Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I wasn't going to bring up sideboards for major events but yeah, there are those too.

Though GW did have sideboards at one time. Around 250-300 or so points back in the early 00's if i remember right.

Maybe I'm just not that cynical, but perhaps the Allies ability is to allow vet gamers to use their diverse collections together in game now.

 cincydooley wrote:
Maybe I'm just not that cynical, but perhaps the Allies ability is to allow vet gamers to use their diverse collections together in game now.

+1

I have been collecting since 1989 and I am so glad they allow allies again. I still have my old squat trikes and there data card. I get new players crying all the time because my term's are on 25mm bases or that my Meganob orks are NOT really mega armoured cause they have never seen the original model before. They even say my old marnius is not a real model from GW cause he is sitting on a throne and looks "cheap". So........ I have stopped going to that store :(

Back on topic. No you do not have to pay to win. My wolves and orks are all old old old models and I have not bought a new model since 92. I win more then I lose and I tend to win armies that favour the "new hotness" over sound tactics.

Having said that, if you can't adapt your old army tactics to combat these new threats (IE flyers) you will face some diffacult times.

 cincydooley wrote:
Maybe I'm just not that cynical, but perhaps the Allies ability is to allow vet gamers to use their diverse collections together in game now.

Allies are also a gateway to starting a new army. You start with a codex, HQ, troop, and maybe one other unit. Then you think "Just one more troop and I can field them by themselves" next thing you know you need to buy more shelves to hold all your stuff.

 Nevelon wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Maybe I'm just not that cynical, but perhaps the Allies ability is to allow vet gamers to use their diverse collections together in game now.

Allies are also a gateway to starting a new army. You start with a codex, HQ, troop, and maybe one other unit. Then you think "Just one more troop and I can field them by themselves" next thing you know you need to buy more shelves to hold all your stuff.

As if gamers need an excuse to buy more figures

 Ugavine wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Maybe I'm just not that cynical, but perhaps the Allies ability is to allow vet gamers to use their diverse collections together in game now.

Allies are also a gateway to starting a new army. You start with a codex, HQ, troop, and maybe one other unit. Then you think "Just one more troop and I can field them by themselves" next thing you know you need to buy more shelves to hold all your stuff.

As if gamers need an excuse to buy more figures

the gamers themselves don't need excuses, but they need to produce them anyhow

 poda_t wrote:

the gamers themselves don't need excuses, but they need to produce them anyhow

That's what The Wife tells me...

Well, some players will only do stuff if GW officially says "Ok folks, use 3000+ armies and field whatever you want".

rigeld2 wrote:
... and that's my point. I spend that much to stay up to date. If you don't want to stay up to date, you don't have to. At all.

Even when your cards rotate out of standard they aren't invalidated. You can still sell/trade them for current cards and not spend a dime.

For what I spend on magic you can get a single army. I've built about a dozen decks that are standard legal, have 4-5 more that are in progress and have a sizeable collection of trade fodder.

$700 is a lot for anything, but pretending that Magic is more expensive than 40k is just untrue.

I got a 4000 point warriors of chaos army and I didn't spend a dime because I traded armies I don't use anymore for it. It cost me less to do than getting into magic:the gathering. See I did the same thing you did!!

 Hulksmash wrote:
I don't know about made awesome to sell models. You guys have seen the rules for the Dark Angels flyers and new speeders right? Or the new Tzeentch chariot? And the Khorne chariot feels less a must than a Soul Grinder that's been out for years. As for Chaos's new kits only the dragon stands out. The rest of the new kits were mediocre game wise at best.

If you could refrain from expressing your own opinion and making it sound objectively true, that'd be great. There is certainly no lack of interest in new releases that I can see. I bet many people would spend huge amounts of money the next time their army gets a new codex.

 Generalian wrote:

An average warhammer player playing competitive warhammer spends roughly $600 every year.
(just 40k)

Please tell me what a competitive Necron or GK player is spending his $600 on this year? Or are you just making gak up?

 BryllCream wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I don't know about made awesome to sell models. You guys have seen the rules for the Dark Angels flyers and new speeders right? Or the new Tzeentch chariot? And the Khorne chariot feels less a must than a Soul Grinder that's been out for years. As for Chaos's new kits only the dragon stands out. The rest of the new kits were mediocre game wise at best.

If you could refrain from expressing your own opinion and making it sound objectively true, that'd be great. There is certainly no lack of interest in new releases that I can see. I bet many people would spend huge amounts of money the next time their army gets a new codex.

