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.

There's a difference between greed and diminishing returns.

Greed is wanting more then you can use/enjoy. diminishing returns is the inevitable fact that the rate of utility goes down as consumption increases.

Tyranno wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

It's 'greedy' to own more than 5 armies?

It's 'sensible' to reduce to just 1 army because that's all you can realistically afford now?

Whats sensible, unles you're in it for painting/conversion purposes, with each additional army, you're spending high amounts of money to reduce what you're getting out of each army.

If I bought an Empire army, the number of games I'm playing wouldn't suddenly double. I'd be betting half the "value" I'm getting from the High Elf army I already have, which itself would be providing me one half what I had been getting out of it before. Whether it costs infinity million dollars or one cent, the purchase would be impractical. And aside from those really enjoy painting, so would the hours spent painting it.

I'm sorry, but if you have several perfectly usable armies and you're complaining you can't have another and another and another and another, yeah, I believe that constitutes greed, with the exception, I suppose, of those armies (Dwarfs, Lizardmen etc) lacking in options for playstyles that sticking to the army might get dull.

Questions.

1. Do all armies play in the same way, Yes or No ?

2. Do all armies look the same, Yes or No?

If the answer for both questions is No, that each army is played differently and looks different, then you have your answer, people want different ranges and options, both in terms of play and modelling/painting. Being surprised at them then being unhappy about the price now making that desire incompatible with eating and paying the mortgage, whereas before it would have just put a dent in your social spending, well, you read as naive.

I'm not really sure who all this rant post of yours is geared towards, but, again, let me question your qualification to specifically conjure up some illusionary target who owns multiple armies, is complaining they can't own multiple more and at the same time is telling you to quit and play another game, which you somehow manage to take personal issue with, whilst they also blame all the woes of the world on GW. I think you've amalgamated all the moans and groans on this and perhaps other forums and imagined somehow they are all the same persons all complaining about all the things all the time, instead of a collection of various gripes and criticisms, some legitimate and others the product of an anonymous internet facilitating people shouting into the void about anything that crosses their minds.

You are looking at the signal and the noise and claiming it's all noise, whilst making more noise...

This posting is about people and their behavior and even worse: about their hobbies which means it has a little more passion behind it and strongly formed opinions.

There will be all kinds that will behave badly and many that will be great examples of what makes the hobby great.

Feel free to say: I can form my own opinions and it is so fantastic that you are expressing yours, unsolicited!

All that really matters is you bring forward what you like about the hobby and enthusiasm.

Anyone saying this or that is garbage can have completely different meanings of why it is bad (hard to paint, hard to convert, hard to look at, "not worth the points").

I think it best to find other hobbies or work to make you feel like you are wearing the big pants, a more humble and open approach is needed for a social interaction: none of us have to sit and tolerate a jerk (or at least only once).

winterdyne wrote:
Play x-wing. It's a real game.

Actually do. It's probably the best written rulesets I've ever played, and it's bags of fun.

If someone is complaining about balance in 40k they need their head looking at. 40k has never been balanced and was never really intended to be balanced - there is a reason the GW tourneys in rogue trader days were space marine on space marine.

Pfft. Wrestle bears. Thats a REAL game.

Its one thing to suggest other games a person might like, its another to disparage what they are doing at the time.

For example:
"Hey you like the tanks in 40K? Then you should consider EPIC or Flames of War also. They have lots of tank action on differing scales."

vs.
"Pfft. tanks suck in 40K. You should play Flames of War. They do tank rules much better there."

Tyranno wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Hmm, a fresh face new user whose 10th post is to tell GW critics what's wrong with their attitudes.


One of the best things about Dakka, IMHO, is that while still being largely made up of GW fans and players, it's also grown to encompass other games and GW critics as well.

You have a somewhat creative concept of "criticism". Theres at least some who come across as thinking that everything Games Workshop does (alternatively, doesn't do) is bad, no matter what. They present themselves as people dead set in it I wouldn't be surprising if their "opinions" on the newest release were formed without any knowledge beyond the product names.

Yeah, and you cherry picked extreme examples of behavior to support your point of view. Also your broad-brushed assumption that their "opinions" are only based on product names isn't doing anything to help your credibility.

Seriously dude, step back and take a breather. If you want to be taken seriously, take some time to participate, learn some more, and get the lay of the land before telling folks how it should be done.

Would you walk into someone's house and 5 minutes later tell them what's wrong with their family? That's pretty much what you're doing here.

Get to know Dakka a bit and your comments will be better informed and might get a better reception.

