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.

Most of my purchases are impulse buys, usually of second-hand models being sold at a discount. So I normally prioritize a good price over good rules. I'll have fun painting the thing, and most things become good eventually.

That said, there's almost always more than one possible purchase catching my interest. So if I have to choose between buying unit A and unit B and one of them is notoriously underpowered, that might be what pushes me to choose one or the other.

Every unit that GW puts effort into "looking cool" usually has enough rules team support behind it to make it viable if not bonkers broken.

Sisters, Dark Eldar, Primaris, etc.

My problem is when I think a model line looks cool, it's either complete garbage, or someone calls me a WAAC player in the first 30 seconds. Custodes. I bought them in 8th, loved them. Mostly ran wardens and Bikes. Then 9th came along and I'm WAAC all the sudden. Right now I'm building a BA army, but with the way 10th is shaping up I may just quit. I can't win for trying.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Every unit that GW puts effort into "looking cool" usually has enough rules team support behind it to make it viable if not bonkers broken.

Sisters, Dark Eldar, Primaris, etc.

My problem is when I think a model line looks cool, it's either complete garbage, or someone calls me a WAAC player in the first 30 seconds. Custodes. I bought them in 8th, loved them. Mostly ran wardens and Bikes. Then 9th came along and I'm WAAC all the sudden. Right now I'm building a BA army, but with the way 10th is shaping up I may just quit. I can't win for trying.

The same DE models has been out for 12+ years and really only got strong in 9th. Who cares if you are playing a strong army, every year its a new army that is strong anyways.

Life's to short to build and paint bad (ugly) models.

Weak models in 40k, however, can be played in other games and older editions.

 Momotaro wrote:
Life's to short to build and paint bad models.

Weak models in 40k, however, can be played in other games and older editions.

And being weak in 40k (insert edition #/month/etc) doesn't make it a bad model.
A bad unit rules wise? Sure, maybe. ATM.
But that Fellblade on my shelf is still a damned fine model....

ccs wrote:

 Momotaro wrote:
Life's to short to build and paint bad models.

Weak models in 40k, however, can be played in other games and older editions.

And being weak in 40k (insert edition #/month/etc) doesn't make it a bad model.
A bad unit rules wise? Sure, maybe. ATM.
But that Fellblade on my shelf is still a damned fine model....

Exactly!

For the record there is nothing wrong with either approach; after all it is fair for a player to want to show up to a match or event and have a reasonable chance of winning.

Now there is a lot of overlap between competitive people and toxic people, but that doesn't make the concept inherently so.

I'm not good enough at the game to look at a units stats and work out if it will be good or not without playing with it. This is especially true of units that hand out buffs and thus obfuscate their power. As such I can only really buy based on what takes my interest.

I also like to build a collection of units to pick from so I don't have a 100PL army I have an army I can pick 100PL from. In the end I like to have a representative of every type of unit for variety.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Now there is a lot of overlap between competitive people and toxic people, but that doesn't make the concept inherently so.

And between crazy fluff nutters and toxic people. And "painting absolutists", as we had recently. There are extremes at all ends.

I painted a ton of units I thought were really cool. I have about 3 Lord Commissars, a very bad Sly Marbo, and 4 Grenade Launcher Guardsmen. I also have about 25 Vertus Praetors. So if I root for the Mets, am I also allowed to root for the good teams as well?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I painted a ton of units I thought were really cool. I have about 3 Lord Commissars, a very bad Sly Marbo, and 4 Grenade Launcher Guardsmen. I also have about 25 Vertus Praetors. So if I root for the Mets, am I also allowed to root for the good teams as well?

This reminds me of the huge number of units that are not legends or just gone....

I had a phase where I bought one of each unit for an army, but then I had some units consistently underperform. Now if I build a force I scrutinize the list before I make a single purchase. Doubly so for WFB, but it leaves me with less chaff to flip at a loss later down the line.

I play infantry guard, so yes. I have a ton of units that just aren't any good.

in my case it's also of no concern. While I would like to play my army at some point, I currently get the most enjoyment out of just building, painting and collecting, so I buy whatever I find looks cool or would be fun to build.

I like the look of an old school TAC list, so that is what i build towards using the coolest models. As others have said rules do change, the models (and army) stays cool.

ccs wrote:

 Momotaro wrote:
Life's to short to build and paint bad models.

Weak models in 40k, however, can be played in other games and older editions.

And being weak in 40k (insert edition #/month/etc) doesn't make it a bad model.
A bad unit rules wise? Sure, maybe. ATM.
But that Fellblade on my shelf is still a damned fine model....

But if a unit is bad for an edition, two or three and most people that start quit after one, then two them the unit they bought was bad for the entire span of the game. Plus people that get burned hard on w40k often quit table top gaming at all, they don't just stop playing AoS, Fantasy or w40k. I can imagine it is less of a problem for people with multiple armies and 20 years of playing, but to someone that starts this is a big problem. Because telling the new player that in 10-20 years he will feel better, because this, that and sudden emergance of love for painting , ain't going to work, when their , so called struggles, are of the do I buy a new phone or do I buy a new patrol box for christmas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Now there is a lot of overlap between competitive people and toxic people, but that doesn't make the concept inherently so.

And between crazy fluff nutters and toxic people. And "painting absolutists", as we had recently. There are extremes at all ends.

In general it is an odd thing. Almost as if it wasn't just small groups of people that are toxic, but people as a whole.

 Dolnikan wrote:
I play infantry guard, so yes. I have a ton of units that just aren't any good.

