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've always been a bit glass-half-empty, but not only do I completely agree with morganfreeman, I think it's a good example that negativity and toxicity are not the same. And I don't think he meant that if you're not critical of GW then you're shilling for them, more like this forum facilitates both good and bad opinions of GW.

I also don't have a problem with your example complaint: "GW makes boring monopose sculpts ...terrible decision to primaris everything ... I'm angry they got rid of options XYZ"
Obviously it's not constructive by itself but to me it sounds like someone passionate about the hobby that wishes GW didn't take it this direction.

And that leads into morganfreeman advocating for 3rd party models and the like. If someone is happy just buying from GW and playing the current edition, that's fine and they shouldn't be insulted for it, but a hobby vet offering their opinion on why they think alternatives are better is fine too.

Spurred by this relative lull in forum activity, I think this thread became the Horus Heresy over Dakka's reputation. This Forum Shall Burn!

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Dakka is unfortunately just a relic of a bygone era. Community boards are out of fashion and they're all dying slow deaths.

And yet here you are, someone I've not encountered in all the time I've been here, helpfully telling me I'm wasting my time because everyone is so negative right after I talk about all my positive experiences.

Thanks for that.

What? No one is talking to you, hell I didn't even read the page your post is on before posting. If you're wasting your time here it's because your posts are low-quality, assuming they're all like this, and the only one being negative here is you.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Dakka is unfortunately just a relic of a bygone era. Community boards are out of fashion and they're all dying slow deaths.

And yet here you are, someone I've not encountered in all the time I've been here, helpfully telling me I'm wasting my time because everyone is so negative right after I talk about all my positive experiences.

Thanks for that.

What? No one is talking to you, hell I didn't even read the page your post is on before posting. If you're wasting your time here it's because your posts are low-quality, assuming they're all like this, and the only one being negative here is you.

Yikes no cap, this homeboy blaxi be bussin straight outta fortcringe.

In all seriousness the vast majority of the players and old blood are no longer the target market of the game. There is less profit to be found in people that have already invested in product, and more to be found in the younger audience that all have ADHD due to the increasingly biologically toxic environment.

Things need to be streamlined, easy to produce and consume and for us, we just aren't it any more.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Dakka is unfortunately just a relic of a bygone era. Community boards are out of fashion and they're all dying slow deaths.

And yet here you are, someone I've not encountered in all the time I've been here, helpfully telling me I'm wasting my time because everyone is so negative right after I talk about all my positive experiences.

Thanks for that.

What? No one is talking to you, hell I didn't even read the page your post is on before posting. If you're wasting your time here it's because your posts are low-quality, assuming they're all like this, and the only one being negative here is you.

Yikes no cap, this homeboy blaxi be bussin straight outta fortcringe.

In all seriousness the vast majority of the players and old blood are no longer the target market of the game. There is less profit to be found in people that have already invested in product, and more to be found in the younger audience that all have ADHD due to the increasingly biologically toxic environment.

Things need to be streamlined, easy to produce and consume and for us, we just aren't it any more.

that last bit is certainly true of myself and most of the people in my game group even the younger ones. i have something akin to 8K in points just for my salmanders (and i still have 2 other "smaller" armies)....and most of it is legends in 10th, i have a bunch of models from FW that they have not made in years. but even then having all the old codexes i can still enjoy 40K the way i always enjoyed it because even if i am not the target audience. i still have everything i need to play the game in the edition/manner i choose. without spending a cent on GW product and that's the last point perfectly.

On a fun side note, i met a brand new 10th ed player last week on game night who plays space wolves...so i showed him the 5th ed codex, after a bit of looking through it and a breif explanation about how the game used to play his response was-"They seem like they were better before".... i just smiled.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Dakka is unfortunately just a relic of a bygone era. Community boards are out of fashion and they're all dying slow deaths.

And yet here you are, someone I've not encountered in all the time I've been here, helpfully telling me I'm wasting my time because everyone is so negative right after I talk about all my positive experiences.

Thanks for that.

What? No one is talking to you, hell I didn't even read the page your post is on before posting. If you're wasting your time here it's because your posts are low-quality, assuming they're all like this, and the only one being negative here is you.

So who then were you speaking to?
I mean, you're the one who posted on a forum page for all to read.....