I dont think it was what he said as much as how he said it thats the problem. Kinda makes his point about how people suggest games rudely hypercritical. We all know what he means but delivery kinda stirred people up.

Unintentional troll?

But when I play the best game ever I want to let everyone know!

Was like when I was ordering beer and someone says it was garbage and I should order Molson X... nice, thanks, but no, tastes really bad to me dude plus I do not like it so much since my dad drank it way back in the day... see-ya!

We all have an opinion, it's worth is about equal to how it is presented.

after venturing into my local game store (seriously, thats the name of it) to pick up a few things because I was in the neighborhood, I find it completely hilarious that someone would talk about playing a REAL game. seriously? most of these guys don't shower, get any exercise, or have basic social skills, and are pretty much the main reason I stopped playing years ago and only play with a select few people now. its a freaking game, get over it. take a shower and hit the tread mill once and a while too. Oh, and GW can still suck it.

Raven911 wrote:
after venturing into my local game store (seriously, thats the name of it) to pick up a few things because I was in the neighborhood, I find it completely hilarious that someone would talk about playing a REAL game. seriously? most of these guys don't shower, get any exercise, or have basic social skills, and are pretty much the main reason I stopped playing years ago and only play with a select few people now. its a freaking game, get over it. take a shower and hit the tread mill once and a while too. Oh, and GW can still suck it.

wow the nerd king has arrived. hes far better than all the other lowly unwashed nerds.

kb305 wrote:

Raven911 wrote:
after venturing into my local game store (seriously, thats the name of it) to pick up a few things because I was in the neighborhood, I find it completely hilarious that someone would talk about playing a REAL game. seriously? most of these guys don't shower, get any exercise, or have basic social skills, and are pretty much the main reason I stopped playing years ago and only play with a select few people now. its a freaking game, get over it. take a shower and hit the tread mill once and a while too. Oh, and GW can still suck it.

wow the nerd king has arrived. hes far better than all the other lowly unwashed nerds.

Nope, not the nerd king, but deffinately on a higher evolutionary plain, and I do shower regularly

 Frazzled wrote:

Pfft. Wrestle bears. Thats a REAL game.

Its one thing to suggest other games a person might like, its another to disparage what they are doing at the time.

Frazz, that's a sport, not a game.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Pfft. Wrestle bears. Thats a REAL game.

Its one thing to suggest other games a person might like, its another to disparage what they are doing at the time.

Frazz, that's a sport, not a game.

Not quite. It's a leisurely activity. Slap boxing gorillas, now there is a sport.

Tyranno, I think you've got your wires crossed a bit. You think that people with multiple armies are greedy. What if I think people with only one army are lazy because they don't have enough money to buy another or dedication to paint it?

Do you see how this line of thinking can easily be used to justify and and all points of view? Perhaps stick to what is working for you and let the unhappy folks be unhappy.

Raven911 wrote:
after venturing into my local game store (seriously, thats the name of it) to pick up a few things because I was in the neighborhood, I find it completely hilarious that someone would talk about playing a REAL game. seriously? most of these guys don't shower, get any exercise, or have basic social skills, and are pretty much the main reason I stopped playing years ago and only play with a select few people now. its a freaking game, get over it. take a shower and hit the tread mill once and a while too. Oh, and GW can still suck it.

and I thought the OP's original post was ranty and misinformed.

 carlos13th wrote:

Raven911 wrote:
after venturing into my local game store (seriously, thats the name of it) to pick up a few things because I was in the neighborhood, I find it completely hilarious that someone would talk about playing a REAL game. seriously? most of these guys don't shower, get any exercise, or have basic social skills, and are pretty much the main reason I stopped playing years ago and only play with a select few people now. its a freaking game, get over it. take a shower and hit the tread mill once and a while too. Oh, and GW can still suck it.

and I thought the OP's original post was ranty and misinformed.

Actually, my sock puppet senses are tingling.

 Talizvar wrote:
Unintentional troll?

But when I play the best game ever I want to let everyone know!

Was like when I was ordering beer and someone says it was garbage and I should order Molson X... nice, thanks, but no, tastes really bad to me dude plus I do not like it so much since my dad drank it way back in the day... see-ya!

We all have an opinion, it's worth is about equal to how it is presented.

I do not think that the term 'unintentional' applies - the scent of troll is in the air.

So I would suggest ignoring (or Ignoring) the pair(?) of them.

