By Shane O’Neill Dec. 25, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ET Looks like it’s time to break out the games again. Though, if you’re one of thousands of people around the world who play Warhammer, you probably never put it away in the first place.
Warhammer 40,000, a tabletop game set in a dystopian fictional universe, is not new. But a pandemic-fueled frenzy for science fiction and fantasy games like Dungeons & Dragons has introduced it to a whole new group of players.
Often referred to as Warhammer 40k, the game is played on tabletop terrains with models that players assemble, modify and paint. The game itself requires a lot of arithmetic, as well as a rule book, dice, measuring tape (to determine a character’s range of motion) and an optional laser (to ascertain a clear sightline to attack). The costs add up fast: Acquiring and readying enough new models for a proper game can run a player upward of $400.
But those costs don’t seem to be a deterrent.
Warhammer 40k is the most popular property made by its parent company, Games Workshop. Its popularity has helped the company’s stock price, which has risen by more than 60 percent in the last two years.
Celebrity players, including Ed Sheeran and Ansel Elgort, have drawn more attention to the game. Shayna Baszler, a WWE wrestler, has sported severalcostumes modeled on imagery from the Warhammer universe.
The actor Henry Cavill mentioned his hobby of assembling and painting Warhammer figures during a recent appearance on “The Graham Norton Show.”
“Can I come over and play?” asked Tom Holland, Mr. Cavill’s fellow superhero actor and guest on the show. “It sounds amazing.”
For longtime Warhammer players, the new embrace of the game has been a welcome surprise.
“Warhammer has always been this closet nerdy game that people just play with their weird toy soldiers and it’s like, ‘Why are adults doing this?’” said Nick Nanavati, 27, a professional Warhammer commentator who founded a coaching company for competitive Warhammer players called Art of War. “And it’s becoming more of this mainstream type of thing where nerd culture is becoming a lot more accepted by the public.”
Though the Warhammer universe is expansive and complex, it’s not necessary to understand all of its rules and lore to appreciate the game.
“If you want to build models, you can just build models,” Ruby Guest, 25, said in a Zoom interview.
Ms. Guest, the daughter of Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest, is a longtime Warhammer fan. When she was in high school in Los Angeles, she and two classmates who called themselves “the nerd herd” led a successful campaign to throw a Warhammer-themed prom.
Warhammer’s first rule book was published by Games Workshop in 1987. But over the last several years, the world of the game has expanded significantly, as has its fan base.
“We’ve definitely grown a lot in the last six or seven years, and I think a lot if it is that we engaged our fan base,” said Andy Smillie, 37, the marketing and digital director for Games Workshop. Part of that effort was the creation of Warhammer Plus, a subscription service that offers “animations apps, shows and more” for $5.99 a mont
The game’s current popularity may have something to do with its dark themes, which feel well suited to these difficult times. There are no so-called good guys in the Warhammer 40k universe. The humans of Warhammer are mostly divided between the Imperium of Man — a fascistic cohort who serve a “god-emperor” that requires 1,000 human souls to be sacrificed to him daily — and their sworn enemies, the Forces of Chaos.
Most fans have a tongue-in-cheek or campy appreciation for the various factions within the game’s universe, which include Orks, Space Marines and a murderous division of human women called the Adepta Sororitas. But some Warhammer fans have forged more direct ties from the fictional realm of Warhammer to the actual politics of present-day earth.
In 2019, Fabrizio Galli, a sculptor, unveiled a gigantic puppet depicting President Donald J. Trump in the garb of the Imperium of Man’s god-emperor at a celebration in Italy. Mr. Galli referred to the puppet as a “joke.”
This fall, at a Warhammer 40k tournament in Spain, a competitor arrived wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with conjoined swastikas and another symbol associated with hate groups. The incident, and the tournament’s decision to allow the player to remain at the tournament, created controversy in online Warhammer communities.
In response, Games Workshop issued a statement that condemned any fans’ affiliations with real-world hate groups. “The Imperium is Driven by Hate,” the statement’s headline read. “Warhammer Is Not.”
“I think there’s a difference between rooting for the Imperium of Man on a tabletop and rooting for their ideology in real life,” Mr. Smillie said. “And I think most people get that.”
Players interviewed for this article seemed to agree. “I think this hobby brings people together,” Ezekiel Lytle, 26, said at the Brooklyn Strategist, a shop where he teaches Warhammer and sells custom-painted Warhammer figurines.
Several other Warhammer fans at the Brooklyn Strategist emphasized that Warhammer games had put them in touch with people from a variety of backgrounds. Everyone interviewed for this article, however, noted that Warhammer fans skew heavily male.
Mr. Lytle cited Warhammer as an alternative to screen-heavy hobbies. Once a competitive video gamer, he returned to his childhood Warhammer hobby a few years ago. “Once I picked up Warhammer again, I never picked up my controller,” he said.
Travis Cheng, who was at the store for its brunch event, walked me through an abbreviated “skirmish.” He played as two space marines against my four members of the T’au, whom he referred to as “space communists.” The space communists technically won, but I can’t really take credit for it; Mr. Cheng was playing for both of us.
Article seems rather....... unfocused? Not really sure what the point of it is as it seems to kinda buckshot talking points about the hobby/IP and giving quotes from various people without doing anything to actually expand upon any particular idea. The topics touched upon require a lot more information to make any sense of and yet the writer didn't do anywhere near enough to provide anything remotely informative to an outsider to understand what they are talking about.
At that time here in Italy no journalist from the main media got the 40k vibe on that sculpt, they all referred to it as some sort of "demonic emperor".
And I'm shocked to read that Nick Nanavati is only 27, I thought he was in his 40s.
Togusa wrote: “Warhammer has always been this closet nerdy game that people just play with their weird toy soldiers and it’s like, ‘Why are adults doing this?’”
For the love of Satan can we kill this annoying ass trope.
Why do adults watch grown ass men squat two feet from each other and throw leather around for hours?
Why do they hang solid brass nuts from their trucks?
Hahaha. Nice one/s
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: It's the NY Times, not exactly a bastion of journalistic excellence now is it?
It's the bastion of journalistic excellence we deserve?
I mean, it's really just a fluff piece anyways. They're not exactly putting their A listers on 40k either, lol.
Acquiring and readying enough new models for a proper game can run a player upward of $400.
Cheap, isn't it.
Compare this e.g. with model train (Märklin or Fleischmann). That's the cost of one (more expensive) locomotive.
Smoking or watching sports (here it's exactly 400$ just to have access to the beloved team's games for a year) are both considered non particularly expensive activities and yet they're likely more expensive than our hobby on in the long run, aka taking 3+ years into account, on average and massively more expensive if you consider a significantly longer period, like 7-10 years.
They're simply both much cheaper as upfront costs.
Blackie wrote: Wow, I forgot about Galli's Trump sculpt.
At that time here in Italy no journalist from the main media got the 40k vibe on that sculpt, they all referred to it as some sort of "demonic emperor".
I remember seeing that and at the time and if I recall, The Emperor was listed in a funny way in one of the big 30K/AoD books implying there were plans to make him playable model and well, I got some amusing ideas. I had hoped to find an "Emperor Trump head" some where on the internet. Just for laughs and a good eye roll from my friends. Would have like to have painted it as if it were in stage show makeup, like we've seen in the show Rome when they have the pantomime shows. Grimdark and hilarious.
As to the article, skimmed it, probably a slow news day and nerdy hobbies have been trendy recently so it's just page fodder.
Not even new really but maybe someone will read it and get a starter box for their kids or remember they used to play and come back.
Also, the "400$" for a "Proper" army quote is insane. Ugh, more trash journalism.
Yes because it's impossible to build an army for $400. For 2k points of models, glue, clippers, primer, paint, rulebook, and codex you're looking at more than $400 unless you buy a giant pile of mistakes from someone on ebay.
Cool but an army isn't 2k points, it's whatever you have as your stuff. So it is in fact extremely easy to get an army for under £400. In fact, a Combat Patrol and the 40k Paint + Tools set will only set you back £112.50 and in every case gives you enough units to play the beginner level of 40k.
Gert wrote: Cool but an army isn't 2k points, it's whatever you have as your stuff. So it is in fact extremely easy to get an army for under £400. In fact, a Combat Patrol and the 40k Paint + Tools set will only set you back £112.50 and in every case gives you enough units to play the beginner level of 40k.
Sure but a "proper" army would be the standard game size which is 2k points. You can play baseball with a round pinecone, a stick and a milk carton but I wouldn't call that "proper" baseball equipment
I'm not getting into a huge discussion about what the "proper" way to play 40k is, the only thing that is true is that £400 is not an average starter cost unless you're playing something like Knights or have decided to jump in headfirst and get expensive kits.
2000 points of Neophyte Hybrids is . . . Using 80 points per squad. . . $1,100 US.
If only armies were made up of more than Intercessors and Hybrids and GW sold discount boxes specifically targeted at newstarts. Man that would be just amazing wouldn't it?
hobojebus wrote: Yeah it's no longer a game kids can afford to play, which is a big issue since eventually older players will disappear.
That's such nonsense. The starter sets are specifically cheap and easy kits to get and the only way "kids" aren't going to be able to afford to play 40k is if local scenes price them out by exclusively playing 2k point tournament-style games.
This is the same stupid thing over and over again where people whine that 40k is too expensive to get into and then it turns out they put caveat after caveat on what "proper" 40k is. You are not meant to start 40k with 2k point armies, that has never been the case and GW has never sold it as that. You start off with the Starter sets, Battleforces, Start Collectings, or Combat Patrols and work your way through the systems of the game from Patrol to Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught as the end goal.
I remember seeing that and at the time and if I recall, The Emperor was listed in a funny way in one of the big 30K/AoD books implying there were plans to make him playable model and well, I got some amusing ideas. I had hoped to find an "Emperor Trump head" some where on the internet. Just for laughs and a good eye roll from my friends. Would have like to have painted it as if it were in stage show makeup, like we've seen in the show Rome when they have the pantomime shows. Grimdark and hilarious.
Gert wrote: Cool but an army isn't 2k points, it's whatever you have as your stuff. So it is in fact extremely easy to get an army for under £400. In fact, a Combat Patrol and the 40k Paint + Tools set will only set you back £112.50 and in every case gives you enough units to play the beginner level of 40k.
Sure but a "proper" army would be the standard game size which is 2k points. You can play baseball with a round pinecone, a stick and a milk carton but I wouldn't call that "proper" baseball equipment
So I'd like to suggest a vocabulary adjustment.
It is true that 2k points is the most common size of game; this is because that is the most common tournament size.
It is equally true, however, that GW designed the game for 4 "Standard Sizes" - there is ongoing mission support for all four sizes of game in at least one of the three modes of play.
Therefore, I suggest that people who mean "Tournament Style Play" ie. 2k matched, should use that language, because 25 PL Crusade is equally "standard" even if YOU don't play it.
I remember seeing that and at the time and if I recall, The Emperor was listed in a funny way in one of the big 30K/AoD books implying there were plans to make him playable model and well, I got some amusing ideas. I had hoped to find an "Emperor Trump head" some where on the internet. Just for laughs and a good eye roll from my friends. Would have like to have painted it as if it were in stage show makeup, like we've seen in the show Rome when they have the pantomime shows. Grimdark and hilarious.
2000 points of Neophyte Hybrids is . . . Using 80 points per squad. . . $1,100 US.
If only armies were made up of more than Intercessors and Hybrids and GW sold discount boxes specifically targeted at newstarts. Man that would be just amazing wouldn't it?
It's true, you have the privelidge of paying $30 for a single character or $115 for a single tank!
Feel free to price out some builds for armies in the 1500-2000 point range. The GSC Neophytes calculation is obviously going to be pretty high, but 400-1000 wouldn't surprise me at all.
That's not even the worst offending GSC unit for price per point either.
Insectum7 wrote: It's true, you have the privelidge of paying $30 for a single character or $115 for a single tank!
Feel free to price out some builds for armies in the 1500-2000 point range. The GSC Neophytes calculation is obviously going to be pretty high, but 400-1000 wouldn't surprise me at all.
That's not even the worst offending GSC unit for price per point either.