Yep. If you don't specify then you are speaking to everybody. That's how forums work.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
As humble and insignificant as they might be, i think our crappy photographed subpar tabletop paintjobs and overly common hobby projects are equally the raison d'etre of such a forum.

They are but more aspects we can share and chat about, just as much as rulesets and tactics or stuff. Wargaming is a hobby, it is unnecessary and pointless by itself, and so are any chat about it. If only for us to have a good time. Sharing stories, battlereps, paintjobs, etc help build a good time.

There is a ton of people, who only have their army painted, because minus 10VP means for unpainted army means a lost game, by practicaly every army. They aren't interested in the hobby, they are interested in playing the game. And 10th made a ton of armies they collected legends. Besides a store closing I can't find something that kills a community faster, then people finding out that the armies they have been saving money for a year or two, or more if they are kids, happens to no longer be legal. You are not going to find many people interested in good time, because they are not having a good time right now. Having and being stuck with an annoying army, or one that isn't fun to play was always a reality,at least in the 8-10th ed. But now there is also the aspect of some people and some armies having their armies gone. And to makes matters worse, GW sees no problem with removing marine units from the game, but keeping eldar ones that are much eldar. Armies that had a specific design paradigma, which GW doesn't switch in codex, in an index got demolished. How many Knight Players or dudes who played Custodes, especialy if they had a non FW based army, are in to having fun with w40k right now? Around here they feel more as if GW stole their money, by selling a product that doesn't work.

That's a good point. I can't believe GW actually retired all those models instead of releasing a proxy or counts-as guide, so officially tactical squads count as intercessors, etc.

Tactical's around. Gw recommended what to play attack bikes and assault marines as for example.

Karol wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
As humble and insignificant as they might be, i think our crappy photographed subpar tabletop paintjobs and overly common hobby projects are equally the raison d'etre of such a forum.

They are but more aspects we can share and chat about, just as much as rulesets and tactics or stuff. Wargaming is a hobby, it is unnecessary and pointless by itself, and so are any chat about it. If only for us to have a good time. Sharing stories, battlereps, paintjobs, etc help build a good time.

There is a ton of people, who only have their army painted, because minus 10VP means for unpainted army means a lost game, by practicaly every army. They aren't interested in the hobby, they are interested in playing the game. And 10th made a ton of armies they collected legends. Besides a store closing I can't find something that kills a community faster, then people finding out that the armies they have been saving money for a year or two, or more if they are kids, happens to no longer be legal. You are not going to find many people interested in good time, because they are not having a good time right now. Having and being stuck with an annoying army, or one that isn't fun to play was always a reality,at least in the 8-10th ed. But now there is also the aspect of some people and some armies having their armies gone. And to makes matters worse, GW sees no problem with removing marine units from the game, but keeping eldar ones that are much eldar. Armies that had a specific design paradigma, which GW doesn't switch in codex, in an index got demolished. How many Knight Players or dudes who played Custodes, especialy if they had a non FW based army, are in to having fun with w40k right now? Around here they feel more as if GW stole their money, by selling a product that doesn't work.

I was thinking more about wargaming in general rather than GW games. However you may have a point on the specific GW front, and I can't blame anyone expressing how revolted they are that the collection they have committed so much to are unceremoniously waved away into oblivion. Though this wouldn't be the first time it happens, as, if I am not mistaken, between squats, codices like inquisition, and sub codices that allowed peculiar lists (for instance catachan) have all been disappearing along GW history. Sadly enough.

Still, my point stand: hopefully, wargaming is a way wider hobby than playing a GW ruleset, with many rules, games, minis, and aspects of it from painting to writing stories to converting, or chatting in places like dakka. There is plenty of joy and good times to be found.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I was thinking more about wargaming in general rather than GW games. However you may have a point on the specific GW front, and I can't blame anyone expressing how revolted they are that the collection they have committed so much to are unceremoniously waved away into oblivion. Though this wouldn't be the first time it happens, as, if I am not mistaken, between squats, codices like inquisition, and sub codices that allowed peculiar lists (for instance catachan) have all been disappearing along GW history. Sadly enough.