The Auld Grump

I can't help but feel that this whole tirade is just one big straw-man. The OP presents 3 clearly untenable positions. First we have the 'other-game evangelist': seeking to bully people away from their 'perfectly good game' by abusing and taunting them. Then we have the sad 2nd edition die-hard: blinded by nostalgia, and still (15 years later) refusing to move on. Lecturing people wrongly about how "everything was better before". Lastly we have the spoiled, greedy, army hoarder. Spewing damned lies about poor Games Workshop. Just because he can't afford to fund the extravagance of running 5 armies at once. Then the OP chimes back in as the 'voice of reason' quickly dispatching these poor fools. But they are just shadows of the real arguments.

There is nothing wrong with trying other games. There are plenty of fantastic games out there that need love, and which are arguably better than 40k. But you aren't going to ever know if you just cling to the one big mainstream game, which it just seems to get harder and harder each year to stay involved with.

2nd edition was a vastly different game. It has more in common with small scale RP skirmish games, like Necromunda, than it does with modern 40k. That doesn't make it better or worse, it was just different. Which is probably why it is still talked about, and relevant. It isn't just about nostalgia. It offers a different gaming experience which you don't get with the modern game. In the same way that Space Hulk or Warmachine offer a different gaming experience. Since none of these games are perfect, I'm sure there are lots of things that they respectively do better, or could learn from each other. This is the place where people who like to talk about that stuff, come to talk about that stuff.

And lastly. Games Workshop have what is called a "government-granted monopoly" which allows them exclusive rights to their IP. If you go and read about monopolies and how they behave, you will get a perfect description of GWs business model. The tldr version is: they put up prices at the cost of customer satisfaction. There is no mystery to it, no clever economic plan, they just put up prices because they can. Is that their right? Yes. Do we have to like them for it? No!

Tyranno wrote:
Which would suggest, you know, greed.

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind." - Gordon Gekko, one of GW's original (and still largest) investors.

AuldGrump, are you secretly Spider-Man or Deadpool? The "****-sense" thing could go either way, but the snark lands you squarely in Deadpool-Land.

And to the OP, there are many of us who praise GW when they do things well and rail on them when they screw up. The screw ups just happen to outweigh the things done well these days. I still praise their paints and the cost of that tyranid swarm box. Just not much else these days.

Love posts like this, they make me smile so much!
I'm sort of hoping it was posted for amusement.........

As as new user maybe he doesn't know everyone hates gw but still sort of loves them at the same time.

Excuse our enthusiasm for real games (or better games)- we apologize
If it was so great at 2nd edition why are we on 7th or whatever? If you still own 2nd ed use it
People only resent gw for taking too much of our money and somehow making us feel like we HAD to spend it just to play their games. Other (better) games allow you to buy lots of armies and not feel bad about it. Or greedy or whatever

Edit: I play 14 systems and have at least a couple of armies for each but I don't feel greedy or resent any of them apart from gw. It's called a hobby and other than beer and mortgage it's what I choose to spend my money on. I even shower and everything

 Polonius wrote:
There's a difference between greed and diminishing returns.

Greed is wanting more then you can use/enjoy. diminishing returns is the inevitable fact that the rate of utility goes down as consumption increases.

That's actually a fair point.

However, the reactions of people who can't have something they wouldn't get that much use from anyway can be ridiculous

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

If the answer for both questions is No, that each army is played differently and looks different, then you have your answer, people want different ranges and options, both in terms of play and modelling/painting. Being surprised at them then being unhappy about the price now making that desire incompatible with eating and paying the mortgage, whereas before it would have just put a dent in your social spending, well, you read as naive.

Most armies can be assembled in various different ways, using various different playstyles. Doing so is certain to be considerably cheaper than buying multiple armies.

Also, during the mid-late ninties, models were "only" what, 2/3 what they are currently? Still not a sensible amount of money to be frequently spending on impulse buys.

Eilif wrote:

Yeah, and you cherry picked extreme examples of behavior to support your point of view. Also your broad-brushed assumption that their "opinions" are only based on product names isn't doing anything to help your credibility.

Seriously dude, step back and take a breather. If you want to be taken seriously, take some time to participate, learn some more, and get the lay of the land before telling folks how it should be done.

Would you walk into someone's house and 5 minutes later tell them what's wrong with their family? That's pretty much what you're doing here.

Get to know Dakka a bit and your comments will be better informed and might get a better reception.

If I included the people with reasonable attitudes in the rant, that wouldn't make for a particularly conherant rant about those with bad attitudes, would it?

Also, I've registered months before posting this, and been watching at least two years before registering. I'm generally not that talkative.

gunslingerpro wrote:
Not quite. It's a leisurely activity. Slap boxing gorillas, now there is a sport.

