts of initiatives like this all the time only to fizzle out, despite the appreciation of the fans of it.
Their futures are very uncertain. The last time GW tried their hand at this, they about put the studio they worked with out of business. It's a small industry. People talk. You can say "But that was a different GW!". In some ways yes. In many others no. Suffice it say, "Ultramarines" wasn't a flop because of the studio who made it ...
Now GW wants to try its hand at high-end content creation. They have mismanaged every single tech attempt they have ever tried. Utterly bungled. Even the website is fairly pants. What they're doing here is about to cost them a small fortune. I do not think they will have the stomach to maintain it once they realize how much of a drain it is on the bottom line. Even top studios run on razor thin margins. I don't see GW supporting this long - term, and they don't seem to be bringing in the people who know how to RUN something like the service they're trying to put together. It's an elephant balanced on a house of cards. As long as the cards are set just so, as long as the elephant doesn't shift at all, things will be totally fine. lol
Conversely, if you are a top content creator (as many of these folks are) generating money for your venture is insanely easy. You mention Patreon. No one who is worth anything uses JUST Patreon for this type of thing. Especially people like the Astartes creator. As an established industry vet, I'd be shocked if he didn't have multiple side-sources set up. For creators like this, Patreon is often the 3rd/4th source of cash flow and is rarely relied upon as the sole source (unless it'sa hobby type project like a lot of high-end podcasts, etc). There are some assumptions here yes. But not so many as you think.
the last point I have to make is, well, It's their property. They are developing their own animated series, and if they don't want competition from their own IP, It's really hard for me to blame them. I also can't help but wonder how much more content we will get now that Astartes II has a development team on it. the first one was in total 12 or so minutes. A freaking GREAT 12 or so minutes, but 12 or so minutes. Now that is likely to change.
Not at all clear that a "production team" is on it. We've seen marketing talk, but no real data. I would not at all be surprised if what we ended up with was more 1-3 minute clips. GW didn't go after these people to just shut down competition. What they did is a pretty classic entertainment industry move honestly. They picked these people because they got them far cheaper than bringing them in sans implied threat and setting up a studio proper. From what we've seen so far, and from the already troubled path Eisenhorn seems to be taking, I doubt very much it's a proper "studio". My guess is that it's a production coordinator, a marketing manager, and a handful of producers coordinating the creators who are working as they always have.
Now, if you feel it is immoral for GW to do that, that's a personal perspective and while I disagree, I can understand that, but looking at this from a position that all outcomes are negative feels like the positives are just being pushed over in the hopes of denigrating GW, and I'm not sure thats accurate.
Nowhere did I say it was "immoral". I've actually defended some of GW's copyright plays in the past as, often, due to a quirk in how UK IP law apparently works (as explained to me by an IP lawyer), they are kind of forced to be more "aggressive" than even they might want. I'm not looking at this as "all outcomes are negative" I'm looking at it as a professional in that industry who has seen this happen time and again and calling out the fact that some of these creators are being taken advantage of. That's kind of it. You're welcome to disagree as you yourself admit you don't know this area well, but the "we should all be so lucky comment" - no. Just no. Luck has nothing to do with it.
Most of these people were absolutely NOT making money from the GW projects either. If any of them were actually makig real money from it I'd be saying yeah - you all screwed up. But in most cases the patreons here were asking for better computers, better gear etc. It's a fine line that's fair. And I support IP holder's rights to defend their IP, but GW had options here that were better.
Of the routes GW could have gone, I'm bummed out this is the one they took. I said this earlier, but I really hope everything comes out awesome and these creators end up well treated and well compensated. But we're talking about a company with a BAD track record in this area and my hopes are not high.
This hobby consists of many sub hobbies, painting, converting, playing etc
Complaining is one of those sub hobbies.
A lot of times the complaints aren't actually that big of a deal to the individual doing the complaining. It's possible to enjoy the game while disliking certain parts. That doesn't make the complaint invalid.
Nah. I don't think you need to do any of the sub things, besides maybe painting. There is no enjoyment lost in the game, if someone has nothing to complain about or if you never converted or read a BL book in your life.
Sure. In many such cases, particularly where you have a parent company (GW in this case) who has the IP but NOT the actual media/studio, and no pipeline for production or distribution, it's become pretty common place to do a combination of things. Typically, it involves treating the creators akin to private contractors who will have had to sign NDAs. Allowing them to work on the "GW" project while getting paid far more for the project and maintaining their freedom to do other things. Often also involves things like points on the back end for larger projects (major movies for example), or moderate royalties, getting a percentage of the subscriber fees, etc. In cases like this, it is, 95% of the time far more advantageous to the creator to remain independent. You never see these extra benefits when someone is brought "in-house". It's less money, less opportunity, and you no longer control your own destiny. I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, but in 22 years ... I've never seen someone get brought in house like this AND get the big money unless they were a really high-up studio head. GW did this because they had legal leverage, the people were high-end talent, and they could get them on the cheap. It's not the first time it's been done this way.