Still, my point stand: hopefully, wargaming is a way wider hobby than playing a GW ruleset, with many rules, games, minis, and aspects of it from painting to writing stories to converting, or chatting in places like dakka. There is plenty of joy and good times to be found.

There's nothing wrong with commiserating with fellow hobbyists. In some respects, it's a great way to know that you aren't alone in being disappointed.

It can also result in the formation of a community that keeps the old stuff going. The support and interest I get from other 2nd ed. enthusiasts has rekindled my interest and inspired me to expand my circle of opponents.

And of course, I've picked up a new game thanks to input here in Dakka.

For that, I'm sure to get another dose of flame for being negative.

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:
That's a good point. I can't believe GW actually retired all those models instead of releasing a proxy or counts-as guide, so officially tactical squads count as intercessors, etc.

They did that for some models, for others there's legends which are absolutely valid rules to use. If people invent houserules that disallow legends they... should just not use that houserule when it prevents them from playing their minis.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


There is a ton of people, who only have their army painted, because minus 10VP means for unpainted army means a lost game, by practicaly every army. They aren't interested in the hobby, they are interested in playing the game. And 10th made a ton of armies they collected legends. Besides a store closing I can't find something that kills a community faster, then people finding out that the armies they have been saving money for a year or two, or more if they are kids, happens to no longer be legal. You are not going to find many people interested in good time, because they are not having a good time right now. Having and being stuck with an annoying army, or one that isn't fun to play was always a reality,at least in the 8-10th ed. But now there is also the aspect of some people and some armies having their armies gone. And to makes matters worse, GW sees no problem with removing marine units from the game, but keeping eldar ones that are much eldar. Armies that had a specific design paradigma, which GW doesn't switch in codex, in an index got demolished. How many Knight Players or dudes who played Custodes, especialy if they had a non FW based army, are in to having fun with w40k right now? Around here they feel more as if GW stole their money, by selling a product that doesn't work.

I was thinking more about wargaming in general rather than GW games. However you may have a point on the specific GW front, and I can't blame anyone expressing how revolted they are that the collection they have committed so much to are unceremoniously waved away into oblivion. Though this wouldn't be the first time it happens, as, if I am not mistaken, between squats, codices like inquisition, and sub codices that allowed peculiar lists (for instance catachan) have all been disappearing along GW history. Sadly enough.

Holding for one sec.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


There's a difference between constructive discussion and both reinforced positive or negative conversation, I appreciate the candour in acknowledging you feel your own content is almost entirely critical negatively toned comments, but you consider the other option else to be "shilling" which is in itself, a loaded term designed to infer a negative image.

A healthy conversation can have "I don't like X", it can also have "we're here to talk about Y so please stop bringing X into it" when relevant. Space marine kits and their level of monobuild is always a fine line I see walked on B&C which has a rep for being positively skewed by moderation as an example, where "they're a bit mono pose to me, I'm not a fan of this trend" is ok, but "GW have been making boring monopose sculpts since they made that terrible decision to primaris everything and I'm angry they got rid of options XYZ" isn't helpful and would likely get blatted.

So I really don't appreciate the first part of this. While I acknowledge the negative aspects of my posting. I'm distinctly not indicating talking about discussion because those "negatives" only come up in threads and conversations where it's pertinent. And then they're rarely the point I'm making in and of itself.

I've no issue voicing my opinions but only when relevant and they're rarely the "main" point. IIRC the last time I commented on not supporting GW was when the HH Rumors thread started talking about how many 3rd party Etsy bits were available. And my contribution was to point out that a large portion of that "boom" was due to GW's own incompetence.

Dudeface wrote:


That doesn't sound like someone that likes something, that sound like someone who is a negative state of disapproval towards something. I'm also willing to place a fair bet it comes from a place of frustration and broken expectations.

I'm detecting a bit of a theme here.

I don't agree with how you construe negative. Or, at least, I don't think it applies to Dakka.

I view myself as "negative" in that I hold negative opinions of aspects of the hobby and will not refrain from voicing them if they become relevant. However I am not negative in the sense of barelling into every thread and yeeting out hatred where it has absolutely no place. So discussing negative aspects, but only when relevant or called for; not trolling or forcing my opinion into unwelcome spaces. Furthermore, for me at least, the negativity is often times not the point. Referring to my comment on the 3rd party HH scene, the point of that was at the glut of options available. The "negativity" was indicating that the cause was GW's incompetent, which also served to highlight how they're often their own undoing given GW's constant efforts to strangle the third party scene.