Tyranno, I think you've got your wires crossed a bit. You think that people with multiple armies are greedy. What if I think people with only one army are lazy because they don't have enough money to buy another or dedication to paint it?

Then you might have analyzed what evidence you've seen. For example if those people frequently came across as being dissatisfied with only having one army but weren't willing to do anything about it, unwillingness (due to laziness) to accquire or build another army.

Because I cannot read minds, I assume people are what they present themselves as - whenever they're being serious at least. Hence why I repeatedly state people comes as across as X rather than that they are X.

Smacks wrote:. Lastly we have the spoiled, greedy, army hoarder. Spewing damned lies about poor Games Workshop.

Again, the point about people blaming GW for everything, not anything. It wasn't that Games Workshop are without blame, it was that the people complaining should accept partial blame.

Having X amount of armies might make certain people happy, but isn't essential to enjoy the hobby. Reducing the amout of armies might be not be ideal to those people, but it is something than can reduce the amount they're spending.

Someone may enjoy painting they may enjoy converting they may like different play styles there are many reasons they may want multiple armies why do you think its right for you to tell them that their desire for multiple armies means they are not allowed an opinion on price?

If model costs have been raised to the point where they are no longer worth while for a customer then they have every right to complain the number of models they already own does not factor into how much they should be willing to pay for new models.



So what part of GW's business model that people do not like is the fault of the people making the complaints?

People can also reduce the amount they are spending by spending their money elsewhere. How much they spend as an absolute amount is not the be all and end all.

People may think that two armies for £500 (Made up number) is a bargain and the amount of enjoyment they get out of that is worth while. If the price doubles saying well you can still afford one army for £500 is not a valid response. This hypothetical person may no longer feel that it is worth paying £500 and only getting a single army out of it. At this point the cost has outstripped the value for said person.

 carlos13th wrote:
Someone may enjoy painting they may enjoy converting they may like different play styles there are many reasons they may want multiple armies why do you think its right for you to tell them that their desire for multiple armies means they are not allowed an opinion on price?

If model costs have been raised to the point where they are no longer worth while for a customer then they have every right to complain the number of models they already own does not factor into how much they should be willing to pay for new models.



So what part of GW's business model that people do not like is the fault of the people making the complaints?

People can also reduce the amount they are spending by spending their money elsewhere. How much they spend as an absolute amount is not the be all and end all.

People may think that two armies for £500 (Made up number) is a bargain and the amount of enjoyment they get out of that is worth while. If the price doubles saying well you can still afford one army for £500 is not a valid response. This hypothetical person may no longer feel that it is worth paying £500 and only getting a single army out of it. At this point the cost has outstripped the value for said person.

And if spending on that second army allows me to introduce somebody else to the games, then it was well spent.

My girlfriend now plays Kings of War - I was able to introduce her to the game because I had more than one army that could be used with the game. (It may be worth noting that both armies started as Warhammer armies, though only about a third of the dwarfs is GW now, and none of the Undead. I like the Mantic Undead better, but with the dwarfs it is more that I have minis from a lot of companies in it.)

Back in 2nd edition WH40K it was pretty common that folks would have two armies, often ones that could be allied, but not always. I had Dark Angels and a small core of Imperial Guard. (The guard models are gone, and I have not played WH40K since third edition. I still have the minis, but the interest is not there.)

For the Skirmish games such as Mordheim and Necromunda... I have lots of potential gangs and warbands - in Mordheim because models can be used in other fantasy games, including Warhammer.

It also means that I know half a dozen people that play the games because I introduced them to the hobby by loaning them a warband. (And unlike the Big Two Games I still play both Mordheim and Necromunda. - and I still loan the warbands, when needed.)

I still loan armies for wargaming - but the games and miniatures are no longer GW, for the most part.

Having multiple armies is a good thing.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
AuldGrump, are you secretly Spider-Man or Deadpool? The "****-sense" thing could go either way, but the snark lands you squarely in Deadpool-Land. :

Nah, more likely one of the indie comics.

Probably by Black Horse or Oni.

Definitely not Image. I'd look downright silly in any of their costumes.

Maybe even a webcomic....

The Auld Grump

 carlos13th wrote:
they may like different play styles

I already mentioned, with some exceptions, most armies can have many playstyles.

 carlos13th wrote:


If model costs have been raised to the point where they are no longer worth while for a customer then they have every right to complain the number of models they already own does not factor into how much they should be willing to pay for new models.