Ok, let's do that. 50 Power is roughly 1k Points. So lets go:
Spoiler:
Drukhari - 2x Drukhari CP box = £170 (the second Ravager can be made into a third Raider if need be and one of the Kabalites can be upgraded to Trueborn)
Space Marines - SMCP box + DW/DA/BA (these contain the most generic units) CP box in any combination = £170
Space Wolves - SWCP box + DW/DA/BA/SM (these contain the most generic units) CP box in any combination = £170
Black Templars - BTCP box + DW/DA/BA/SM (these contain the most generic units) CP box in any combination = £170
Sisters of Battle - 2x SoBCP box = £170
Now of course the Battleforces are also a thing at Xmas, we usually get a Battlebox once a year and there are the Starter sets for SM and Necrons. Now most armies don't have their CP boxes yet but barring a single exception thus far (DG) all the boxes are suitable for double-ups.
So if we're going for cost effective measures for starting 40k, then it's a pretty good time IMO.
Of course we also have to consider that many GW models can very easily fit multiple unit profiles. Units like Veteran Guardsmen, Leman Russ Tank Commanders, Veteran Intercessors, Death Company Intercessors, and Celestians all use the same kits as their cheaper counterparts. That's not even going into other considerinations. What's stopping your Primaris Lt from being a Captain when they have the same wargear? Or your Necron Lord being an Overlord?
Gert, haven't you just proven the opposite of your point? The article alleging $400 for a proper (2000p?) battle, and those prices you list being $460 for 100 power?
ph34r wrote: Gert, haven't you just proven the opposite of your point? The article alleging $400 for a proper (2000p?) battle, and those prices you list being $460 for 100 power?
Yes, Gert just did that. I asked for 1500-2k. Gert gave prices for 1K.
Out of curiosity I priced up a typical 2K SM army in my style. Even cobbling together my Captain and Lt. out of spare parts I get $540 US.
The IG Start collecting is $90 US, and it looks like a Squad, a Commissar, and a Leman Russ. How many of those sets does it take to get to 2k?
Again though, the article didn't imply 2k armies. It implied playable armies.
I forget how many combat patrol missions there are in the BRB- it's at least 6, and as many as 12. A 500 point army is quite playable in 9th, and is in fact the recommended starting size for Crusade.
I would argue that most new players probably do start playing with 500 and escalate as they paint- even those who do eventually go on to become tournament players, and we have no viable evidence that I'm aware of to suggest that the majority of 40k players DO actually go on to become Strike Force scale OR tournament players.
Evidence that Dakkanaughts do? Sure. But this article was not written for Dakkanaughts, nor do they make up the majority of 40k players.
ph34r wrote: Gert, haven't you just proven the opposite of your point? The article alleging $400 for a proper (2000p?) battle, and those prices you list being $460 for 100 power?
Yes, Gert just did that. I asked for 1500-2k. Gert gave prices for 1K.
Out of curiosity I priced up a typical 2K SM army in my style. Even cobbling together my Captain and Lt. out of spare parts I get $540 US.
The IG Start collecting is $90 US, and it looks like a Squad, a Commissar, and a Leman Russ. How many of those sets does it take to get to 2k?
4 will give you about 1300pts with $40 USD left over. Depending upon options included &/or ones creativity I'm sure you could stretch that into about a 1500 pt list.
To hit 2k? 5 boxes + creativity, or 6 boxes outright.
To be fair someone who starts the hobby shouldn't aim at 2000 points immediately. 1K games is a much more appropriate target.
The newbie has to learn how to assemble and paint the models, read and memorize the rules and make experience to properly learn how to play. That requires months or even more than an year after buying the first miniatures and hobby tools.
With some elite armies or 2nd hand lots it's also possible to get 2000 points armies for much cheaper than what's average for 40k.
Blackie wrote: To be fair someone who starts the hobby shouldn't aim at 2000 points immediately. 1K games is a much more appropriate target.
The newbie has to learn how to assemble and paint the models, read and memorize the rules and make experience to properly learn how to play. That requires months or even more than an year after buying the first miniatures and hobby tools.
With some elite armies or 2nd hand lots it's also possible to get 2000 points armies for much cheaper than what's average for 40k.
And by the time they've done all that, the rules will have changed to make their army unplayable.
Blackie wrote: To be fair someone who starts the hobby shouldn't aim at 2000 points immediately. 1K games is a much more appropriate target.
The newbie has to learn how to assemble and paint the models, read and memorize the rules and make experience to properly learn how to play. That requires months or even more than an year after buying the first miniatures and hobby tools.
With some elite armies or 2nd hand lots it's also possible to get 2000 points armies for much cheaper than what's average for 40k.
And by the time they've done all that, the rules will have changed to make their army unplayable.
Gotta rigidly stick to that 3 year rules change cycle to maximise them profits, regardless of it is right for the system or not, amirite?
ph34r wrote: Gert, haven't you just proven the opposite of your point? The article alleging $400 for a proper (2000p?) battle, and those prices you list being $460 for 100 power?
The article didn't say 2k points it said "Proper" which as I have already said is not by any metric a definition of points/power level. In your opinion "proper" is 2k points and in mine it's 50ish power (roughly 1k points). Others will play at Patrol level with is 500pts/25 power. Some people might only play at 3kpts/person as my group does with 30k. There isn't a "proper" way to have an army and defining it as 2k points.
@Insectum I misread your post, I thought it said 1k-1.5k but I refer you to the above with regards to your "proper" army opinion.
The IG Start collecting is $90 US, and it looks like a Squad, a Commissar, and a Leman Russ. How many of those sets does it take to get to 2k?
Not a good example and hasn't been since it was released. It's downright pathetic that they have kept it on sale. Every community survey I crapped on that thing. The SC wasn't even a valid "getting started" bit and required a unique Formation to be playable upon release.
The IG Start collecting is $90 US, and it looks like a Squad, a Commissar, and a Leman Russ. How many of those sets does it take to get to 2k?
Not a good example and hasn't been since it was released. It's downright pathetic that they have kept it on sale. Every community survey I crapped on that thing. The SC wasn't even a valid "getting started" bit and required a unique Formation to be playable upon release.
ph34r wrote: Gert, haven't you just proven the opposite of your point? The article alleging $400 for a proper (2000p?) battle, and those prices you list being $460 for 100 power?
The article didn't say 2k points it said "Proper" which as I have already said is not by any metric a definition of points/power level. In your opinion "proper" is 2k points and in mine it's 50ish power (roughly 1k points). Others will play at Patrol level with is 500pts/25 power. Some people might only play at 3kpts/person as my group does with 30k. There isn't a "proper" way to have an army and defining it as 2k points.
@Insectum I misread your post, I thought it said 1k-1.5k but I refer you to the above with regards to your "proper" army opinion.
My $600 Price at 2K with Intercessors looks pretty good when you counter with $230 for 1K though
Watch this: You gave $230 at 1k. (Or 460 at 2k)
Kanluen gave the CDF, which is $740 for 2k
Also, the "400$" for a "Proper" army quote is insane. Ugh, more trash journalism.
Yes because it's impossible to build an army for $400. For 2k points of models, glue, clippers, primer, paint, rulebook, and codex you're looking at more than $400 unless you buy a giant pile of mistakes from someone on ebay.
depends how you go about it, new official GW models, not 2k for $400, but getting some unpainted ebay models its quite doable and they do not need to be mistakes often its easy to find properly built models with bits from the kits primed or plain grey plastic. Also if you have a friend, acquaintance, or happen to own a resin 3d printer yourself it becomes extremely cheap. pretty sure I got more than 4k points of custodies infantry out of a $37 bottle of resin over the past month. gold spray pint is a few bucks a can, and a 12 pack of good OG superglue is $7 on amazon. rulebook and codexes can be found in digital format for free at the usual places if one were inclined to search the various bays.
The plastic land raider came out in 2000. It was $60. That's $80 in "today money". The land raider presently costs $80.
40K was never cheap. You just didn't internalize the true cost of things when you were young and you stopped appreciating the ability to slowly grow a collection for "garage games".
Daedalus81 wrote: The plastic land raider came out in 2000. It was $60. That's $80 in "today money". The land raider presently costs $80.
40K was never cheap. You just didn't internalize the true cost of things when you were young and you stopped appreciating the ability to slowly grow a collection for "garage games".
The Land Raider was $44.99 when it was released. WD 245. While the classis LR is currently $80, the Crusader/Redeemer is $96.
The Tau Riptide is $110 now. I'm curious how much it was when originally released. Anyone know?
Insectum7 wrote: Your interpretation, not mine. 500 points is not what I'd call a "proper" army.
I woudn't call it "my interpretation" - I like Crusade; the Crusade rules suggest starting with a 25 PL force. Every Combat Patrol box is designed to be close to the 25PL mark. There are 20+ missions between the BRB and Mission Packs that are specifically designed for 25 PL games. I'd say it is GW's intent, purpose and interpretation that 25 PL games are a) valid and b) an intended entry point to the hobby.
As for your belief that 500 PL is not a proper army, well that IS an interpretation, and of course, you are entitled too it. But it is clearly at odds with the design of this edition of the game, and the intent of those who produce the game. This isn't the same as saying "you're wrong" - many people, especially those who do aspire to tournament play, will feel the way you do, despite what the designers intended and despite what people who are new to the hobby may feel.
For me personally, having 6 forces at 25 PL is more satisfying than 1 force at 150 PL because I have friends who like to play, but don't buy. My collection ensures that I always have the capacity to play- and even host a campaign. A single 2k point army leaves me at the whims of strangers in stores and Covid restrictions and being forced to play matched because it's all any stranger in a store ever wants to do.
The IG Start collecting is $90 US, and it looks like a Squad, a Commissar, and a Leman Russ. How many of those sets does it take to get to 2k?
Not a good example and hasn't been since it was released. It's downright pathetic that they have kept it on sale. Every community survey I crapped on that thing. The SC wasn't even a valid "getting started" bit and required a unique Formation to be playable upon release.
Um... Not sure what you mean here?
A Commissar is HQ. The squad is troops. That's what is currently required for a standard Patrol detachment. It's also what was required for a Patrol in 8th.
I skipped 6th and 7th eds. because my favourite factions in the game weren't given ANY attention until the very tag end of 7th, so maybe the IG Start Collecting box wasn't legal in those eds. But it certainly has been for the past two. It doesn't hit the 25PL mark, but it is a legal detachment.
You certainly are correct that the Battleforce is a better box; it does allow a player to get to 25PL and even exceed it. It can also be fielded as legal Patrol. And if you get both boxes, which comes in at below $400 in CAD, you can get to 50 PL and field it as either double Patrols or a Battalion (the far and away better choice).
When it was released the Guard SC was good value for money due to the Russ but was only usable with the specific Formation that came in the box which was the hallmark of the SC boxes for both AoS and 40k. It's a legal force now to a degree because you either get a Heavy Weapon base which can't be taken in squads less than three strong or you have two random Guardsmen minis. The best bet is to use the HWT in the Guardsmen unit and convert the two remaining models into a Company Commander and something like a Master of Ordnance using the Tank Commander bitz.
I'm interested to see what the Guard CP box will be and if Scions keep the SC or get a CP as well.
The IG Start collecting is $90 US, and it looks like a Squad, a Commissar, and a Leman Russ. How many of those sets does it take to get to 2k?
Not a good example and hasn't been since it was released. It's downright pathetic that they have kept it on sale. Every community survey I crapped on that thing. The SC wasn't even a valid "getting started" bit and required a unique Formation to be playable upon release.
Um... Not sure what you mean here?
A Commissar is HQ. The squad is troops. That's what is currently required for a standard Patrol detachment. It's also what was required for a Patrol in 8th.
Except in order for this box to be correct, it requires you to actually ignore what is in it:
You’ll receive a Leman Russ Battle Tank, a Cadian Heavy Weapon Team, an Officio Prefectus Commissar and a set of ten Cadian Shock Troops.
The only HQ choice Commissars are Yarrick and the Commissar Lord.
I skipped 6th and 7th eds. because my favourite factions in the game weren't given ANY attention until the very tag end of 7th, so maybe the IG Start Collecting box wasn't legal in those eds. But it certainly has been for the past two. It doesn't hit the 25PL mark, but it is a legal detachment.
It came out in 7th Edition. It wasn't legal under the setup they gave you(Commissar, Infantry Squad, Leman Russ). It required a unique formation in the set.