As for me myself: I really like 40k as a hobby and a setting. I spend hours and mad amounts of $$$ on it for those reasons. I also think GW is a company run by brain damaged hogs and 40k is garbage as a wargame.

And even then I'm specific. I hate what 40k is because it's no longer the wargame hobby I bought in to. I believe that, as a wargame, 40k has become objectively worse with time. That's not to say that it's a bad game; looking around the internet it honestly looks fine as a babies-first-deck-builder / CCG with hyper expensive tokens and a play-time slowed down by insane little details. That is frankly a fine niche to occupy. And that's absolutely not what I want from 40k.

 aphyon wrote:

that last bit is certainly true of myself and most of the people in my game group even the younger ones. i have something akin to 8K in points just for my salmanders (and i still have 2 other "smaller" armies)....and most of it is legends in 10th, i have a bunch of models from FW that they have not made in years. but even then having all the old codexes i can still enjoy 40K the way i always enjoyed it because even if i am not the target audience. i still have everything i need to play the game in the edition/manner i choose. without spending a cent on GW product and that's the last point perfectly.

On a fun side note, i met a brand new 10th ed player last week on game night who plays space wolves...so i showed him the 5th ed codex, after a bit of looking through it and a breif explanation about how the game used to play his response was-"They seem like they were better before".... i just smiled.

Bit of an unrelated tangent here, but this gives me the perfect opportunity to voice a thought I've had: GW's current strategy is exactly the same as DC's was before Marvel got big.

I'm not much of a comic buff, but for those not in the know DC was the original big-boy. However they decided comics only appealed to children. So they made their strategy to just re-do the same arcs with the same characters every few years, with the idea that their audience was naturally cycling in and out. All they'd have to do was change a few words here and there, maybe draw the art a bit better each time, and other than that very little effort required for never-ending profit.

Well, suffice it to say they were dead wrong. The staleness they brought to the genre they unequivocally controlled allowed other brands to get a foot in the door and then even get on equal footing, leading us to where we are now.

Sound familiar? I won't hold my breathe, but I'd be tickled pink of history repeated itself.

Karol wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

If people invent houserules that disallow legends they... should just not use that houserule when it prevents them from playing their minis.

It is not house rules. They don't even have rules for those units on the app, or in the codex. Now GW may think that open or narrative, is the same kind of a game as matched played, but it is not. And no amount of GW saying that, if your opponent allows it you can use it, won't fix the problem. Remember when rule of 3 was supposed to be just for tournaments, or that 10VP handicap for unpainted was , according to some people, just for tournament games? Well somehow people treated both rules very serious.

If you're not in a tourney it most certainly IS a house rule.

The rules for Legends are published, by GW, on GWs Community site.
These are the official rules for all (well, most anyways. Seems they akways overlook something.) of the discontinued (and now HH) models in your collection.
It does not matter that they are not printed in the codex or provided in the app.

And the reason they are not in the codex or app? Is because GW is not advertising models they don't sell.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Holding for one sec.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


There's a difference between constructive discussion and both reinforced positive or negative conversation, I appreciate the candour in acknowledging you feel your own content is almost entirely critical negatively toned comments, but you consider the other option else to be "shilling" which is in itself, a loaded term designed to infer a negative image.

A healthy conversation can have "I don't like X", it can also have "we're here to talk about Y so please stop bringing X into it" when relevant. Space marine kits and their level of monobuild is always a fine line I see walked on B&C which has a rep for being positively skewed by moderation as an example, where "they're a bit mono pose to me, I'm not a fan of this trend" is ok, but "GW have been making boring monopose sculpts since they made that terrible decision to primaris everything and I'm angry they got rid of options XYZ" isn't helpful and would likely get blatted.

So I really don't appreciate the first part of this. While I acknowledge the negative aspects of my posting. I'm distinctly not indicating talking about discussion because those "negatives" only come up in threads and conversations where it's pertinent. And then they're rarely the point I'm making in and of itself.