But it factors into that they're perfectly capable of enjoying what they have without new models. Prices being impractical isn't good, but if not having the product has little effect on the individual to the point its a mild annoyance, it shouldn't be followed by frequent whining.

 carlos13th wrote:

So what part of GW's business model that people do not like is the fault of the people making the complaints?

The mentality that people can't even just accept minor inconveniences and that such things are deserving of frequent complaints would suggest selfishness/self-centeredness/greed. Then their rants complain about greed which seems hypocritical.

Tyranno wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
they may like different play styles

I already mentioned, with some exceptions, most armies can have many playstyles.

 carlos13th wrote:


If model costs have been raised to the point where they are no longer worth while for a customer then they have every right to complain the number of models they already own does not factor into how much they should be willing to pay for new models.

But it factors into that they're perfectly capable of enjoying what they have without new models. Prices being impractical isn't good, but if not having the product has little effect on the individual to the point its a mild annoyance, it shouldn't be followed by frequent whining.

Isn't playing the game only one factor of the wargaming hobby?

While you're argument is fairly logical (if rather limiting) from the perspective of someone who primarily plays games, I personally tend to paint and model first, and my armies tend to evolve from an idea or concept to do with how I want it to look, rather than playing games.

So are you essentially saying that, because for me my primary enjoyment from wargaming is derived from the creative process of building and painting new units, models and armies (I only have two armies btw, so apparently I'm not hugely greedy) I should what? Forgo buying new models, not grumble at some of the prices (not something intend to do aside from the rare occasion I buy from GW) and strip some old models and paint them again?

Painting/modelling enthusiasts are a section of the fandom I overlooked I suppose.

Tyranno wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

If the answer for both questions is No, that each army is played differently and looks different, then you have your answer, people want different ranges and options, both in terms of play and modelling/painting. Being surprised at them then being unhappy about the price now making that desire incompatible with eating and paying the mortgage, whereas before it would have just put a dent in your social spending, well, you read as naive.

Most armies can be assembled in various different ways, using various different playstyles. Doing so is certain to be considerably cheaper than buying multiple armies.

Also, during the mid-late ninties, models were "only" what, 2/3 what they are currently? Still not a sensible amount of money to be frequently spending on impulse buys.

So, instead of buying models for different armies, you're advocating buying more models of your original army. In order to create a new playstyle you'd need to have a very large range of minis. This seems a false economy to me.

And model price, has the average income increased by a third since the mid 90s? Or is it that the average income, for example in the US, went from 50k to 52k, which, coupled with inflation, was actually a fall in income. So, the product increased in price by (you claim) 33% whilst wages were lessened and again, you still don't see why people might grumble?

You really aren't seeing that, honestly?

Not sure what this thread is about... ranting about GW and recommending other games is bad?

I don't rant so much anymore, but I my view is thus...

40K has just gone insane... there are just too many codexes, sub-codexes and additional rules which may or not be official according to your point of view... It just doesn't make sense as a "game" anymore. I can see Fantasy going the same way over the next few years.

This is the major off putting factor for me these days and why I now play other games. That's not to say this should be your point of view though.

 Flashman wrote:
Not sure what this thread is about...

Right there with ya buddy.

Why are we talking about people owning multiple armies or not?

Hold on a sec, isn't GW responsible for everything?

They did create the Adam and Eve box set after all

To be fair nobody is forcing anyone to read other peoples opinions.

Exposing ourselves to numerous ideas is how we grow as people.

In the end diversities are a good thing.

This thread seems to be. Stop not liking what I like. Shut up and stop complaining. Followed by a Hefty dose of not being able to see the irony of complaining about people complaining.

Tyranno wrote:


I already mentioned, with some exceptions, most armies can have many playstyles.

And? They are not the same playstyles as the other armies in question. Now I am no expert of 40k armies but I am going to guess there is nothing you can do too Tyranids to make they play like Tau. Not to mention that people like paining more than one kind of army.

Tyranno wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:


If model costs have been raised to the point where they are no longer worth while for a customer then they have every right to complain the number of models they already own does not factor into how much they should be willing to pay for new models.

But it factors into that they're perfectly capable of enjoying what they have without new models. Prices being impractical isn't good, but if not having the product has little effect on the individual to the point its a mild annoyance, it shouldn't be followed by frequent whining.

Not having anything to do with wargaming is often little more than a mild announce. Its a game not life saving medicine. That said people are entitled to complain when a game they enjoy, or used to enjoy and have put a large amount of time into has change to the point where they no longer enjoy or can afford the game.

This has to be Tom Kirby's sock puppet account.

Anyone else want to light thier cigar with a burning hundred dollar bill? I have a couple of extra kitten skin robes, as well.....