You certainly are correct that the Battleforce is a better box; it does allow a player to get to 25PL and even exceed it. It can also be fielded as legal Patrol. And if you get both boxes, which comes in at below $400 in CAD, you can get to 50 PL and field it as either double Patrols or a Battalion (the far and away better choice).
There is literally zero reason to buy the SC: Guard box unless you don't know the other exists. End of story.
Daedalus81 wrote: You just didn't internalize the true cost of things when you were young and you stopped appreciating the ability to slowly grow a collection for "garage games".
Games Workshop punishes the people who slowly grow garage armies by reshuffling the rules very frequently.
Hecaton wrote: Games Workshop punishes the people who slowly grow garage armies by reshuffling the rules very frequently.
I managed to slow grow my CSM from 6th Ed to now and I've never been "punished" with rules changes, they've stayed consistently garbage. The only people who are actively "punished" by rules changes are meta chasers.
Daedalus81 wrote: The plastic land raider came out in 2000. It was $60. That's $80 in "today money". The land raider presently costs $80.
No, that's when the current plastic Land Raider came out. And has been pointed out it was under $50. Though I guess you could be forgiven if you just rounded it up to $50. A later price hike took it up to $60. And then into the &70s. And now we're at $80....
Hecaton wrote: Games Workshop punishes the people who slowly grow garage armies by reshuffling the rules very frequently.
I managed to slow grow my CSM from 6th Ed to now and I've never been "punished" with rules changes, they've stayed consistently garbage. The only people who are actively "punished" by rules changes are meta chasers.
Or just someone who modeled their HQ with stuff that's no longer legal, because kitbashing means people aren't buying more.
Meta chasers, assuming they have the means to do it, are rewarded by consistently winning games, because they're doing exactly what GW wants by buying a new faction frequently. Players who wanted to slow build a fun army are punished. Like you said, your army's been consistently garbage outside of a few specific builds for a long time. They're not going to put out the effort of giving your army a coherent codex, they'd rather half-ass it as a half-assed codex gives them the result they want.
Daedalus81 wrote: You just didn't internalize the true cost of things when you were young and you stopped appreciating the ability to slowly grow a collection for "garage games".
Games Workshop punishes the people who slowly grow garage armies by reshuffling the rules very frequently.
People playing garage armies don't give a gak. I know I didn't. I bought what was cool and what I could afford.
You guys are debating and arguing over the most pointless and asinine crap. What we should be discussing is this:
Ms. Guest, the daughter of Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest, is a longtime Warhammer fan. When she was in high school in Los Angeles, she and two classmates who called themselves “the nerd herd” led a successful campaign to throw a Warhammer-themed prom.
2000 points of Neophyte Hybrids is . . . Using 80 points per squad. . . $1,100 US.
If only armies were made up of more than Intercessors and Hybrids and GW sold discount boxes specifically targeted at newstarts. Man that would be just amazing wouldn't it?
hobojebus wrote: Yeah it's no longer a game kids can afford to play, which is a big issue since eventually older players will disappear.
That's such nonsense. The starter sets are specifically cheap and easy kits to get and the only way "kids" aren't going to be able to afford to play 40k is if local scenes price them out by exclusively playing 2k point tournament-style games.
This is the same stupid thing over and over again where people whine that 40k is too expensive to get into and then it turns out they put caveat after caveat on what "proper" 40k is. You are not meant to start 40k with 2k point armies, that has never been the case and GW has never sold it as that. You start off with the Starter sets, Battleforces, Start Collectings, or Combat Patrols and work your way through the systems of the game from Patrol to Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught as the end goal.
How the hell is a kid on allowance supposed to buy a Combat Patrol? Those things are fething stupidly expensive - for 3 units you get a barely playable army and for about $200
You know what you can get for $200 10 years ago? A Battleforce.
Yeah, a full army with vehicles, HQ and everything
WH isn't cheap, atleast not for kids. The only exception being the smaller starter sets, but that limits you to the factions of the current edition
hobojebus wrote: Yeah it's no longer a game kids can afford to play, which is a big issue since eventually older players will disappear.
That's such nonsense. The starter sets are specifically cheap and easy kits to get and the only way "kids" aren't going to be able to afford to play 40k is if local scenes price them out by exclusively playing 2k point tournament-style games. This is the same stupid thing over and over again where people whine that 40k is too expensive to get into and then it turns out they put caveat after caveat on what "proper" 40k is. You are not meant to start 40k with 2k point armies, that has never been the case and GW has never sold it as that. You start off with the Starter sets, Battleforces, Start Collectings, or Combat Patrols and work your way through the systems of the game from Patrol to Incursion, Strike Force, and Onslaught as the end goal.
Average game of 40k is played at 2k points, at least in 9th. In 7th it was 1500pts but points costs have drastically changed since then. People can argue to their hearts content that 100pts all the way to 1999 is just as normal but the fact will remain that the most common list setup is 2k points, which is also illustrated on this site by going to the army lists section and seeing that of the 50 entries, 50% are 2k while the rest are spread out from 500 - 2500.
So with that premise in mind...yes 40k is too expensive for "KIDS" to get involved in without significant financial support from family. I'll review orkz in this regard because I am exclusively an Ork player.
So right now the 2 big boxes for orkz are the Killdakka (crapdakka) box and the Combat patrol box. The Crapdakka box is about $228 depending on local sales tax, while the Combat box is about $150.
Crapdakka box is - 1x Big Mek with Shokk Attack Gun - 1x Deffkilla Wartrike - 1x Dakkajet (can instead be assembled as a Wazbom Blastajet, Blitza-Bommer, or Burna-Bommer) - 5x Nobz and 1x Grot - 10x Gretchin and 1x Runtherd - 20x Boyz
Comes out to 750pts if you take the Flyer as a Wazbom (Most expensive) and nothing has any upgrades. So you are talking about roughly 3pts for a Dollar. So to get to 2k you need closer to $600-700 And of course this list is....god awful and most importantly it does NOT come with the Codex ($50), The Rule book ($65), Dice ($10 minimum for orkz quadruple this LOL) Tape measure ($10 minimum) and Paints/brushes ($100+) So at a minimum you need $235 more just for the bare necessities with this 750pt army. So now you are in the realm of (with taxes) $500 to play a 750pt army. That is just not kid friendly.
What about the much smaller/cheaper Combat patrol box? – 1x Warboss in Mega Armour – 20x Ork Boyz – 3x Deffkoptas – 1x Deff Dread
This works out to 530pts, so now your cost of entry for orkz is about $400 and you have a Tiny ork army that is auto-lose against almost any list in existence The only "good" unit in this list is the Deffkoptas and since they don't exactly blend in, they die first
So to get to 2kpts and have a valid list you would need 5 of these boxes so thats $1,000 minimum, and your paints are going to need to be improved with more colors so you will need at least another 3-4pots if for nothing else than better paint jobs. But even if you stay at the 500pt level its still way to expensive to get the necessities and play.
Without breaking out all the old tips/tricks you could easily get to a maximum sized game with orkz for well under $500, I mean, hell you could get 6 boxes of lootas/burnas and 3 boxes of Boyz for $225 or less and that worked out to 24 Lootas, 24 burnas, 9 Tankbustas, 3 Nobz, and 3 mekz/boyz/nobz. In 7th edition prices that was a sizable force. The Burnas/Tankbustas/lootas/Nobz were around 14-16pts each. so average 15, 15x 60 = 900pts $225 just got you 3/5th of a 1,500pt army, Toss in some HQs and Boyz and poof, you are at 1,500pts for well under $500. By todays standards....ouch. The boyz kit alone is going to be $55-60 or more than 2x more expensive. Lootas are going for $9 more or 36% increase and whats worse, they won't match the bodies of the new boyz so that trick is dead.
All of that combines to just show that the game is no longer "kid friendly" in regards to money.
Hecaton wrote: Games Workshop punishes the people who slowly grow garage armies by reshuffling the rules very frequently.
I managed to slow grow my CSM from 6th Ed to now and I've never been "punished" with rules changes, they've stayed consistently garbage. The only people who are actively "punished" by rules changes are meta chasers.
I collected a Kan wall in 7th for fun, they weren't good in 7th, they were okish but definitely not good. I also collected a loota army, a biker army and a host of other things...hell, I bought a morkanaut. The Kanz, Lootas, Morkanaut are now so bad that to play with them is to start the game with a handicap. My ork army is actively punished by rules changes. I play orkz and only orkz, I'm sure as hell not a "meta chaser". But so many different units i own have become useless that its ridiculous. Thankfully I find the Stompa god awful ugly or else I would have been penalized since its existence with how bad its rules have been
How the hell is a kid on allowance supposed to buy a Combat Patrol? Those things are fething stupidly expensive - for 3 units you get a barely playable army and for about $200
I've no idea what kids are getting allowance wise these days. But I'm going to hazard a guess that the answer (if only relying upon allowance) is "SLOWLY".
123ply wrote: You know what you can get for $200 10 years ago? A Battleforce.
Yeah, a full army with vehicles, HQ and everything
Well unless you've access to a time machine that doesn't matter.
123ply wrote: WH isn't cheap, atleast not for kids. The only exception being the smaller starter sets, but that limits you to the factions of the current edition
Well, since the current edition is what they'll most likely be playing, I'm not sure this is a true problem?
As an excercise I'll try to find out what my 2K army cost me when I started in 2nd edition. Should be a pretty stark difference seeing as how my Devastator Squad came in at 500 points, and 5 Terminators were 360 iirc.
Daedalus81 wrote: People playing garage armies don't give a gak. I know I didn't. I bought what was cool and what I could afford.
For those of us who demand high-quality games for high-end price points, we care. Like I get it that you'd be happy with your garage army that loses every game because it's so underpowered, or to have your ability to field the models you like taken away because GW can't be bothered to make rules that allow you to, but reasonable people aren't.
Well for kids GW games were always hard. I started as an 11yo kid and couldn't finish a proper army (2000ish points) until 3-4 years. In the meantime I enjoyed painting the models and playing with tons of proxies along with people my age, also proxying a lot.
Kids in my opinion should look at the hobby for at least an edition before even thinking about playing. Playing properly I mean, because games with extremely limited collections can be too one sided with nothing players can do to get more balance. Enjoy the hobby, collect and paint enough miniatures and then eventually start looking at the game.
40k and all the other GW games are not high quality games, they're a combination of multiple hobbies, which includes wargaming. If a kid is interested in wargaming rather that the lore or the hobby of painting the miniatures, 40k (like any other GW game) is probably the wrong answer.
Blackie wrote: Well for kids GW games were always hard. I started as an 11yo kid and couldn't finish a proper army (2000ish points) until 3-4 years. In the meantime I enjoyed painting the models and playing with tons of proxies along with people my age, also proxying a lot.
Kids in my opinion should look at the hobby for at least an edition before even thinking about playing. Playing properly I mean, because games with extremely limited collections can be too one sided with nothing players can do to get more balance. Enjoy the hobby, collect and paint enough miniatures and then eventually start looking at the game.
40k and all the other GW games are not high quality games, they're a combination of multiple hobbies, which includes wargaming. If a kid is interested in wargaming rather that the lore or the hobby of painting the miniatures, 40k (like any other GW game) is probably the wrong answer.
But that's not how kids approach games these days. Maybe when you/we/I were kids it was a more casual thing but the environment around gaming due to Twitch streams, esports etc has become much more competitive since then. It's the same reason as to why the tournament meta is such a focus of conversation when discussing balance despite it being a very small part of the community (among other factors). Kids emulate what they see their peers doing and I think basically all the games you see on YouTube are 2000pts. All the discussion revolves around 2000pts, everyone at FLGSs play 2000pts, so kids are going to want to get to 2000pts as soon as they can.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the author of the article to mean 2000pts army when they say “proper” army.
Although there are many different sizes of games possible, “full size” is often seen as the “proper” way to play things. 5-a-side football is popular and a lot of fun, but the “proper” game is 11-a-side.
I prefer Rugby 7s over 15-a-side, but I’m in no doubt that 15-a-side is what most would consider a “proper” game of rugby.
When I started the hobby many moons ago I collected units in dribs and drabs and played with what I had with my brothers and my friends, sometimes using proxies etc, but I aspired to having a “proper” full size army of whatever was the popular size back then (maybe 2000pts or 3000pts in 2nd edition, I can’t remember).
