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.

Caveat up front...this post is not meant to be inflammatory, it's quite literally an honest-to-goodness question.

I've lurked around the 40k forums and blogs for a while now, soaking up all the batreps (I particularly enjoy these), tactics and rules/gaming discussions. I only recently got back from Iraq, so I've really only been involved in the modeling side. When I first started really immersing myself in the game's web community, IG was the new hotness and it seemed a large chunk of the posts/batreps floated in that direction. I was away for a couple months for redeployment, during which time Space Wolves and Blood Angels updates have been released, and now it seems those are the new flavor...perhaps particularly Blood Angels.

As I start to look for opportunities to get into the gaming side, now that I am home, I'm wondering...is the game geared towards Flavor Of The Month army-hopping as codeci are infrequently updated? Reading a batrep on a blog just now, I stumbled across the following statement that prompted me to get off the sidelines and finally post my musings: "I’d also like to mention my <insert army> had beaten his space marines like 15 times in a row since 5th edition came out and we only recently started having close games with his army when he switched it up to Space Wolves." Does Games Workshop set the game up for this sort of situation, whether to sell models or just due to their business model of only releasing a codex or two a year, leaving certain armies overpowered while others limp along with glaring flaws? I guess my concern is I've tried to find an army that I enjoy both aesthetically (visually AND fluff) and eventual playstyle to be a long-term play choice, but it seems army-hopping as each new codex comes out is very very common.

Is that just "how it is" or am I taking the micro-view from the perhaps more competitive, WAAC, min/max-inclined web community and transposing it on the 40k community as a whole?

I'd say it's the WAAC attitude micro-view some people will have a competetive army list and then a fluffy army list or just an army for the hell of it even though it can't possibly win.

I think it is more related to release schedules.

Regardless of what type of gamer you are, new rules require change. New things in general allow and prompt new rules discussions about what is good/better/best. So, as I see it, more people are discussing FotM simply because it is new and requires learning to understand.

/shrug

Every new release GW tailor the codice to go along with product they wish to push.

Well it works i guess :x

The thing is that GW's advertising is HIGHLY FotM. This can easily create the impression that the rules themselves are that way.

Thankfully, it's not true. Some things do suffer with age, but it's with AGE (as in years and years, not month-to-month). While new players and teenagers may be affected by the ad campaign of the month, few seasoned players are (and even then, it's more like "I always wanted to play an X army, and now that they've had their codex updated, I'll give them another look). That and the huge group of players who just plays their army(ies) regardless of what GW propoganda is put out.

---

And this:

kirsanth wrote:So, as I see it, more people are discussing FotM simply because it is new and requires learning to understand.

I hate the term WAAC. Friggin' disrespectful to the real WAAC (link).

Anyway...

I still play Sisters. Plenty of people here still play Space Marines, not BA or SW. A few BT players, too. Orks and Eldar, too. Sure, some of the wannabe power-gamers will do FotM lists... but the BEST power-gamers will take any army and win with it. So they pick the one they like the most for playstyle, fluff, and so on.

A little FotM is pretty much par for the course. New models and codexes attract new players, get old players to dust off their stuff, or get picked up as a secondary army by existing players. It tends to pass quickly once all the "OMG broken" combos are revealed to just be NEW, not broken, and the army shuffles into whatever niche it was meant to fill and the bandwagon types have moved on to the next "OMG broken" new army rather than actually getting good with any of the other armies they've bought. You'll find many, many more players who are loyal to certain armies, at least as their main/collector army, than you find WAAC types who bandwagon onto the FotM army. The bandwagon types are usually guys who can't play for crap anyway, so they shouldn't be given too much weight.

I really don't see a whole lot of what you're talking about, but admittedly I lurk on fewer forums than many 40k players. The only time I see army-hopping occur is in situations like mine. I'm a new player, and I'm trying different armies to see what I like through practical experience. I've tried Space Marines, Orks, and Tau, and now I'm putting together an IG army and a Chaos Daemons army. I'll probably also try CSM, Sisters, DE, and Necrons before I really decide what I like.

Here's the thing, though... what I end up liking typically has nothing to do with how often I win. It has everything to do with the army's play style (which I personally believe you cannot really know until you play that army) and that army's fluff.

As several people have said already, if there's a FotM attitude, it's usually a very small minority who adhere to the WAAC (apologies to Melissia for using the term) mentality, and I can say from experience that those people are honestly no fun to play with.

Skarboy wrote:A little FotM is pretty much par for the course. New models and codexes attract new players, get old players to dust off their stuff, or get picked up as a secondary army by existing players. It tends to pass quickly once all the "OMG broken" combos are revealed to just be NEW, not broken, and the army shuffles into whatever niche it was meant to fill and the bandwagon types have moved on to the next "OMG broken" new army rather than actually getting good with any of the other armies they've bought. You'll find many, many more players who are loyal to certain armies, at least as their main/collector army, than you find WAAC types who bandwagon onto the FotM army. The bandwagon types are usually guys who can't play for crap anyway, so they shouldn't be given too much weight.

Well, that's good.