I don't know you from Adam. I trust Hulk's opinions though. They may not be objectively true, but he's proven, over time, that he knows what he's talking about. Unlike the "many people" you reference, who would probably buy dog crap if it had a GW box.

 Redbeard wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I don't know about made awesome to sell models. You guys have seen the rules for the Dark Angels flyers and new speeders right? Or the new Tzeentch chariot? And the Khorne chariot feels less a must than a Soul Grinder that's been out for years. As for Chaos's new kits only the dragon stands out. The rest of the new kits were mediocre game wise at best.

If you could refrain from expressing your own opinion and making it sound objectively true, that'd be great. There is certainly no lack of interest in new releases that I can see. I bet many people would spend huge amounts of money the next time their army gets a new codex.

I don't know you from Adam. I trust Hulk's opinions though. They may not be objectively true, but he's proven, over time, that he knows what he's talking about. Unlike the "many people" you reference, who would probably buy dog crap if it had a GW box.

I'd rather buy dog crap in a GW box on it than accept someone else's ideas as my own without bothering to state my own opinion. That's just weird

@bryllcream

No need to be rude. I'm pointing out that people are saying they make rules to sell models. That's not even close to correct.

Being condescending doesn't change the fact that many of the new models rules are not stellar. In fact many of them I'd personally consider sub-par.

Like I said earlier. If I didn't have an attention problem or get crazy ideas I'd spend less than $200 in a year on GW (not counting actual events) and maybe less. That amount is basically for a few units to compensate (if needed) for new codexes. That's at a fairl decent competitive level (I attend 5-6 GT's a year and regularly finish pretty high). So my original statement stands, 40k doesn't reward money spent if you can keep Forgeworld out of it.

Most of the new models are quite sub-par. Not even being Flyers can make the Nephelim and Dark Talonfrom being anything other than meh.

The Dark Shroud is useful in a Bike and Speeder army, but I think thats more luck of the draw than any deliberate attempt on GWs part.

I've personally always regarded most GW released units as sub-par. Within 40k the only armies I like aesthetically are some vanilla marines, GKs, Cadians and eldar. Maybe some orks.

Most of the others I've always thought like crap. Except those 2nd edition gretchins with autoguns. They were sweet

I was discussing rules, not models since that was what I was discussing previously when you decided to be condescending. Model wise GW generally does an excellent job and many of the sub-par rule releases have had some really cool kits. I like the Plasma Speeder, Nephelim Fighter, New Raptors, the Maulerfiend, Deathwing Knights, Nurgle Fly guys, and Tzeentch chariot to name a few.

I posted in reply to a comment specifically referring to new model releases. Rules wise, I've not played any others so I can't compare them. But speaking personally I know that my friends and I enjoy having fun yet competative battles, and I know many people do.

So do most tournament players. But if the theory being advanced is that people need to spend more money buying new kits to keep up competitively, because GW deliberately makes new kits more powerful, then that thesis falls down in the face of the many examples of new expensive kits which have sub-par rules.

Chaos Spawn are one of the classic examples; they got a new awesome kit for the previous codex, but back then they were arguably the single worst unit in the entire game. For more current examples we can take Raptors/Warp Talons, or the new Dark Angels flyers. I'm tempted to buy one anyway just because the model is cool, but there's no way on earth that I need one if I want to play competitively and keep up in tournaments.

@bryllcream

Except I was referencing rules, not models when you responded to me. So basically you misread what I was posting about and then got uppity. It's cool, happens.

And yeah Mannahnin, we're on the same page on that model. So pretty, so not playable. Maybe as a counts-as Avenger in FW legal games?

I'm so ignorant about most FW units, I couldn't tell you. I had the vague thought that it might be converted into an alternate Storm Talon for a DA force using the C:SM rules, or using C: SM allies.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@bryllcream

No need to be rude. I'm pointing out that people are saying they make rules to sell models. That's not even close to correct.

Being condescending doesn't change the fact that many of the new models rules are not stellar. In fact many of them I'd personally consider sub-par.

Like I said earlier. If I didn't have an attention problem or get crazy ideas I'd spend less than $200 in a year on GW (not counting actual events) and maybe less. That amount is basically for a few units to compensate (if needed) for new codexes. That's at a fairl decent competitive level (I attend 5-6 GT's a year and regularly finish pretty high). So my original statement stands, 40k doesn't reward money spent if you can keep Forgeworld out of it.