Equally the author is being perfectly reasonable to assert the cost of an army based on buying the GW products from GW at recommended retail prices rather than second hand online, at a discount from other retailers or by being savvy and buying bundles to maximise value. Even then it’s still not a particularly expensive hobby compared to many others.
Blackie wrote: Well for kids GW games were always hard. I started as an 11yo kid and couldn't finish a proper army (2000ish points) until 3-4 years. In the meantime I enjoyed painting the models and playing with tons of proxies along with people my age, also proxying a lot.
Kids in my opinion should look at the hobby for at least an edition before even thinking about playing. Playing properly I mean, because games with extremely limited collections can be too one sided with nothing players can do to get more balance. Enjoy the hobby, collect and paint enough miniatures and then eventually start looking at the game.
40k and all the other GW games are not high quality games, they're a combination of multiple hobbies, which includes wargaming. If a kid is interested in wargaming rather that the lore or the hobby of painting the miniatures, 40k (like any other GW game) is probably the wrong answer.
But that's not how kids approach games these days. Maybe when you/we/I were kids it was a more casual thing but the environment around gaming due to Twitch streams, esports etc has become much more competitive since then. It's the same reason as to why the tournament meta is such a focus of conversation when discussing balance despite it being a very small part of the community (among other factors). Kids emulate what they see their peers doing and I think basically all the games you see on YouTube are 2000pts. All the discussion revolves around 2000pts, everyone at FLGSs play 2000pts, so kids are going to want to get to 2000pts as soon as they can.
Competitive GW gaming is unreasonable for kids, it's too expensive in the short term and unlike other hobbies like videogaming it's impossible to be ready to play competitively immediately as learning how to play and getting an army finished require a lot of time, especially for newbies. I understand times are different, but when I was a kid playing with people in their 30s, 40s or 50s was considered a bit weird. This I don't think it's much different now. I played with other teens using cheap cardboard tokens, not real models as the latter were too expensive for us and we just used to buy them to enjoy the hobby part, not the game.
In the age of internet there's plenty of alternatives, including completely different hobbies, and in fact I haven't met a kid that was actually interested in attending GTs so far. Pretty much all the kids I see at the stores are more interested in the hobby part, then in those games that are quick and requires less models like Kill Team or Warcry. Learning and remembering all the rules is also pretty hard for kids. I don't think the two current biggest GW games attract that many kids, the hobby and maybe some skirmish might do though.
Daedalus81 wrote: People playing garage armies don't give a gak. I know I didn't. I bought what was cool and what I could afford.
For those of us who demand high-quality games for high-end price points, we care. Like I get it that you'd be happy with your garage army that loses every game because it's so underpowered, or to have your ability to filed the models you like taken away because GW can't be bothered to make rules that allow you to, but reasonable people aren't.
Yep and GW has done better in that department than any point in history despite the constant moaning.
Daedalus81 wrote: People playing garage armies don't give a gak. I know I didn't. I bought what was cool and what I could afford.
For those of us who demand high-quality games for high-end price points, we care. Like I get it that you'd be happy with your garage army that loses every game because it's so underpowered, or to have your ability to filed the models you like taken away because GW can't be bothered to make rules that allow you to, but reasonable people aren't.
Yep and GW has done better in that department than any point in history despite the constant moaning.
I disagree. But even if I didn't, and you were exactly correct and GW was somehow better now than they've ever been, their resulting game is still fantastically expensive, frustratingly committed to burning down its own rules and starting over for no good reason on a regular basis, committed to adding bloat over fixing the things that already exist, and terribly balanced by comparison to everything else on the market. Including some other GW games written by different internal teams (Necromunda, AT). Warhammer isn't dominant because it's good, it's dominant because it has a boatload of money and doesn't have to give a crap what anyone else is doing. It's going to keep moving on under its own inertia until an outside force comes along to stop it, no matter how absolutely committed GW is to trying to kill themselves by designing the edition-churn business model that's perfectly calibrated to put barriers in place of continuing to play, on top of the barriers to starting to play.
Late to the party here but im fairly certain you can use the LR in the SC: Astra Militarum box as a tank commander for an HQ. if im wrong im wrong though.
Aash wrote: Even then it’s still not a particularly expensive hobby compared to many others.
Brand new from GW:
Warboss: $35 90pts
3 units of 10 Boyz: $108 270pts (new kits will be about $30-50 more)
2 Trukkz: $88 140pts
500pt army, smallest game size that is really supported: total cost? $231
Add in Ork codex: Another $50 Add in the BRB another $65. So total of another $115
Buy a couple packs of dice and a tape measure, likely $30-40 more minimum. So cheap end you are looking at $376 to play the smallest game of 40k. You could switch out options and what not and probably make it slightly cheaper, likewise I could bring in way more expensive units and make it cost significantly more *Looking at you Mek gunz*.
I can go right now and buy a 2nd hand AR-15 for less then that Don't get me wrong, ammunition is expensive but the point being that I don't really think 40k is less expensive than most other hobbies. If I can buy a Rifle for the same cost as a bunch of plastic and paper...yes its an expensive hobby.
Yea I'm not sure what your other hobbies are that you consider 40k to be a cheap one. My other hobbies are fixing up classic cars, collecting modern firearms, and high end watches. 40k still isn't a "cheap" hobby to me...
Toofast wrote: Yea I'm not sure what your other hobbies are that you consider 40k to be a cheap one. My other hobbies are fixing up classic cars, collecting modern firearms, and high end watches. 40k still isn't a "cheap" hobby to me...
40k isn't 'cheap' by any stretch - agreed. Then again 'cost' and 'value' are subjective. And things are always relative. Imo it's Probably fairer to say that often hobbies in general cost a bit, regardless.
That said, my fuel bill is between £30 and £40 a week. A beer in a pub is a fiver. My xbox was a few hundred. My father in law collects records. When me and the Mrs had season tickets for the football it was about £500 each for the year. In comparison, individual kits or larger collections are also reasonable to my mind.
And honestly I'll take a 40k army over pish Scottish football any day of the week. especially since I'll do 3 or 4 hours per model and I have these dudes for the rest of my life and I will always be able to put them on the board.
It must also be noted there are ways of approaching the hobby, or not approaching certain aspects of the hobby which can help mitigate the big costs, especially long term.
Not digging out the book to do points because of the variances that the weapon loadouts on the Deff Dread and the two Boyz Mobs, but the Ork Combat Patrol is spot-on 25 Power out of the box.
Toofast wrote: Yea I'm not sure what your other hobbies are that you consider 40k to be a cheap one. My other hobbies are fixing up classic cars, collecting modern firearms, and high end watches. 40k still isn't a "cheap" hobby to me...
I never said 40K was a cheap hobby, but I don’t think it’s hugely expensive compared to many. Like most things it depends on how much you want to spend. There is no need to go and buy an army straight away. A starter paint set and a single squad is enough to get started and add to the collection as you go. Playing 40K the game is not necessarily the same as 40K the hobby.
As for other hobbies I’m thinking of, video games is a popular hobby. How much is a high resolution tv with a fast refresh rate, a new games console or a gaming PC and a selection of video games going to cost, on top of a high speed internet connection and whatever subscription may be required to play online? Compared to that 40K seems par for the course. And that’s without looking at tennis, golf, flying, gliding, scuba diving and many other popular hobbies that cost far more.
The thing is it has a quite high upfront cost and also a pretty high cost in the short period after the first investment. But in the long run (aka considering a few years) it's as expensive than the most common hobbies, if not even cheaper.
Watching sports on tv for 3 years costs a grand here, which is more than enough to enjoy the hobby properly cosidering the same amount of time.
As a kid, lunchtimes are an hour and 10 minutes, so if we want to play at warhammer club we tend to play small games. Everyone's army has been built up over time, with birthdays and christmases and such. Lots of people split dark imperium too
Stuff like club dice, tape measure and book brought down the cost, this was supported by Jack Petchy and also Warhammer Alliance.
Slowly building up an army is the standard practice, not meta chasing
I rock climb at a gym (at least up until the pandemic) and the climbing pass for a year is about $700. That's roughly $60 a month. And of course doesn't include the initial outlay of gear you need (shoe, harness, chalk, etc.), plus the replacement of gear as it wears out.
In Warhammer terms, dumping a few hundred get started (rules, codes, starter set for your faction, basic paints, etc) isn't terribly unreasonable. Spending $60 a month on top of that would give you ~12 units by the end of the year plus whatever you had in the starter set.
But to be frank, while you probably need to spend $300ish to get going, getting a decent size force with some choices and options over the course of year is going to be ~$1,000.
As for other hobbies I’m thinking of, video games is a popular hobby. How much is a high resolution tv with a fast refresh rate, a new games console or a gaming PC and a selection of video games going to cost, on top of a high speed internet connection and whatever subscription may be required to play online? Compared to that 40K seems par for the course. And that’s without looking at tennis, golf, flying, gliding, scuba diving and many other popular hobbies that cost far more.
Sure, my PC was $4k. It was also tax deductible, used for work for 2 years, and has mined $8k in bitcoin. As soon as 40k models are tax deductible, usable for work, and mine more money than they cost, I will have a different idea of how "expensive" they are.
As for other hobbies I’m thinking of, video games is a popular hobby. How much is a high resolution tv with a fast refresh rate, a new games console or a gaming PC and a selection of video games going to cost, on top of a high speed internet connection and whatever subscription may be required to play online? Compared to that 40K seems par for the course. And that’s without looking at tennis, golf, flying, gliding, scuba diving and many other popular hobbies that cost far more.
Sure, my PC was $4k. It was also tax deductible, used for work for 2 years, and has mined $8k in bitcoin. As soon as 40k models are tax deductible, usable for work, and mine more money than they cost, I will have a different idea of how "expensive" they are.
In fairness, the vast majority of hobbies, utilities and outlets don't really 'pay back' in terms of mining crypto and giving tax breaks. Honestly it's a poor and unfavourable metric to define 'expensive'.
Toofast wrote: As soon as 40k models are tax deductible, usable for work, and mine more money than they cost, I will have a different idea of how "expensive" they are.
Stream yourself painting and/or playing on Twitch and they ARE most of those things.
As for other hobbies I’m thinking of, video games is a popular hobby. How much is a high resolution tv with a fast refresh rate, a new games console or a gaming PC and a selection of video games going to cost, on top of a high speed internet connection and whatever subscription may be required to play online? Compared to that 40K seems par for the course. And that’s without looking at tennis, golf, flying, gliding, scuba diving and many other popular hobbies that cost far more.
Sure, my PC was $4k. It was also tax deductible, used for work for 2 years, and has mined $8k in bitcoin. As soon as 40k models are tax deductible, usable for work, and mine more money than they cost, I will have a different idea of how "expensive" they are.
40k is expensive for a hobby that targets kids.
Also, as someone stuck on a fixed, low income (in my case for disability) it's an expensive hobby. I can afford, maybe $50/yr if I'm lucky towards 40k. This doesn't make me a second class player.
As for other hobbies I’m thinking of, video games is a popular hobby. How much is a high resolution tv with a fast refresh rate, a new games console or a gaming PC and a selection of video games going to cost, on top of a high speed internet connection and whatever subscription may be required to play online? Compared to that 40K seems par for the course. And that’s without looking at tennis, golf, flying, gliding, scuba diving and many other popular hobbies that cost far more.
Sure, my PC was $4k. It was also tax deductible, used for work for 2 years, and has mined $8k in bitcoin. As soon as 40k models are tax deductible, usable for work, and mine more money than they cost, I will have a different idea of how "expensive" they are.
40k is expensive for a hobby that targets kids.
Also, as someone stuck on a fixed, low income (in my case for disability) it's an expensive hobby. I can afford, maybe $50/yr if I'm lucky towards 40k. This doesn't make me a second class player.
This is unfortunately how some players view those who don't drop $1k a year on meta-bs.
GW has been trying to keep the entry level of the game "cheap". The standards imposed by the playerbase(note how I didn't say meta, for some it "meta" doesn't exist) of 2k or nothin' bleeding edge tourney lists in cutthroat environments are ridiculous and unhealthy for fostering new hobbyists. It leads to burnout and frustration that the list you've been building/painting is no longer gonna do anything for you tabletop-wise. Which is why whenever someone asks about how good an army is I tell them that "models are forever but rules change, what was once unstoppable is now easily stopped with the stroke of a pen".