Army hoping occurs not just becasue of new rules but the new miniatures.

Variety is the spice of life.

At the same time there are still people playing 10 year old DE.

The lure of new toys is always pretty strong. A lot of people jump on the new army bandwagon. GW's business is more or less built around that.

Sometimes you may want to play an army, then it gets boosted and you buy it.

Sometimes you're unshelfing an army.

A common scenario I would assume would be this:

Player has army X. Player hasn't used army X in quite a while, since he really enjoys army Y, and army X always gets pasted, to the point of it being silly.

Army X gets an update. Army X is now playable, they post on forums for stuffs.

Alot of people who can afford this hobby, can afford multiple armies.

------

If you like batreps, I quite enjoyed Redbeard's and Dashofpepper's battle reports.

Shaman wrote:At the same time there are still people playing 10 year old DE.

Yep that's me. FoTM. Seriously, I think there is some truth to what you are saying and as everyone has already pointed out, it's mainly from those players that really have no attachment to a specific army and have that WAAC attitude.

Brother SRM wrote:The lure of new toys is always pretty strong. A lot of people jump on the new army bandwagon. GW's business is more or less built around that.

So they are in league with Apple?

Every competitive game some FotM to it. As for 40k though I don't think the rules follow this at all. Even my Necrons still win more games than they lose =)

Squig_herder wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:The lure of new toys is always pretty strong. A lot of people jump on the new army bandwagon. GW's business is more or less built around that.

So they are in league with Apple?

You'd think they were a business or something.

Brother SRM wrote:

Squig_herder wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:The lure of new toys is always pretty strong. A lot of people jump on the new army bandwagon. GW's business is more or less built around that.

So they are in league with Apple?

You'd think they were a business or something.

I knew it! They're in league with those filthy capitalists!

There's an interesting player in my local area.

He does huge amounts of math-hammering, statistical analysis, theoryhammer, and then builds an army from a particular codex around his work. If he loses with that army a couple times, he'll sell it and start from scratch. Rinse and repeat. When I first found out about this setup, I would make a point of trying to get in games with him to push the cycle along.

There are ALWAYS people in EVERY arena of EVERY competitive ANYTHING who will jump on the latest FOTM.

In an MMO, a bunch of people will start over with the latest class that comes out.
People will switch over to the latest brand of diet pills if they hear it works better.
The latest clothing fad....anyone?

That's just how life is. There's always a group of people in any situation who will jump onto the latest potential advantage.

In 40k, it just matters less. I play Orks. And Dark Eldar. I know them both intimately. My Ork list isn't the hardest that could be built, nor the most competitive, but I know it very well and make few mistakes with it. FOTM just means learning how to adapt what I play to beating on the latest crap that people are running.

geoff wrote:Is that just "how it is" or am I taking the micro-view from the perhaps more competitive, WAAC, min/max-inclined web community and transposing it on the 40k community as a whole?

You see, there are two games of 40K out there. There is the game of 40K people actually play, and then there is the bs group-think theorymachine game of 40K that is played out on the internet. Most of the vocal contributors to the latter game rarely have the actual models, much less having them assembled and actually rolling dice. Instead, they play the game in the realm of imagination, consulting poorly constructed statistics charts and deferring to whoever yells the loudest. You'll find these folks making blanket statements, full of huff puff and bluster, and then slink back into the shadows whenever you challenge them to an actual game.

Ive met a few players who are FotM, but for the most part, people pick their armies and stick with them.
As has been mentioned, GW pushes new products, so its easy to get the FotM impression from GW.

I'm just going to be laughing my ass off when Necrons roll around and you see more monoliths in one store than every game I've ever played with them combined.

Kurgash wrote:I'm just going to be laughing my ass off when Necrons roll around and you see more monoliths in one store than every game I've ever played with them combined.

Boy did that make me chuckle, only because it is sooo true. GW will make a mint on what, $75 a piece monoliths by then? (Or do they cost that much already?..)

On topic however, I am jealous if what many of you said is true. Most players in my area play marines (though most of us have multiple armies). When the SW codex came out everything was Wolves; and people were scrambling for models to use as thunderwolves. The BA codex came out and suddenly every marine army in the store, but one, is BA. "Oh, I've wanted to/been thinking about playing Blood Angels for years." Now the goal is building flying transports. I witness this phenomenon pretty much everywhere I go. And I regularly visit stores in 3 states.

Terminus wrote:

geoff wrote:Is that just "how it is" or am I taking the micro-view from the perhaps more competitive, WAAC, min/max-inclined web community and transposing it on the 40k community as a whole?

You see, there are two games of 40K out there. There is the game of 40K people actually play, and then there is the bs group-think theorymachine game of 40K that is played out on the internet. Most of the vocal contributors to the latter game rarely have the actual models, much less having them assembled and actually rolling dice. Instead, they play the game in the realm of imagination, consulting poorly constructed statistics charts and deferring to whoever yells the loudest. You'll find these folks making blanket statements, full of huff puff and bluster, and then slink back into the shadows whenever you challenge them to an actual game.

Word.