I've no issue voicing my opinions but only when relevant and they're rarely the "main" point. IIRC the last time I commented on not supporting GW was when the HH Rumors thread started talking about how many 3rd party Etsy bits were available. And my contribution was to point out that a large portion of that "boom" was due to GW's own incompetence.

Dudeface wrote:


That doesn't sound like someone that likes something, that sound like someone who is a negative state of disapproval towards something. I'm also willing to place a fair bet it comes from a place of frustration and broken expectations.

I'm detecting a bit of a theme here.

I don't agree with how you construe negative. Or, at least, I don't think it applies to Dakka.

I view myself as "negative" in that I hold negative opinions of aspects of the hobby and will not refrain from voicing them if they become relevant. However I am not negative in the sense of barelling into every thread and yeeting out hatred where it has absolutely no place. So discussing negative aspects, but only when relevant or called for; not trolling or forcing my opinion into unwelcome spaces. Furthermore, for me at least, the negativity is often times not the point. Referring to my comment on the 3rd party HH scene, the point of that was at the glut of options available. The "negativity" was indicating that the cause was GW's incompetent, which also served to highlight how they're often their own undoing given GW's constant efforts to strangle the third party scene.

As for me myself: I really like 40k as a hobby and a setting. I spend hours and mad amounts of $$$ on it for those reasons. I also think GW is a company run by brain damaged hogs and 40k is garbage as a wargame.

And even then I'm specific. I hate what 40k is because it's no longer the wargame hobby I bought in to. I believe that, as a wargame, 40k has become objectively worse with time. That's not to say that it's a bad game; looking around the internet it honestly looks fine as a babies-first-deck-builder / CCG with hyper expensive tokens and a play-time slowed down by insane little details. That is frankly a fine niche to occupy. And that's absolutely not what I want from 40k.

First up, sorry if any offense was taken, that really wasn't the intent. I actually really appreciated the openness and tone of your post. I haven't really noted your posts in particular and didn't drove through your post history to review content, I leaned on your own admission of having negative thoughts.

I do agree that the definition of negative is actually the issue here, as it isn't a clear thing and the mods seemingly aren't set on what it represents either.

There are 3 types of negativity in my opinion you can run into, the first being genuine negative comment regards a product/practice/company as they have done something less than great or that could be done better, which is likely where I'd imagine the bulk of yours fall from your explanation. This generally comes from a place of passion for something and caring how good it is. Generally this results in good open conversation.

The second are those who simply dislike things and feels a need to constantly state how bad something is, assume the worst, irrespective of what it is. The "GW bad and always will be" camp if you like. Those who are never pleased with anything they put out and seemingly are here because they're entrenched in the game/setting and are either playing old editions or just sticking with it out of a lack of options. These are the "negative majority" you tend to hit a lot or associate with dakka, in my experience. It's not fun to engage with, becomes tiring to read over and over and you question if they even enjoy what they do.

The third kind are those who tell you you're doing it wrong if you don't agree or happen to like something. These are the perpetual boycotters, make critical comments against others who aren't on their page, tell you not to support things, want the game and the company to go under etc. What would otherwise be a confrontational troll. Some of these have gone lately, some posters fall in here part time, but there's still a few which don't help that negative image of the forum.

That's not to say that there aren't other people who have a poor tone (evidently mine included) sometimes who aren't being negative, but they tend to be the minority in the bun fight.

Regardless it feels a pointless conversation to me, as negative in the context of the forum behaviour is a subjective construct, but given it's the label of discussion here and it is an emotionally charged one, it's hard to fairly ascribe it to a place or person in a detached logical manner.

I know next to nothing about comic book history either but is there a Marvel or even a company the next tier down there to take the crown from GW. I've seen them come close to having competitors a few times (Mantic, War Machine) but they've always faded away when GW puts in a big marketing and PR push.

I don't know anything about comics - but GW is successful precisely because it manages that process of cycling players in and out, and has done for decades.

Any competitor has to do the same thing. Look at Warmahordes, look at X-Wing. They've broken themselves on this process. Your business depends on selling existing players new stuff. This brings bloat, complexity and puts new players off. But then you have a reset and you alienate the existing players. Which results in games that were at one point giving 40k a run for its money are now toast.