Racerguy180 wrote: GW has been trying to keep the entry level of the game "cheap". The standards imposed by the playerbase(note how I didn't say meta, for some it "meta" doesn't exist) of 2k or nothin' bleeding edge tourney lists in cutthroat environments are ridiculous and unhealthy for fostering new hobbyists. It leads to burnout and frustration that the list you've been building/painting is no longer gonna do anything for you tabletop-wise. Which is why whenever someone asks about how good an army is I tell them that "models are forever but rules change, what was once unstoppable is now easily stopped with the stroke of a pen".
Nah, GW bears a lot of responsibility for the constant churn and poor balance. The playerbase is reacting to the circumstances that GW imposes, to a large degree. The cutthroat behavior is the result of a game system that rewards purchases and nitpicking over tactics.
Honestly, the different tiers of starter set have been a huge help.
Thanks to them, I can get a Recruit edition set, ask for them for birthday/Yule gifts, and still build respectable low points lists, for 2 armies, for a way better deal than a box of Necron Warriors.
Is anyone actually saying that people who do not drop 1,000 USD on the new hotness are second-class players?
The top-tourney crowd do their thing within their circuit. They aren't breaking into your gaming club to tell you that you are second-class.
In my local scene we have a variety of types of players. Our tourneys vary from 1000 to 2000 points with one aimed at new players. If somebody asks for a low-point non-tourney style game they will get one. I will play whatever my prospective opponent wants (well, within limits I suppose).
Warhammer models are not cheap, but I offer that they retain their value if you keep playing. Heck, they can even retain their value if you take pleasure in having them in your display case! Some of my models that still see the table are twenty years old. You can slow-grow an impressive army on a fairly limited budget if you have discipline. I play with a couple of folks who "only" have one army. They have built it up over time and do not chase anything. The wheel comes around and they have a strong army for a while. Either way they are happy. If you don't chase the meta eventually it comes around to you!
Racerguy180 wrote: ...This is unfortunately how some players view those who don't drop $1k a year on meta-bs.
GW has been trying to keep the entry level of the game "cheap". The standards imposed by the playerbase(note how I didn't say meta, for some it "meta" doesn't exist) of 2k or nothin' bleeding edge tourney lists in cutthroat environments are ridiculous and unhealthy for fostering new hobbyists. It leads to burnout and frustration that the list you've been building/painting is no longer gonna do anything for you tabletop-wise. Which is why whenever someone asks about how good an army is I tell them that "models are forever but rules change, what was once unstoppable is now easily stopped with the stroke of a pen".
Eh. The height of the barrier to entry is entirely GW's fault. They could shut down the edition churn, start doing small incremental updates to a lot of things at once instead of doing massive under-tested updates to everything in an army all at once and then not touching them for the next three years (unless the tournament people complain or someone wins a game against the people in charge of the points updates, then they get points updates), fix the underlying problems with the stats and the core rules instead of stacking bloat on top of bloat to try and address them, and remember that they have a back catalogue and occasionally someone might want to play with minis that didn't come out in the last six months. But they don't. They want people buying new armies every six months.
I don't disagree that some people are too competitive, but I also think a big part of the problem here is that GW's trying to market itself as all things to all people. They're convinced that by writing an essay on how surely competitive people can play their game competitively and casual people can play their game casually they can make it true, without in any way adjusting their rules to account for the fact that they want different kinds of people playing their game, and then try and subject the casual people to the same kind of edition churn and "buy a new army, you don't want to play 9e with an 8e book, do you?" pressure they subject the competitive people to.
Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.
It's astonishing to me how far people will go to blame GW for the simple lack of awareness that players have with this stuff. We live in a frigging digital age. When the first exposure some people have is via people throwing up netlists or via MetaWatch(which I will 100% blame GW for: that stuff is a bloody cancer and needs to be excised)? It's a weight around the rest of the game's neck.
Kanluwen wrote: Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.
It's astonishing to me how far people will go to blame GW for the simple lack of awareness that players have with this stuff. We live in a frigging digital age. When the first exposure some people have is via people throwing up netlists or via MetaWatch(which I will 100% blame GW for: that stuff is a bloody cancer and needs to be excised)? It's a weight around the rest of the game's neck.
I'm not blaming GW for the fact that people are too competitive. I'm blaming GW/their apologists for not understanding that there's a difference between competitive people and casual people, constructing a business model around getting more money out of competitive people, paying occasional lip service to the fact that casual people exist while simultaneously trying to wring them for cash by treating them like competitive people, and then shrugging and saying "well, if you're not having fun it must be your fault, nothing we could possibly do to improve the game at all."
I'm not blaming GW for the fact that people are too competitive. I'm blaming GW/their apologists for not understanding that there's a difference between competitive people and casual people, constructing a business model around getting more money out of competitive people, paying occasional lip service to the fact that casual people exist while simultaneously trying to wring them for cash by treating them like competitive people, and then shrugging and saying "well, if you're not having fun it must be your fault, nothing we could possibly do to improve the game at all."
Sorry, how are casual hobbyists being wrung for cash? I'm very casual and I've not felt pressured into buying since GW stores moved away from the insane sales targets they used to have. I've also never been told by a GW employee that if I don't like a game I'm having fun wrong.
Can you explain why you feel GW pressures you into purchasing models you don't want or how you feel you're being told you are the problem when it comes to not enjoying the game?
Kanluwen wrote: Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.
It's astonishing to me how far people will go to blame GW for the simple lack of awareness that players have with this stuff. We live in a frigging digital age. When the first exposure some people have is via people throwing up netlists or via MetaWatch(which I will 100% blame GW for: that stuff is a bloody cancer and needs to be excised)? It's a weight around the rest of the game's neck.
I'm not blaming GW for the fact that people are too competitive. I'm blaming GW/their apologists for not understanding that there's a difference between competitive people and casual people, constructing a business model around getting more money out of competitive people, paying occasional lip service to the fact that casual people exist while simultaneously trying to wring them for cash by treating them like competitive people, and then shrugging and saying "well, if you're not having fun it must be your fault, nothing we could possibly do to improve the game at all."
Actually, right now GW produces more resources aimed at narrative players than competitive ones. Competitive players get two mission packs per year; Crusaders get four. Campaign books, while they ostensibly offer content for both competitive and narrative play have far more to offer the narrative player than the competitive one.
And creating 3 ways to play, IMHO, was one of the best things that's been done for the game. I DO chase Crusade content, but I have zero interest in Meta, or points balances- I haven't purchased a single GT mission pack/ munitorum bundle this edition, nor will I need to. Having 4-6 Crusade armies at 25PL and friends to play them like Inquisitor 28 is awesome. Screw meta.
I'm not blaming GW for the fact that people are too competitive. I'm blaming GW/their apologists for not understanding that there's a difference between competitive people and casual people, constructing a business model around getting more money out of competitive people, paying occasional lip service to the fact that casual people exist while simultaneously trying to wring them for cash by treating them like competitive people, and then shrugging and saying "well, if you're not having fun it must be your fault, nothing we could possibly do to improve the game at all."
Sorry, how are casual hobbyists being wrung for cash? I'm very casual and I've not felt pressured into buying since GW stores moved away from the insane sales targets they used to have. I've also never been told by a GW employee that if I don't like a game I'm having fun wrong.
Can you explain why you feel GW pressures you into purchasing models you don't want or how you feel you're being told you are the problem when it comes to not enjoying the game?
Rules churn/edition churn. I want to play a game where I can learn to play once and then just keep playing. GW wants me to play a game where I have to learn to play again every couple of months when some new pile of shenanigans come out that breaks core assumptions of the game, piles twenty new layers of rules on top of an already bloated system, and is about 50-70% more cost-effective than it was before the update. They then explain to other people that the constant growth of bloat, power creep, and increasing irrelevance of my stuff is absolutely necessary for the good of the game, and everyone else (casual and competitive) believes them, so they (players, casual and competitive, in-person and online) tell me that I'd have fun if I bought a different army, or I'd have fun if I quit for two years and came back when I got a Codex update, or that I'd have fun if I bought different models because there's no way GW choosing not to support any of my stuff could possibly be their fault.
I talk about GW 'treating casual players like competitive players' because they assume that the casual players will hang onto their every word and stand in line to buy all the new stuff at launch like the competitive people do, so they 'support casual players' by doing things like Crusade (which feels to me like a tournament format that they tacked 'narrative' tables onto after the fact), where you get to have fun if you have a 9e Codex and have army-specific Crusade content, and if you don't bad luck, you'd better buy a different army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: ...Actually, right now GW produces more resources aimed at narrative players than competitive ones. Competitive players get two mission packs per year; Crusaders get four. Campaign books, while they ostensibly offer content for both competitive and narrative play have far more to offer the narrative player than the competitive one.
And creating 3 ways to play, IMHO, was one of the best things that's been done for the game. I DO chase Crusade content, but I have zero interest in Meta, or points balances- I haven't purchased a single GT mission pack/ munitorum bundle this edition, nor will I need to. Having 4-6 Crusade armies at 25PL and friends to play them like Inquisitor 28 is awesome. Screw meta.
My fundamental issue with Crusade is that it's still nailed to the exact same Codexes as tournament play where there are twenty times as many rules as there need to be (this is hyperbole, I don't have an exact measurement) and playing models I like still gets me turn-two tabled by other people playing what they think are weak armies from weak Codexes. I don't care about playing the competitive meta. I care about the fact that when two people pick what they think are weak armies composed of minis they like in 9e, 'casual' or not, turn-two tablings still happen all the time because the damage creep is so out of control and the weak/unsupported stuff is still unplayable against the weakest bottom-end of the stronger Codexes.
Kanluwen wrote: Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.
When the rules suck this bad it doesn't matter. When rules are bad you have to play perfectly to have a fair chance, and the lack of meaningful decisions on the tabletop compared to other games (like Infinity) means that the only way to meaningfully affect the outcome is to catch someone on the rules or cheat.
Kanluwen wrote: Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.
When the rules suck this bad it doesn't matter. When rules are bad you have to play perfectly to have a fair chance, and the lack of meaningful decisions on the tabletop compared to other games (like Infinity) means that the only way to meaningfully affect the outcome is to catch someone on the rules or cheat.
This assuming you can only play against tournament lists. The vast majority of games aren't this competitive. Just have a look at one of the bazillion youtube channels that upload 40k battle reports. They all show fun games that don't last just two turns, or even just three.
Rules churn/edition churn. I want to play a game where I can learn to play once and then just keep playing. GW wants me to play a game where I have to learn to play again every couple of months when some new pile of shenanigans come out that breaks core assumptions of the game, piles twenty new layers of rules on top of an already bloated system, and is about 50-70% more cost-effective than it was before the update. They then explain to other people that the constant growth of bloat, power creep, and increasing irrelevance of my stuff is absolutely necessary for the good of the game, and everyone else (casual and competitive) believes them, so they (players, casual and competitive, in-person and online) tell me that I'd have fun if I bought a different army, or I'd have fun if I quit for two years and came back when I got a Codex update, or that I'd have fun if I bought different models because there's no way GW choosing not to support any of my stuff could possibly be their fault.
It's interesting that you talk about edition/rules churn like that's never been a thing before now because 4th Ed only lasted 4 years, same with 5th, while 3rd Ed lasted longer but had multiple armies get double Codexes. Does that extra year make such a massive difference that 40k has become unplayable in recent years? I also want to ask, did you prefer it in days past when an army could go 7 years without getting updated? I mean the average from 4th to 7th Ed was about 4-5 years between Codexes but hot damn there are some real outliers.
I'm curious as to which core aspects of the game have been broken recently because as far as I'm aware, I can put down my army and still play perfectly fine. I am 100% sure we've had this discussion before, but how much of your issues with 40k are a result of a competitive and unforgiving local scene, and how much is it GW "forcing" you to buy products? This is someone asking who has never bought a Chapter Approved, never attended serious tournaments, and actively avoided meta netlists, and has yet to feel like my time is wasted playing 40k.