Their futures are very uncertain. The last time GW tried their hand at this, they about put the studio they worked with out of business. It's a small industry. People talk. You can say "But that was a different GW!". In some ways yes. In many others no. Suffice it say, "Ultramarines" wasn't a flop because of the studio who made it ...
Now GW wants to try its hand at high-end content creation. They have mismanaged every single tech attempt they have ever tried. Utterly bungled. Even the website is fairly pants. What they're doing here is about to cost them a small fortune. I do not think they will have the stomach to maintain it once they realize how much of a drain it is on the bottom line. Even top studios run on razor thin margins. I don't see GW supporting this long - term, and they don't seem to be bringing in the people who know how to RUN something like the service they're trying to put together. It's an elephant balanced on a house of cards. As long as the cards are set just so, as long as the elephant doesn't shift at all, things will be totally fine. lol
Conversely, if you are a top content creator (as many of these folks are) generating money for your venture is insanely easy. You mention Patreon. No one who is worth anything uses JUST Patreon for this type of thing. Especially people like the Astartes creator. As an established industry vet, I'd be shocked if he didn't have multiple side-sources set up. For creators like this, Patreon is often the 3rd/4th source of cash flow and is rarely relied upon as the sole source (unless it'sa hobby type project like a lot of high-end podcasts, etc). There are some assumptions here yes. But not so many as you think.
Not at all clear that a "production team" is on it. We've seen marketing talk, but no real data. I would not at all be surprised if what we ended up with was more 1-3 minute clips. GW didn't go after these people to just shut down competition. What they did is a pretty classic entertainment industry move honestly. They picked these people because they got them far cheaper than bringing them in sans implied threat and setting up a studio proper. From what we've seen so far, and from the already troubled path Eisenhorn seems to be taking, I doubt very much it's a proper "studio". My guess is that it's a production coordinator, a marketing manager, and a handful of producers coordinating the creators who are working as they always have.
Nowhere did I say it was "immoral". I've actually defended some of GW's copyright plays in the past as, often, due to a quirk in how UK IP law apparently works (as explained to me by an IP lawyer), they are kind of forced to be more "aggressive" than even they might want. I'm not looking at this as "all outcomes are negative" I'm looking at it as a professional in that industry who has seen this happen time and again and calling out the fact that some of these creators are being taken advantage of. That's kind of it. You're welcome to disagree as you yourself admit you don't know this area well, but the "we should all be so lucky comment" - no. Just no. Luck has nothing to do with it.
Most of these people were absolutely NOT making money from the GW projects either. If any of them were actually makig real money from it I'd be saying yeah - you all screwed up. But in most cases the patreons here were asking for better computers, better gear etc. It's a fine line that's fair. And I support IP holder's rights to defend their IP, but GW had options here that were better.
Of the routes GW could have gone, I'm bummed out this is the one they took. I said this earlier, but I really hope everything comes out awesome and these creators end up well treated and well compensated. But we're talking about a company with a BAD track record in this area and my hopes are not high.
But, doesn't GW have their production and distribution system now? It would have been in the development and implementation stages when these decisions were made, so I don't understand why in your first case it would have made sense for GW to do otherwise.
As far as "Ultramarine" goes, I agree it was a bad movie, but I don't know that the studio that developed it gets to walk away from that one free from any responsibility. The animation was very poor, to say the least. I don't know if that's really an applicable example, other than to say "this movie sucked". It did suck, but there is so much difference between then and now that I honestly struggle to see relevance vs. primacy.
Also, someone in this thread I believe mentioned that the Astartes creator was bringing in 20,000 a month on Patreon. Knowing this now (if that's true, I have no way of knowing) I really have little blame for GW for wanting to either recruit or stop it. Also, I thought GW noted that the same creator would be working on Astartes II in-house with their production team. I'm not sure what that means in the technical sense, you clearly understand much more of it than I ever will, but it sounds like he is getting help.
I get where you are coming from, and I appreciate you taking the time to help me see your point of view. I think for GW the benefits of this foray into media is likely more beneficial than just the low margin return on the film product itself, and links specifically to their overall business plan to grow their model line sales, and hopefully, this will work. I also want to see the people who develop this material be well rewarded and successful. If they are successful, it means I get great content, and GW makes more money. that feels like a win, win, win to me.
But, doesn't GW have their production and distribution system now? It would have been in the development and implementation stages when these decisions were made, so I don't understand why in your first case it would have made sense for GW to do otherwise.
Nope. They do NOT have the production/distribution yet. They have a theory. An idea. A plan. A thing they THINK will work. They do not have a solid, proven, established pipeline. With any luck, next year at this time, maybe they will be able to say that. They currently cannot. They have nothing. To further illustrate my point, let me ask you a question. When was the last time you heard anything at all about Eisenhorn? A show that was announced mid-2019 ....