Battletech for instance is doing well at the moment - but will it last? Or is it the case that a lot of people are buying in - and once they are in that's it. They are done. And then they'll fade out and the sales will fade away with them.

 Dominar_Jameson_V wrote:
That's a good point. I can't believe GW actually retired all those models instead of releasing a proxy or counts-as guide, so officially tactical squads count as intercessors, etc.

The Chapterhouse lawsuit and its consequences have been a disaster for humankind. Sometimes it feels like kitbashing and proxying are the boogeyman that keeps GW awake at night.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The Chapterhouse lawsuit and its consequences have been a disaster for humankind. Sometimes it feels like kitbashing and proxying are the boogeyman that keeps GW awake at night.

I'd say that reliable and good clones or piracy of their golden goose (the models) is exactly what keeps them up at night!

Dai wrote:
[
I'd say that reliable and good clones or piracy of their golden goose (the models) is exactly what keeps them up at night!

And as Gaben Newell famously said, "piracy is always a service problem". GWs problems are all self-inflicted through combinations of apathy and greed. Especially during the era when the chapterhouse lawsuit was going on, for a "golden goose" GW was sure doing a terrible job of supporting it.

Exalted for rightfully citing Gaben

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Dai wrote:
[
I'd say that reliable and good clones or piracy of their golden goose (the models) is exactly what keeps them up at night!

And as Gaben Newell famously said, "piracy is always a service problem". GWs problems are all self-inflicted through combinations of apathy and greed. Especially during the era when the chapterhouse lawsuit was going on, for a "golden goose" GW was sure doing a terrible job of supporting it.

I don't disagree, just saying if there is one thing that they are having sleepless nights about it is copies of their minis being made cheaply and reliably available!

Dai wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Dai wrote:
[
I'd say that reliable and good clones or piracy of their golden goose (the models) is exactly what keeps them up at night!

And as Gaben Newell famously said, "piracy is always a service problem". GWs problems are all self-inflicted through combinations of apathy and greed. Especially during the era when the chapterhouse lawsuit was going on, for a "golden goose" GW was sure doing a terrible job of supporting it.

I don't disagree, just saying if there is one thing that they are having sleepless nights about it is copies of their minis being made cheaply and reliably available!

This conjures up an image of gw's offices being entirely staffed by Mr. Krabs clones, which made me laugh.

Interesting observation when we discussed this topic at the FLGS this weekend. when it comes to 10th, we see loads of people playing tournaments in our anecdotal experience. but almost nobody playing pickup/casual games at the FLGS. if you look back through my posts in my weekly game store updates we see at most 3 different games of 10th ed 40K being played, but usually less, by comparison some nights there are half a dozen different battle tech games going on as well as everything else. including oldhammer, and various non-GW games. most of the 40K vets just are "not feeling" the new edition. it isn't the kind of game they are looking for.

Interesting side note...recent interview with Andy Chambers, he wanted to do away with the IGOUGO system in 3rd ed, BUT GW would not let him. that would have completely changed the design flow of the game IMHO.

Was that why 3.5ed was created in a few weeks and the "real" 4th ed rules were used to make the Starship Trooper game, after he left GW? Because that is what people around here tell how it went down.

From my point of view I can only envy people that have those 100+ players communities where different types of w40k can and are played. Around here the difference between tournament games and tournament rules, and the regular store games, is more linked to how much a given player can afford and how easy, for a regular player, it is to get a specific models.
So the csm tournament player will have the 3 lords, 3 rhinos, 3 chosen, 3 mutants and dark commune, with forgefiend support and nurglings. While the regular store player or someone who is just starting csm will have the same list minus the 6 boxes of mutants+commune, because those are hard to get and super expensive. So his list may have oblits, maybe some legioneries or cultists. The eldar player, is probably not running 2 hornets, but the rest of the list will be the same. the space marine player sure as hell didn't buy 3 boxes of kill team to get primaris scouts or the centurions, but the maxed aggresor unit with maxed intereceptors are going to be there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs 812319 11620858 wrote:

And the reason they are not in the codex or app? Is because GW is not advertising models they don't sell.