BTW the advice about just taking a break isn't an insult, people need time away from things because they get overloaded. I took a 6-month break from playing GW games because I just wasn't enjoying the time spent with my friends. We still met up for Warhammer days, I just didn't play and used the time to paint/build/just chat instead of getting annoyed and stressed that I lost a game of toy soldiers. I tried different games like Bolt Action, played some RPGs, and then when I felt a lot more chilled out about life in general, I went back to 40k. I also 100% recommend getting away from the internet complaints BS where every new release is "broken OP game destroying" and just wait to see what comes up.
I talk about GW 'treating casual players like competitive players' because they assume that the casual players will hang onto their every word and stand in line to buy all the new stuff at launch like the competitive people do, so they 'support casual players' by doing things like Crusade (which feels to me like a tournament format that they tacked 'narrative' tables onto after the fact), where you get to have fun if you have a 9e Codex and have army-specific Crusade content, and if you don't bad luck, you'd better buy a different army.
Honestly, and I say this without malice, that first bit is in your head mate. I think the only thing GW banks on for non-comp players is that they like fancy models and will buy said fancy models.
I think you should seriously consider taking a break from GW stuff if you think that you're being forced into continuing this hobby.
Kanluwen wrote: Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.
When the rules suck this bad it doesn't matter. When rules are bad you have to play perfectly to have a fair chance, and the lack of meaningful decisions on the tabletop compared to other games (like Infinity) means that the only way to meaningfully affect the outcome is to catch someone on the rules or cheat.
That's simply not true. I play at a club with a huge variety of players, from 2k Matched-only, to narrative players, to people who haven't figured out what style they want yet as they're still building their armies and finding their feet in the hobby. They all seem to have fun and the different types of players can even (*gasp*) modify their styles to play each other. We play everything from 2k down to 500 point beginner games. I think it's easy to get caught up in your own experiences and not even consider how others may interact differently with the game, the lore, the models etc.
Kanluwen wrote: Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.
When the rules suck this bad it doesn't matter. When rules are bad you have to play perfectly to have a fair chance, and the lack of meaningful decisions on the tabletop compared to other games (like Infinity) means that the only way to meaningfully affect the outcome is to catch someone on the rules or cheat.
This assuming you can only play against tournament lists. The vast majority of games aren't this competitive. Just have a look at one of the bazillion youtube channels that upload 40k battle reports. They all show fun games that don't last just two turns, or even just three.
Don't underestimated how much youtube battle reports are curated. If people record a game that ends in 1.5 turns where 1 side flattens the other its probably not getting uploaded and they instead try again after some adjustments. Plus you don't see the work put into trying to create 2 lists that will have a fun game, something that normally doesn't happen when 2 people play a pick up game at a store/club.
GW came out and basically stated they want 40k to be a "live service" with the new Seasons Roadmap. Sorry if this isn't what you signed up for. GW is in the business of making money, and this model is extremely successful. It's so successful that Toyota just made their new Prius "remote start function" that comes standard on all new Prius's a Live Service as well. Where if you don't sign up for and pay the monthly fee, you can't remotely start your car with the system YOU BOUGHT.
The only was to fix this is to switch to a different system/game. One Page Rules is a great start, and I'm hearing good things about Infinity. You are making the CHOICE to relearn the rules every few years. You are making the CHOICE to buy new monopose limited edition marine LTs every year. This isn't GW's fault, and I wish people would stop blaming them.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: GW came out and basically stated they want 40k to be a "live service" with the new Seasons Roadmap. Sorry if this isn't what you signed up for. GW is in the business of making money, and this model is extremely successful. It's so successful that Toyota just made their new Prius "remote start function" that comes standard on all new Prius's a Live Service as well. Where if you don't sign up for and pay the monthly fee, you can't remotely start your car with the system YOU BOUGHT.
The only was to fix this is to switch to a different system/game. One Page Rules is a great start, and I'm hearing good things about Infinity. You are making the CHOICE to relearn the rules every few years. You are making the CHOICE to buy new monopose limited edition marine LTs every year. This isn't GW's fault, and I wish people would stop blaming them.
live services work online because you don't actually have anything without their service.
I can play warhammer just fine without a live service subscription because I physically have everything needed to play it.
Warboss: $35 90pts
3 units of 10 Boyz: $108 270pts (new kits will be about $30-50 more)
2 Trukkz: $88 140pts
500pt army, smallest game size that is really supported: total cost? $231
The Ork Combat Patrol is $140. Can't do the maths in my head quickly but its got to be +/- 500 points.
Whether this is a good set to start Orks can be debated - but still.
A Combat Patrol, a Paint Starter and some plastic glue is probably under $200.
I don't think the hobby is that cheap - but I also don't think its ruinously expensive unless you make it so.
The Combat patrol box is naked 530pts. Its also only legal as a patrol detachment and even then its a garbage list with no cohesion. 2 units of troops or 1 big unit of troops that are slow as all hell. A warboss who is just as slow, a deffdread which is the fastest land based model in the list at 6' movement and finally 3 deffkoptas which move 14' and can auto-advance. I mean...its a ridiculously bad list that was designed by someone who doesn't understand anything about orkz...Kind of like every Ork box set to be honest I remember the old CP Box that literally didn't even include an HQ option!
If you don't give a damn about coherency and just want the cheapest models possible then yeah its a good deal. If you have a theme in mind its terrible. And that also leaves off the Codex and BRB, dice and measuring tape, easily another $130-150
As far as all the Competitive vs Narrative player nonsense.
The game gets better for EVERYONE when play is balanced. The game does not get better for everyone when narrative becomes "more fun", Look at 7th edition when Eldar, Tau, Necron and SM players got really really good fluffy narrative lists. it was the lowest the game has ever been in my opinion. We had entire game clubs die out because nobody wanted to play anymore because it was either a lopsided battle or it was mirror matches.
Eldar: I'm just walking into game night with my casual Eldar list with a wraightknight 2 units of scat bikes and some warp spiders and fire dragons, totally not a net list (Ironically it wasn't)
Opponent: Ok I guess i'll just pick up my Non Fly-rant Nid list and just go home, you win, congrats.
Tau: I'll just play 1 riptide instead of 3, that will be fair right?
Opponent: Good Game bud.
Necron: I'm literally not even playing any of the really good units
Opponent: Ok, well I spent 6 turns killing warriors and ended up not even removing a single Unit. GG
The competitive scene is only as "cutthroat" as you make it. You'll always have a couple of really competitive players, but there isn't anything wrong with that...its a COMPETITIVE GAME. If you go to a tournament with a sub par list you know you likely aren't going to win so you are just there for hte laughts...that was pretty much me for all of 7th with my orkz getting ROFL Stomped every time I played the net lists.
Sim-Life wrote: Its interesting how often these discussions come down to:
Person A: The game isn't well balanced/bloated/boring and could be improved.
Person B: The game is fine you just aren't playing it right.
More like :
Person A : The game isn't well balanced/bloated/boring and could be improved.
Person B : Yes, and if you're willing, i've found some changes that you could bring to the game to make it more enjoyable.
Person A : Oh yeah, looks interesting, i'll give it a try.
Person C : Wait a minute, are you REALLY changing the rules to have a more enjoyable time, thats illegal, you're supposed to not have fun and blame GW because their game i spend way too much time talking about is litterally the worst thing on hell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: GW came out and basically stated they want 40k to be a "live service" with the new Seasons Roadmap. Sorry if this isn't what you signed up for. GW is in the business of making money, and this model is extremely successful. It's so successful that Toyota just made their new Prius "remote start function" that comes standard on all new Prius's a Live Service as well. Where if you don't sign up for and pay the monthly fee, you can't remotely start your car with the system YOU BOUGHT.
The only was to fix this is to switch to a different system/game. One Page Rules is a great start, and I'm hearing good things about Infinity. You are making the CHOICE to relearn the rules every few years. You are making the CHOICE to buy new monopose limited edition marine LTs every year. This isn't GW's fault, and I wish people would stop blaming them.
I've swapped to OnePageRules recently and it's sooo much more enjoyable than 40kIMO. And if you subscribe to their patreon you can even get access to their points calculator so you can homebrew units or add a tad of fluff (giving Fear to all my nightlords for example).
Infinity is also great, tho i wish the lastest season had changed the missions more.
Sim-Life wrote: Its interesting how often these discussions come down to:
Person A: The game isn't well balanced/bloated/boring and could be improved.
Person B: The game is fine you just aren't playing it right.
More like :
Person A : The game isn't well balanced/bloated/boring and could be improved.
Person B : Yes, and if you're willing, i've found some changes that you could bring to the game to make it more enjoyable.
Person A : Oh yeah, looks interesting, i'll give it a try.
Person C : Wait a minute, are you REALLY changing the rules to have a more enjoyable time, thats illegal, you're supposed to not have fun and blame GW because their game i spend way too much time talking about is litterally the worst thing on hell.
Gert wrote: ...BTW the advice about just taking a break isn't an insult, people need time away from things because they get overloaded. I took a 6-month break from playing GW games because I just wasn't enjoying the time spent with my friends. We still met up for Warhammer days, I just didn't play and used the time to paint/build/just chat instead of getting annoyed and stressed that I lost a game of toy soldiers. I tried different games like Bolt Action, played some RPGs, and then when I felt a lot more chilled out about life in general, I went back to 40k. I also 100% recommend getting away from the internet complaints BS where every new release is "broken OP game destroying" and just wait to see what comes up...
I don't play 9th. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when I decided I'd bite the bullet and try to update my Deathwatch army with more current models in late 8th, only for my stuff to get a massive pile of unnecessary nerfs and absolutely no buffs in the updated book in 9th. I pop up here on Dakka now and again to complain because I do feel insulted by the crowd of people saying "no, the game is perfectly fine, it's just that too many players are donkey-caves."
I don't play 9th. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when I decided I'd bite the bullet and try to update my Deathwatch army with more current models in late 8th, only for my stuff to get a massive pile of unnecessary nerfs and absolutely no buffs in the updated book in 9th. I pop up here on Dakka now and again to complain because I do feel insulted by the crowd of people saying "no, the game is perfectly fine, it's just that too many players are donkey-caves."
The problem is the game is not fine AND too many players are donkey-caves.
Gert wrote: ...I'm curious as to which core aspects of the game have been broken recently because as far as I'm aware, I can put down my army and still play perfectly fine. I am 100% sure we've had this discussion before, but how much of your issues with 40k are a result of a competitive and unforgiving local scene, and how much is it GW "forcing" you to buy products? This is someone asking who has never bought a Chapter Approved, never attended serious tournaments, and actively avoided meta netlists, and has yet to feel like my time is wasted playing 40k...
I'm going to paraphrase how this discussion usually goes:
9e fan: "This is the greatest most balanced edition of the game ever, there's no way anyone could not be having fun unless there was something wrong with them!"
Me: "I quit 9e because I wasn't having fun getting two-turn tabled and told the problem was that I needed to buy different minis."
9e fan: "That's literally impossible, this is the most balanced edition ever, you must be playing with some real donkey-caves! Out of curiosity what armies do you play?"
Me: "Alpha Legion, Deathwatch, Knights/AdMech."
9e fan: "Well, if you waited for your 9e Codex to come along or bought a different army maybe you'd have fun."
Me: "The Deathwatch had a 9e Codex last time I played them, they weren't particularly fun then."
9e fan: "Tournament statistics say it's possible for them to win so I don't know what you're talking about."
Me: "I'm glad you're having fun, but I do think other games/oldhammer/houserules are necessary for some people to have fun."
9e fan: "No, that's impossible, nobody should play other games/oldhammer/houserules because (choose one or more of) a) nobody plays other games so you'd never get a game, b) people aren't smart enough to learn two different sets of rules, c) I don't care what your experience has been all those other games I've never played must be worse than 9th at all of these or they'd outsell 40k, d) the 'three ways to play' essay obviously means that if you declare you're playing casually your armies will stop being gak that gets two-turn tabled every game, e) tournament statistics/sales figures prove that this is the best game ever and nothing else could ever surpass it, f) the fact that I'm having fun proves that absolutely nothing's wrong and there's no possible way you could not be having fun."
Cool, so categorically not GW forcing you to buy stuff just people not taking your point of view into account.
You do you with your hobby chief, just don't pretend it's all GW's fault when in reality nobody is forcing you to like/buy the new Edition.
I doubt that that's everyone's response to you Rake. If thats what you're reading from people/your community it's definitely time for a break from it. And even so, just.. roll your eyes - those perspectives are not worth engaging with.