I think that there are aspects of your original statement that do not stand up to scrutiny. Although the 'best' 40k army may not be the most expensive one, you can most likely improve an army by spending money. An example, are special weapons. Many kits do not come with an optimal set of special weapons. By spending more money you can buy the optimal weapons and improve your army. Another issue is that over time, the game has changed, and with it the optimal armies and units also change. When I began playing in 2nd ed, vehicles were not an important part of the game. They are now. Sure, I could play with my old models, but I would be at a severe disadvantage. Hence, money spent is rewarded in the game. In 6th, flyers and large numbers of models are important. Most flyers are relatively recent releases. This causes vets to spend money or be at a disadvantage. Similar changes happen when a new codex is released. These days plain gaunts or dev gaunts are better than gaunts with fists. In the previous codex gaunts with fists were better. The old nid codex was vastly more competitive than the new one. A competitive player could sell the army to buy a top tier one. The alternative is to be at a disadvantage.

All of this being said, one must compare 40k to other game systems. The latter type of change, that of editions and codicies, happens in most games. Privateer press made substantial changes to Warmachine in MKII. Some people could argue GW are worse than most other companies in this regard. For example, Wood Elves used to be a top tier army. In 8th they are not even mid tier. You would have to spend a fair chunk of change to buy a new competitive army. If you sold your old one, you would take a big loss, as it is not competitive. The lack of weapon options is something that GW is worse about than other miniature companies. (It used to not be a problem when you could order bits. Now it is an issue, especially with the price of plastic kits rivaling the old cost of metals.) Most other companies either sell the mini as it should be equipped, or sell bits to outfit the mini any want you want.

Thats why there are 3rd party bits sellers. Their existance has filled a hole and makes any claims that you have to spend extra money to be competitive much less true. I can get a pack of any special or heavy weapons on the internet for only a few bucks.

I am not a tourney player, are non GW bit tourney legal?

The availability of 3rd party bits still does not address entire armies or unit types that have been scrapped. Squats, Halflings, Chaos Dwarfs. (What does GW have against little people?) Then there are the units that get shifted out of a codex, like Dragon ogres got taken away from Beastmen.

3rd party or converted weapons are perfectly legal in 90%+ of tournaments. GW doesn't really run or support big events in most countries anymore.

When GW stopped doing major tournaments they basically destroyed the only sort of control they had over players using their models.

Now nothing prevents you from using 3rd party bits or even complete models.

Adepticon, until a few years ago, used to be substantially supported by GW, and GW used to fly guys from the studio out the speak on panels, do presentations, talk about upcoming releases, etc. I saw Jervis, got to meet Phil Kelly when the Ork codex was new and chat with him (a friend of mine played him in one of the tournaments), etc. Adepticon, at the time, also maintained a 100% GW policy for its GW events.

When GW pulled its major support, that rule went away, as there was no longer a good reason to keep it.

Well, it looks like the bits are not an issue.

Codicies and nerfing stuff is, but those are reasons that people are gravitating away from 40k as a tournament game. If you are truly casual, then money does not matter. You don't find many such people.

 spaceelf wrote:
Well, it looks like the bits are not an issue.

Codicies and nerfing stuff is, but those are reasons that people are gravitating away from 40k as a tournament game. If you are truly casual, then money does not matter. You don't find many such people.

I'd argue you find more such people than you do tournament players. There's more people playing casually at clubs and stores and at home than there are people attending major tournaments - it would be impossible for any company to grow to the size it has on tournament players alone. While it might seem like there's a lot when you're in a room packed with players at a major convention, those 300 or so people - even counting all major and minor tournaments yearly, would be a pittance of GW's customer base.

The reason tournament players don't find these people is they don't care to look for them.

 -Loki- wrote:

 spaceelf wrote:
Well, it looks like the bits are not an issue.

Codicies and nerfing stuff is, but those are reasons that people are gravitating away from 40k as a tournament game. If you are truly casual, then money does not matter. You don't find many such people.

I'd argue you find more such people than you do tournament players. There's more people playing casually at clubs and stores and at home than there are people attending major tournaments - it would be impossible for any company to grow to the size it has on tournament players alone. While it might seem like there's a lot when you're in a room packed with players at a major convention, those 300 or so people - even counting all major and minor tournaments yearly, would be a pittance of GW's customer base.

The reason tournament players don't find these people is they don't care to look for them.

I agree that there are more casual players than tournament ones. However, even most casual players want to win. There was a thread on the topic a while back. I think that it is a rare gamer that just wants to see the game played win or lose.