If GW were to remove from the game all the units that they don't sell, then we would be in an "interesting" position. Because on one hand a great chunk their core model lines are out of stock for months, and stores can not order them. While at the same time, there are units, mostly eldar for some reason, like Fugen, which GW doesn't sell, but somehow do not get legened for some reason. If something is not in the codex, not in the app, and GW doesn't care for updating the rules, never mind the units they just straight up removed. Then to allow those things is a house rule. But this argument has no point, it is like telling people that X is fine in narrative or fixed by opponent being "nice". Legends are not played at events, and if they aren't played at events, people won't allow them to be used in regular games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

The Chapterhouse lawsuit and its consequences have been a disaster for humankind. Sometimes it feels like kitbashing and proxying are the boogeyman that keeps GW awake at night.

GW, if it was possible for them, would be open to have models that bio degrade after 2-3 years. The stuff they do just so people have to buy every load out, can't use same units for multiple games is so bad, that at some points it just becomes laughable. Plastic contemtpors and other HH tanks/models , which they advertised as usable in w40k, suddenly became illegal, because of "lore" updates. Some factions can have basic gear for their entire army, when others have a page sized upgrade option list for one unit. Design team members are allowed to have pet projects and pet armies, with which they run wild, no matter, if models for the stuff are plastic/resin/etc, others have perfectly fine and new plastic model lines removed. And on top of that the changes and fixing takes YEARS for GW. Primaris came out in 8th, GW will maybe finish updating their stuff for various marines factions in maybe 11th or 12th ed? That is maybe okey for a community of 35+ super fans, what is another 6-9 years of waiting when they already waited for that long or more. But a large enough group of new players, who want to start a specific army, are not going to stay for 6 years. Hoping that now they will spend 600-1000$ on stuff they do not want, but maybe in the future GW will update it and then they can rebuy the army.

Other games, including ones from other companies, are much better at player retention then what is going on with w40k. I wonder if the company even cares about it though, maybe their business plan is that in the next 10-15years their core audiance will be 45-60y oldes and practicaly no new players. GW is to a large degree a monopolist that runs on inertia. If they were a new company, and tried the stuff they are doing now, their games and the company would be dead in 3-4 years.

 aphyon wrote:


Interesting side note...recent interview with Andy Chambers, he wanted to do away with the IGOUGO system in 3rd ed, BUT GW would not let him. that would have completely changed the design flow of the game IMHO.

That's not what he said.

He says verbatim-

Definitely by 3rd edition we should have ditched the IGOUGO approach. I stood up for it, I used to argue for it. I like the way it let you sort of like execute a plan with all of your stuff at once. It seemed very clear cut to me, but looking back on it now now, there's just seeds of destruction are built into that, there are really too much hangs off who gets first turn and stuff like that, and you can mitigate it by hiding and overwatch and stuff like that, but at its core, satisfying as it is to be able to use your whole army at once, it's it's a flawed mechanism I feel. I don't design games like that any more. And I mean, if I'd learned properly earlier on I wouldn't have done it at that point but there you go...

The "it" he is referring to in that quote is the Andy Chambers of the mid 90s favouring IGOUGO in game design, which present day Andy Chambers does not.

You are correct i was thinking of the written interview he did about 4th ed where early 2000's Andy wanted to ditch IGOUGO and GW said no.

Karol wrote:

Other games, including ones from other companies, are much better at player retention then what is going on with w40k.

This is difficult to prove.

Certainly right now, there's a lot of annecdotal evidence that legacy players are leaving this particular edition.

But GW continue to be the dominant force in the industry, so they are replacing legacy players with equal or close to equal numbers of new players.

You look at a game like Battletech, and certainly it's as old as 40k or close to it, and it's seeing a surge in popularity now, but it's changed ownership 4 or 5 times in its lifespan.

PenitentJake wrote:

Karol wrote:

Other games, including ones from other companies, are much better at player retention then what is going on with w40k.

This is difficult to prove.

Certainly right now, there's a lot of annecdotal evidence that legacy players are leaving this particular edition.

But GW continue to be the dominant force in the industry, so they are replacing legacy players with equal or close to equal numbers of new players.

You look at a game like Battletech, and certainly it's as old as 40k or close to it, and it's seeing a surge in popularity now, but it's changed ownership 4 or 5 times in its lifespan.

I think if 40k faced the same issues as Battletech has it wouldbe in even worse shape.