40k or it's spin-offs can be fun, despite the many and varied flaws of the game(s). In my experience it takes a good community with a bit of emotional maturity and a good understanding working together and collaborating to achieve that. In my experience it's rewarding and worth it.
But I'm pretty sure you've heard that from me too!
Deadnight wrote: ...I doubt that that's everyone's response to you Rake. If thats what you're reading from people/your community it's definitely time for a break from it. And even so, just.. roll your eyes - those perspectives are not worth engaging with...
If it was just people in one local group I'd agree with you. This is everyone. Try and engage with the community at another game store, same story. Try to engage with online communities, same story. If you told me there was an organized conspiracy of secret GW employees seeded throughout the world trying to undermine any criticism of GW I would be completely unsurprised given the sheer number of people in different communities from different countries, even, that I've run across using the exact same script.
...40k or it's spin-offs can be fun, despite the many and varied flaws of the game(s). In my experience it takes a good community with a bit of emotional maturity and a good understanding working together and collaborating to achieve that. In my experience it's rewarding and worth it.
But I'm pretty sure you've heard that from me too!...
Yeah! I believe you! I just think that "must play the most current tournament-standard version of the rules with current officially-sanctioned missions" doesn't work very well! I'd rather play 30k! Or modded/expanded 30k with 7e Xenos books! Or 5e! Or 4e! Or 3e! Or Necromunda/Mordheim, or various content-expansion hacks on Necromunda/Mordheim! Or BFG! Or AT! Or old-AI! Or Epic! Or (gasp) non-GW games! But any time I suggest anything like that anywhere I might find people who I might be close enough to that we could play the 9e-fan mafia comes out of the woodwork to explain to me that literally everything else is terrible and I should just play current tournament-standard 9th! And then they say "If you don't like 9th why are you participating in any discussion of wargaming in general, why don't you just quit?" And then I meet other people who started playing 40k in 8th/9th and are literally unaware that any other wargames exist and assume that the things that GW does wrong are the industry standard because obviously anything the market leader does must be the best possible, which is the exact opposite of true, and I feel like if I don't stick around in these communities telling people that GW isn't perfect and there are other options that message won't exist and the wargaming hobby will slowly die as GW runs out of new people to feed into the "play for an edition and then quit wargaming entirely when you can't be bothered to keep up with the rules churn" machine. And all that will be left are the tournament people loudly enforcing the tyranny of officialdom on their own without any input from GW. And my hobby will have died, all because there's a crowd of people that can't possibly accept that a hobby that's slightly different from theirs might exist and insist that their hobby needs to take it over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: Cool, so categorically not GW forcing you to buy stuff just people not taking your point of view into account.
You do you with your hobby chief, just don't pretend it's all GW's fault when in reality nobody is forcing you to like/buy the new Edition.
Same to you. I'm glad you're having fun. But don't presume that because you're having fun that means everything GW's doing is perfect and all problems that everyone else is having are because something's wrong with them.
Same to you. I'm glad you're having fun. But don't presume that because you're having fun that means everything GW's doing is perfect and all problems that everyone else is having are because something's wrong with them.
Cool, never have I ever said that.
But you know what's great? Whenever you say anything good about 9th, the people who make hating GW their entire personality come out and hurl lovely insults about how you're a gatekeeper or a shill or a sycophant.
That's how opinions work. You think there's a pro-9th mafia, I think that this site is the domain of salt-filled raging hate mongers who try their absolute best to ruin any sort of joy you make get out of the hobby. You either choose to get over it and enjoy what you enjoy with the people you enjoy it with, or you duck out and find something else to do.
"Sticking it out" so you can tell people just how awful GW and how terrible 40k are, isn't doing anyone any good, and honestly, if a lot more people had a serious look at themselves and said, "I think I should find a different hobby that makes me happy", the wider community wouldn't be such a massive bin fire.
If it was just people in one local group I'd agree with you. This is everyone. Try and engage with the community at another game store, same story. Try to engage with online communities, same story.
.
Bunk.
It's not 'everyone' and drop the hyperbole. I don't. Gert doesn't. I can think of at least a dozen posters here on this site who don't. In the real.world my group doesn't.
Yeah! I believe you! I just think that "must play the most current tournament-standard version of the rules with current officially-sanctioned missions" doesn't work very well! I'd rather play 30k! Or modded/expanded 30k with 7e Xenos books! Or 5e! Or 4e! Or 3e! Or Necromunda/Mordheim, or various content-expansion hacks on Necromunda/Mordheim! Or BFG! Or AT! Or old-AI! Or Epic! Or (gasp) non-GW games! But any time I suggest anything like that anywhere I might find people who I might be close enough to that we could play the 9e-fan mafia comes out of the woodwork to explain to me that literally everything else is terrible and I should just play current tournament-standard 9th! And then they say "If you don't like 9th why are you participating in any discussion of wargaming in general, why don't you just quit?" And then I meet other people who started playing 40k in 8th/9th and are literally unaware that any other wargames exist and assume that the things that GW does wrong are the industry standard because obviously anything the market leader does must be the best possible, which is the exact opposite of true, and I feel like if I don't stick around in these communities telling people that GW isn't perfect and there are other options that message won't exist and the wargaming hobby will slowly die as GW runs out of new people to feed into the "play for an edition and then quit when you can't be bothered to keep up with the rules churn" machine. And all that will be left are the tournament people loudly enforcing the tyranny of officialdom on their own without any input from GW. And my hobby will have died, all because there's a crowd of people that can't possibly accept that a hobby that's slightly different from theirs might exist and insist that their hobby needs to take it over.
.
I don't think it works well either. See, its not 'everyone'. And this is a 'your meta' thing. My group.does historicals like fow and bolt action, necromunda, warcry, shadespire etc. Cirrent game is saga! Hell I know groups within about a half hour of where I live and not far from where I work that play pp, historicals, infinity, amongst many others.
I dunno what to say man. The 'official at all cost' shouters might be loud but they don't represent everyone, let alone the gw playing community. You need to get out of the gw sphere snd especially that toxic community you're in.
Same to you. I'm glad you're having fun. But don't presume that because you're having fun that means everything GW's doing is perfect and all problems that everyone else is having are because something's wrong with them.
Don't hyperbole. That's not what Gerts saying. Gw are far from perfect but its possible to work with people and around the sharp.edges. we do! And I'm pretty certain he's not saying there's something wrong with you either. He's having fun, presumably because like me, he found, built and fostered a good community who also wants those. i play not far from him.snf it wouldn't surprise me if we have mutual acquaintances. ust because you're miserable and despair about seeing the good things that absolutely do exist in this hobby doesn't mean those good things are not out there or that they're out of your reach.
Gert wrote: ..."Sticking it out" so you can tell people just how awful GW and how terrible 40k are, isn't doing anyone any good, and honestly, if a lot more people had a serious look at themselves and said, "I think I should find a different hobby that makes me happy", the wider community wouldn't be such a massive bin fire.
Yup. Chicken/egg. Mutually assured destruction. Violence inherent in the system. I like other wargames (including older editions of 40k), but if I'm going to discuss them I have to constantly fight people coming in to say "the stuff you like is terrible, play tournament-standard 40k". You like 9th, but if you're going to discuss it you have to constantly fight people coming in to say "current 40k is terrible, play other things." If we could discuss things in a more civilized fashion rather than jumping straight to the extreme "GW is fine, if you don't like it there's something wrong with you" or "GW is terrible, there's nothing wrong with the players" positions and then shouting at each other about how the other person is turning the community into a massive bin fire things might be more civilized.
Slipspace wrote: That's simply not true. I play at a club with a huge variety of players, from 2k Matched-only, to narrative players, to people who haven't figured out what style they want yet as they're still building their armies and finding their feet in the hobby. They all seem to have fun and the different types of players can even (*gasp*) modify their styles to play each other. We play everything from 2k down to 500 point beginner games. I think it's easy to get caught up in your own experiences and not even consider how others may interact differently with the game, the lore, the models etc.
The problem is that modifying your style/list to create a specific outcome takes high-level knowledge of the game; you have to understand the balance inside and out to do so. And that's unworkable for new players, who might choose the factions they like and the units they like and then go to play with their friends and have little to no chance of having a competitive game.
Slipspace wrote: That's simply not true. I play at a club with a huge variety of players, from 2k Matched-only, to narrative players, to people who haven't figured out what style they want yet as they're still building their armies and finding their feet in the hobby. They all seem to have fun and the different types of players can even (*gasp*) modify their styles to play each other. We play everything from 2k down to 500 point beginner games. I think it's easy to get caught up in your own experiences and not even consider how others may interact differently with the game, the lore, the models etc.
The problem is that modifying your style/list to create a specific outcome takes high-level knowledge of the game; you have to understand the balance inside and out to do so. And that's unworkable for new players, who might choose the factions they like and the units they like and then go to play with their friends and have little to no chance of having a competitive game.
And as veterans of the hobby it's up to us to help, guide, mentor and accommodate those new to the game. Investing some of your EXP in community-building goes a lot further than putting it into breaking the newest codex.
Deadnight wrote: And as veterans of the hobby it's up to us to help, guide, mentor and accommodate those new to the game. Investing some of your EXP in community-building goes a lot further than putting it into breaking the newest codex.
Sure, but in many other games, that's not necessary, since the balance isn't so bad. And what happens if two new players start the game together, and are turned off by the awful balance?
Sure, but in many other games, that's not necessary, since the balance isn't so bad.
'Isnt so bad' is pretty relative but kind of meaningless if you ask me. And 'necessary' is a poor benchmark. I've played a lot of systems in multiple countries and have never seen a ttg where new people didn't reach out to vets or vets weren't encouraged to pass on what they knew.
It's not 'everyone' and drop the hyperbole. I don't. Gert doesn't. I can think of at least a dozen posters here on this site who don't. In the real.world my group doesn't...
I'm sorry I went off on a bit of a rant here. I'm aware you mean well and aren't trying to be offensive, but the "are you sure it's the game, or are you playing it wrong?" stuff reads as patronizing to me; it gets followed up by questions and suggestions that I feel like assume I'm a moron who jumps straight to shouting on the Internet and has made no efforts to improve their situation.
In my experience of trying to find more casual players, communicate clearly up-front that my minis are terrible and I'd appreciate playing against a sorter list, and leaving game communities to try and find new ones I find that my problems with the game balance remain constant. The difference between playing 9th with casual players and competitive players, to me, is that the casual player will be baffled and confused as to why my stuff is so terrible after blowing me off the table in two turns and tell me they don't think they have the models to play a softer list than that, while the competitive player will shrug and explain to me exactly which models are bad by what metrics and what different thing I should buy before I can have fun again.
I've attempted to play other games. I've gotten ostracized by a couple of play groups that have decided that being diehard 9e tournament players is so core to their identity that if you express any interest in trying to play a different wargame or trying to suggest house rules they won't talk to you anymore. Some of them have followed me to new game stores and started evangelizing tournament-standard-9th-only to people there. Any time I do find a group for another wargame it tends to be something like the same six people who have been playing Warmachine since college and aren't really interested in letting new people participate. I also find quite frequently people who started playing 40k relatively recently and assume that it's the only or the best wargame in existence, and if they have problems with 40k they should quit wargaming entirely.
So yes, I'm bitter, and frustrated, and salty, because I feel like wargaming was my hobby and that I enjoy it when I get to do it, but I don't enjoy official-standard 9th and I feel like the 9e evangelists are trying to take my hobby away by turning all games/communities/players into 9e 40k and telling me that if I'm not having fun playing official-standard 40k I need to quit wargaming.
It's not 'everyone' and drop the hyperbole. I don't. Gert doesn't. I can think of at least a dozen posters here on this site who don't. In the real.world my group doesn't...
I'm sorry I went off on a bit of a rant here. I'm aware you mean well and aren't trying to be offensive, but the "are you sure it's the game, or are you playing it wrong?" stuff reads as patronizing to me; it gets followed up by questions and suggestions that I feel like assume I'm a moron who jumps straight to shouting on the Internet and has made no efforts to improve their situation.
'Playing it wrong' covers a lot of ground to be fair; more important is who you play with and how you play. It is entirely possible to play a game or play amongst peers in a manner that is toxic and ultimately self-destructive. And in a manner than you do not enjoy. That is absolutely 'playing it wrong'. Might not be your 'fault' in any way but it is what it is.