As far as "Ultramarine" goes, I agree it was a bad movie, but I don't know that the studio that developed it gets to walk away from that one free from any responsibility. The animation was very poor, to say the least. I don't know if that's really an applicable example, other than to say "this movie sucked". It did suck, but there is so much difference between then and now that I honestly struggle to see relevance vs. primacy.
Right, so, this is the difference between understanding how things like this happen and not. There's a process to these things. A flow. A sequence of events that must happen IN SEQUENCE in order for the film to be successful. Admittedly now, it's slightly LESS critical than it used to be, but with 3D back then, and knowing the tools the studio who made it had access to, and how many milestones GW pushed due to demanding significant changes means, every time you do that up front, something must give on the back-end if you are to still meet your deadline (a thing which the studio was on the hook for). So you see, you get so far down the line, and a major request is made. You feel like you have to honor it, and it's not a deal breaker. This sets you back a bit, but with some over time and extra hard work you can overcome it. Plus, what are the odds this (somewhat entitled) client, who has no experience what-so-ever in this area are going to have ANOTHER major change at an inconvenient time.
2 weeks later, now that your team has worked 200 hours in two weeks - Your producer walks into a production meeting 10 minutes late and drenched in sweat. He stammers a bit. Yeah. It's happened again. The client called. There's another major change. Is there a change order clause in the contract? That would mean you don't HAVE to do it and it won't cause any issues as you're legally in the clear ... Oh. No there isn't because you're a smaller studio and this was a big break for you and making the client sign something with a change order clause made you afraid they wouldn't sign with you.
Ok. Well ... you still have textures in the pipeline. you can save on render time if you down-res some textures. It will cost some additional time for your people to go back and work on that, but your animators can keep working ahead on the scenes that haven't changed. You can reimport later and have an intern send the newly redone scenes to the render farm. No sweat.
Ok. That was scary, but it could have been worse. This is direct to DVD anyway. It's fine. Few people will notice the texture issue anyw.... what? There's another demand? You only have picture-lock on 20% of the film. You were to be at 80% at this point in time .... Ok. Well, you HAVE to get this out. So, more OT, and maybe get some contractors in as well to help out. They weren't budgeted for as this wasn't exactly high-budget anyway, but this is no longer about turning a profit. So now, how do you make up even more ground? You're going to have to pull back on lighting and atmospherics. It won't look as nice, but maybe now the textures you had to down-res won't stand out quite as badly so, silver lining? But, sadly, that 20% you had picture-lock on? That's gotta get binned now. It won't match the rest of the film. You'll have to go back, remove the extra lighting and atmospherics, and get some of the contractors to redo the animation to match what's now being done in terms of the more simplistic animation you're doing in the rest of the film in order to just deliver.
Ok! You're almost there! Picture lock on 90%, a week to g....what? They've added a character?
And on and on it goes. Yes, the studio does indeed need to own it's part ....
Also, someone in this thread I believe mentioned that the Astartes creator was bringing in 20,000 a month on Patreon. Knowing this now (if that's true, I have no way of knowing) I really have little blame for GW for wanting to either recruit or stop it. Also, I thought GW noted that the same creator would be working on Astartes II in-house with their production team. I'm not sure what that means in the technical sense, you clearly understand much more of it than I ever will, but it sounds like he is getting help.
My HOPE is that "in-house with our production team" means they actually got a legitimate, real, honest-to-goodness production team. Knowing how expensive that is. Knowing WHY they strong-armed these creators into working for them (it's in my last post but TL;DR they were CHEAP), I have a doubt or two. I don't really begrudge GW protecting the IP. Not at all. I worry at the way they did it. Smacks of old GW trying to wear "Good GW's" face like a skin-suit.
I get where you are coming from, and I appreciate you taking the time to help me see your point of view. I think for GW the benefits of this foray into media is likely more beneficial than just the low margin return on the film product itself, and links specifically to their overall business plan to grow their model line sales, and hopefully, this will work. I also want to see the people who develop this material be well rewarded and successful. If they are successful, it means I get great content, and GW makes more money. that feels like a win, win, win to me.
I really just wish they had approached these folks like creative partners. GW has made massive positive strides in recent years in community engagement. MASSIVE. They've done some sincerely brilliant things. But they've also done some things that occasionally show their hand. I would probably even feel better if they had the proven pipeline with a solid distribution model with predictable numbers, THEN came to these creators and did what they did. BUT, as it stands, these creators are essentially building it for them. Like I've said a few times, I support an IP holder's right to enforce their IP. This is absolutely necessary. In fact, you'd be shocked at how significant that right actually is. BUT - the other side of that coin is that the fastest way to throttle your own IP is to wield it like a weapon. IDK, I just wish they had done it a little differently.
Maybe it should not have taken a big price hike. Or maybe there is an actual way to make Monoliths work, that's also worth discussing, but most of the taktiks people have for making bad units work, don't generally work so that's going to create a negative atmosphere that discussing how "just push them across the board" tactics work for some undercosted units.