I've had infantry Beastmen from as long as they have been around so.... (for those that dont know in fantasy they were something like a 10% win rate for 10yrs)

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
I play infantry guard, so yes. I have a ton of units that just aren't any good.

I've had infantry Beastmen from as long as they have been around so.... (for those that dont know in fantasy they were something like a 10% win rate for 10yrs)

Oh yes. I also had an army of those. They look great, but the rules. Wow. I only managed to win with them when my opponents really scaled down their lists.

Karol wrote:

But if a unit is bad for an edition, two or three and most people that start quit after one, then two them the unit they bought was bad for the entire span of the game. Plus people that get burned hard on w40k often quit table top gaming at all, they don't just stop playing AoS, Fantasy or w40k. I can imagine it is less of a problem for people with multiple armies and 20 years of playing, but to someone that starts this is a big problem. Because telling the new player that in 10-20 years he will feel better, because this, that and sudden emergance of love for painting , ain't going to work, when their , so called struggles, are of the do I buy a new phone or do I buy a new patrol box for christmas.

you litterally had to wait a year for your GK to become good, now you're complaining that its not good enough to compete in your super toxic competitive meta. News flash : they can still do decent, even an all terminator list like you have.

Honestly at that point just sell your army and go buy yourself an ipad, clearly this isnt a hobby thats bringing you happiness

Karol wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Momotaro wrote:
Life's to short to build and paint bad models.

Weak models in 40k, however, can be played in other games and older editions.

And being weak in 40k (insert edition #/month/etc) doesn't make it a bad model.
A bad unit rules wise? Sure, maybe. ATM.
But that Fellblade on my shelf is still a damned fine model....

But if a unit is bad for an edition, two or three and most people that start quit after one, then two them the unit they bought was bad for the entire span of the game. Plus people that get burned hard on w40k often quit table top gaming at all, they don't just stop playing AoS, Fantasy or w40k. I can imagine it is less of a problem for people with multiple armies and 20 years of playing, but to someone that starts this is a big problem. Because telling the new player that in 10-20 years he will feel better, because this, that and sudden emergance of love for painting , ain't going to work, when their , so called struggles, are of the do I buy a new phone or do I buy a new patrol box for christmas.

Bad model and bad unit are NOT the same thing.

One is a physical quality. Though a bit subjective to each viewer, it will not change no matter how long your involved in the hobby.
Wetger you're a Longfang like me or buying your 1st model ever, avoiding buying bad MODELS is equely easy. You just don't spend $ on things you think look bad.

The other? Being a bad unit in the game?
This shifts at GWs whim. Right now? That Fellblade on my shelf is a pretty poor choice pts wise. I can get alot more bang for my pts putting other stuff on the table. But all that could change tomorrow with a randumb FAQ....
All you can do is look at the stats & rules of the moment & decide.
If you're new? Ask for help in determining this. From multiple sources.
Abd if you find a unit you deem bad? And being good/bad playwise is important to you?
DONT BUY IT.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Momotaro wrote:
Life's to short to build and paint bad models.

Weak models in 40k, however, can be played in other games and older editions.

And being weak in 40k (insert edition #/month/etc) doesn't make it a bad model.
A bad unit rules wise? Sure, maybe. ATM.
But that Fellblade on my shelf is still a damned fine model....

But if a unit is bad for an edition, two or three and most people that start quit after one, then two them the unit they bought was bad for the entire span of the game. Plus people that get burned hard on w40k often quit table top gaming at all, they don't just stop playing AoS, Fantasy or w40k. I can imagine it is less of a problem for people with multiple armies and 20 years of playing, but to someone that starts this is a big problem. Because telling the new player that in 10-20 years he will feel better, because this, that and sudden emergance of love for painting , ain't going to work, when their , so called struggles, are of the do I buy a new phone or do I buy a new patrol box for christmas.

Bad model and bad unit are NOT the same thing.

One is a physical quality. Though a bit subjective to each viewer, it will not change no matter how long your involved in the hobby.
Wetger you're a Longfang like me or buying your 1st model ever, avoiding buying bad MODELS is equely easy. You just don't spend $ on things you think look bad.

The other? Being a bad unit in the game?
This shifts at GWs whim. Right now? That Fellblade on my shelf is a pretty poor choice pts wise. I can get alot more bang for my pts putting other stuff on the table. But all that could change tomorrow with a randumb FAQ....
All you can do is look at the stats & rules of the moment & decide.
If you're new? Ask for help in determining this. From multiple sources.
Abd if you find a unit you deem bad? And being good/bad playwise is important to you?
DONT BUY IT.

I'd also argue that bad model can change based on a few things
1) Paint job. Yep sometimes the wrong paint job makes a great model look bad; the right one can make a model look awesome.

2) Conversion. Sometimes only a few elements need changing and BOOM that so so not so good model suddenly looks ten times as awesome.


Balance I agree, but I'd also say that sometimes a "bad" model can suddenly turn around and be great when the meta spots how to use it. It's not super common but sometimes a model that's just overlooked, considered niche or not the best suddenly sees a new lease of life if the meta shifts a little or if someone spots a combo or tactic that makes it shine.

I don't like buying units that will just sit on the shelf, no. And I don't like people insisting that I should handicap myself for no good reason.

There are some minis I buy just to paint because I think they look cool, though.

I never really play competitively, so I’m not worried about min-maxing or what have you, but I do only buy units that feel actually useful on the table in a more laid back setting. So something trash tier is a no go, but if I think something is cool I’ll run it as long as it isn’t total dead weight