And to be fair, I don't know you or your city or your peers but it seems all the 'different' groups you go to aren't all that different. Its not surprising all your experiences are similar - you're not seeing or experiencing the alternative that absolutely does exist. Suggestions doesn't mean you're a moron or are being patronising or that people think that- it's people trying to help and frankly it strike me as though you are looking in the wrong places, unaware of where the right places could be or just repeating approaches(or being forced into repeating approaches) constantly that don't work. It takes a toll. I can see that. It's like a personal wound. And for what it's worth, You're taking this far too personally, whether this is intentional or not. These aren't attacks against you. Hence the suggestion to take a break. Youre stewing. And Stewing where you are isn't helping you. And hey, I've been there too.
I met 2 of the guys I play with at a local indy gaming club (warmachine, historicals, 40k) near where I worked that met in a small town library. They did not and don't play tournaments. Theu're wary of playing in stores. Thry played in the dark age (pre internet) where connecting with fellow wargamers was incredibly difficult. Yet they did it. They guys I became friends with had been playing since the 70s and 80s and were big into historicals. I was their introduction to 'other' games and infinity blew their minds. We left the club and played more comfortably at one of their houses - converted garage. Far more comfy and less flgs and club drama. Plus friendly dog. I've since introduced them to plenty games and vice versa. More than anything they introduced me to a different way of playing- casual, narrative, DIY, homebrewing. Everything you claim no one does. Our group has expanded to six since then and six like minded players is plenty. 2 of them are new and really only got into it through us, as adults.
This world does exist.
And there's nothing stopping you building it either. Start with one person. Find some crusty old wargamers. a lot of what you're looking for is, in my experience, bread and butter for older generations and especially historicals.
I don't play 9th. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when I decided I'd bite the bullet and try to update my Deathwatch army with more current models in late 8th, only for my stuff to get a massive pile of unnecessary nerfs and absolutely no buffs in the updated book in 9th. I pop up here on Dakka now and again to complain because I do feel insulted by the crowd of people saying "no, the game is perfectly fine, it's just that too many players are donkey-caves."
The problem is the game is not fine AND too many players are donkey-caves.
After reading Rake's subjective experiences, and in particular the breakdown of how typical conversations tend to go, gotta say he's kinda been through the ringer- both in person and on line.
I may have even contributed to this unintentionally, and if so, apologies. There's nothing I can really say, accept that sucks.
I also get now why you keep posting- I see the message you're trying to get out.
I think that a lot of people who say these things are genuinely trying to be helpful; they may be confused because their experience doesn't match yours, and so they start hypothesizing about why that might be... But every hypothesis they throw out with the best intentions is still just going to feel like "Play different" - especially if you've heard it a thousand times before.
So point taken- there are other games, both GW and non-GW out there that can work for folks who are fed up and exhausted with 9th. Rake, Sim, Unit and some of the other dudes who share these frustrations are probably great resources for suggestions, and Mezmorki and his crew have put a lot of energy and love into Pro-Hammer, and it seems like a pretty excellent option too.
The flip side though, is that obviously, there are people who like the current version. Some of them are tourney folks, but others aren't. Some of them are Crusaders, but others aren't. Their subjective experiences must somehow be different from Rakes- let's not bother trying to figure out how, he's heard it all before, and it will just come across as another schmuck telling him he's playing wrong.
The point is that these players, who are happy with the current state of affairs also have a message that they want to get out. Where Rake feels like his message is drowned out by a conspiracy of apologists and white knights, these folks often feel like their message is being drowned out by a team of haters.
I don't know what the solution is- if you're happy, you want change to be minimal, if you're not, you're probably looking for something more substantial. It's going to be hard for Player A and Player B to compromise, and that's neither Player A or Player B's fault. I'm not entirely sure it's GW's fault either- theoretically it is possible to invent a game that is satisfying for everyone, but once you've put it out there, it's hard to fix without alienating the people who liked it.
Just my take. Not here to tell anyone how to play.
Can someone explain what it means when someone is a "donkey cave"? After 8 years in the US Army, I thought I'd heard just about every possible swear word or insult a human can come up with, many having to do with Donkeys. But this is new to me.
What's wrong with just "Mudhole" As in "I will stomp a mudhole in your face Private, if you do not correct your uniform as soon as you feel comfortable doing so."
I've been pondering this discussion a bit, and had a thought.
I think some thing that has changed slowly over the long haul of editions, which affects the "context" for playing games, is that "standard missions" that get played are increasingly dominated by missions designed around a competitive, tournament format.
What I mean by this is that the missions are symmetrical in their structure and even down to the layout of objectives. Secondary objectives provide a way to optimize your point potential relative to your opponent.
On paper, this sounds great. Of course you want the mission to be fair and the rolled mission to not hand a big favor to your opponent or yourself. You the match to be a test of skill or whatever.
The problem is that the above warps our expectations, both at a competitive tournament level and at a casual level. It's, in a way, a coddling. It's saying that "of course you have just as good a chance of winning as your opponent - don't blame the mission if you lose!"
In older editions, I'm especially thinking of 3rd and 4th that had a petty wide range of missions types, there were some missions certain armies were just going to be worse at, others they'd be better at. You'd try to hedge your bets by making an army list that could cover all the bases, but the point still remained.
I feel like, as a result of this older style of mission, it helped actually undercut some of the hyper-competitive mindset. You couldn't optimize a list perfectly. You knew some games were going to be an uphill battle to win, and would hope that it would even out across multiple games overtime. It just felt more easy going. The more varied missions with unusual setups made normal matches and their mission pool feel more narrative based, rather than competitive based.
I recall people complaining about older editions but then realizing their groups MO was just to play the cleanse mission over and over, or similar symmetrical setups. They complained about overpowered lists, dull repetitive games, etc.
All of this had led to a bifurcation of matches/competitive players versus narrative/crusade players and their associated attitudes towards the game. I think everyone, and the game itself inherently, leaned more towards a narrative "let's see what happens!" style of play that's missing more and more.
Deadnight wrote: 'Isnt so bad' is pretty relative but kind of meaningless if you ask me.
To where players can make lists that seem right and play against each other without the game or overpowered codexes taking a gak on people's fun.
Deadnight wrote: And 'necessary' is a poor benchmark. I've played a lot of systems in multiple countries and have never seen a ttg where new people didn't reach out to vets or vets weren't encouraged to pass on what they knew.
It's different when you need vets to walk you through the game system not flatlining when you play it "wrong."
Deadnight wrote: 'Isnt so bad' is pretty relative but kind of meaningless if you ask me.
To where players can make lists that seem right and play against each other without the game or overpowered codexes taking a gak on people's fun.
If that's your metric then pretty much every ttg fails. Every game has easy-to-walk-into-match up-issues, especially if you don't know any better. 40k isn't the only horse in town with lopsided factions. And I'm pretty sure walking into the likes of haley 2 with someone like p stryker in warmachine is just as frustrating.
Deadnight wrote: And 'necessary' is a poor benchmark. I've played a lot of systems in multiple countries and have never seen a ttg where new people didn't reach out to vets or vets weren't encouraged to pass on what they knew.
It's different when you need vets to walk you through the game system not flatlining when you play it "wrong.".
See above. That's ^every game^.
Which is why its so important to teach, guide and accommodate our peers.
Then they move on, or try and figure it out through the various means available. Personal responsibility is a thing.
The playerbase isn't responsible for GW's boneheaded rules and profit-wringing behavior.
And yet, when they refuse to help or accommodate each other, or consider working around the issus and instead weaponise every sharp edge in the game and gleefully inflict it on their peers they're just as complicit. Both sides of the exact same coin. And when they refuse to acknowkedge their own part in it, or that there's anything they can do, I rapidly start to lose sympathy for them. Personal responsibility is a thing.
Ordana wrote: Plus you don't see the work put into trying to create 2 lists that will have a fun game, something that normally doesn't happen when 2 people play a pick up game at a store/club.
Maybe, I've played since 3rd and ALWAYS considered pre-game work to tone up/down the lists as standard part of the game. Sometimes pre-game work isn't necessary as players know very well each other armies or the specific collections of the players are already pretty balanced to each other. That's what happened in most of my games in 9th edition, we didn't really need pre-game work to get fun balanced games. And that's another reason why I like 9th edition.
I've never considered random pick up games the best way to play a game like 40k, or any GW game to be honest. But in this edition it works very well at competitive levels, tournaments are pretty balanced right now. And in casual metas it works better than in the past.
It doesn't mean 9th edition is perfect. It simply satisfies what I'm expecting from a game like 40k. Sometimes it's not "playing it wrong", it's expecting 40k to be something it never was and probably never will be.
The playerbase isn't responsible for GW's boneheaded rules and profit-wringing behavior.
And yet, when they refuse to help or accommodate each other, or consider working around the issus and instead weaponise every sharp edge in the game and gleefully inflict it on their peers they're just as complicit. Both sides of the exact same coin. And when they refuse to acknowkedge their own part in it, or that there's anything they can do, I rapidly start to lose sympathy for them. Personal responsibility is a thing.
Who gives the players those sharp edges? Who refuses to dull those edges or take them away? This isn't someone who eats McDonalds every day or drinks 20 litres of coke where the corporation just puts out a product then forgets about it. GW is almost fully in control of the rules and the state of the game and have some control over how people interact with it. Most player will always play with the most recent rules and GW know that. If they don't fix the rules in such a way that it makes it at least difficult for people to be donkey-caves then that is on them.
Who gives the players those sharp edges? Who refuses to dull those edges or take them away?
Let's be clear. I'm not exonnerating gw. theyre not without blame. Theirs is a game that is at best, poor. Their rules? Notoriously bad. Their motivations? Cynical. Manufactured discontent tells. Their balance? Laughable. But all the blame does not belong to them. theirs is only one side of the coin.
Who gives those sharp.edges? Pretty much every person who has ever written a ttg... its almost like these are limited systems ehere sharp/rough edges can't be avoided and can only hold so much weight. Another question to ask is who goes looking for them.
GW is almost fully in control of the rules and the state of the game and have some control over how people interact with it. .
And we the players have all of the control over (a) what they bring to the table, (b) how they play and (c) who they play against and hell, (d) what rules to use (or not!).
Neither you nor I can change gw. What we can do is change our local environment. And consider the game we bring to the table. That is absolutely within our power to affect. Its like the thinking behind recycling. We all do our bit.
Most player will always play with the most recent rules and GW know that.
Will they? I strongly doubt that. The flgs/store crowd? Maybe. Garage gamers? Old hammer players? Casuals? Plenty of us around.
And players that happily buy into this 'chasing the dragon' are just feeding the monster. (Doubling down on all the sharp edges exacerbates further). They players chose this approach. There's other ways of playing. We know full well that this approach is problematic and a big component of the issues with the game. Like I said, players do have a role to play and ofyem are complicit in the issues, just as gw are.
And let's face it, if the approach is problematic or helps contribute to the issues you face, but you keep doing it anyway, well thats on you.
And I'm sorry but my sympathy wears thin very quickly.
If they don't fix the rules in such a way that it makes it at least difficult for people to be donkey-caves then that is on them.
I'll have that fantasy with a side of unicorn please.
Trying to say it's gw's fault people are donkey-caves to either other is incredibly conceited rubbish and moral cowardice. 'Gw and The rules' don't help, but players choosing to weaponise and abuse those sharp edges is the other side of it.that is on the players. And this is in every game. And hey, maybe players should call those jeeks out if theyre poisoning the game or play with likeminded people who dont do that kind of thing instead. Been doing it here for nearly ten years of the 18 I've been actively gaming and im loving my hobby, thanks. Suggests to me that this approach has worth. Frankly this approach saved my hobby for me. Like I said, personal responsibility is a thing.
You're familiar with the term "enabler" yes? I never said it was GW that makes players donkey-caves. I said it was GW that enables them to be donkey-caves. Also don't break up my posts like that if you're going to reply, I post from a mobile so its hard to respond to.
The only "good" unit in this list is the Deffkoptas and since they don't exactly blend in, they die first 
especially since I'll do 3 or 4 hours per model and I have these dudes for the rest of my life and I will always be able to put them on the board.
