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.

To me... "B&P" means a relaxing game with non-optomized armies or lists. The kinds of games we used to play in each other's basements or dining rooms. Playing an army because it's pretty, quirky or fluffy instead of good.

40IsTerrible wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Except it's the DM that makes that investment and everyone else just plays the game he provides. It's not 5 people sat down with each his own 1000 dollars worth of equipment. Your point is baffling in its inaccuracy.

This quote baffles me to the point of wondering if you've ever played D&D. If you had you would know that the vast majority of the time everyone that comes to the table has a pile of books. The DM has all of his DM Guides, plus all the monster manuals, plus any books relating to the setting he is playing. The players also come with a stack of books, all the players manuals, the player guides for the settings they are playing, and any extra books that they might feel would help them. So each player would be bringing a decent amount of money to the table, Your point is baffling in its complete ignorance.

 Purifier wrote:
Yeah, except of course for the DM having a judge's high seat to lay down the law, while in 40k it's 2-4 people that all have to agree on things while having the same "worth" if you will. So nothing at all alike, actually.

It is quite alike, actually, while the DM might have the judge's high seat to lay down the law on things that go on once the campaign is started he's just a member of the group prior to that. So you know what you do if you don't like the edition the DM wants to use, you put on your big boy pants and tell them that you do not want to play that edition. Sounds like something you could do with 40k also, just saying.

 Purifier wrote:
I did, and I did it hoping that you would remark on it, as that means you understood it and then realised what you were doing. Treating you like you are treating others, that's my device.

So your device, this thing you rely on, is to be a hypocrite and try to make it seem that it means you are taking the high road?

 Purifier wrote:
You implied it incredibly strongly. Don't start denying it, I'm not a blind idiot, so don't start treating me like one.
Oh of course that's not implying that the people that think differently than you are babies. Sure. Ok.
People had a problem with a game that has nothing to do with you personally and you stood up and said when I see people like you people, I see babies throwing tantrums!
And you still seem to think that's a perfectly legitimate and not condescending way to talk to anyone.

First, I never said I wasn't being condescending, if someone is acting like a spoiled child who didn't get their way I have no qualms about letting them know how they are acting. What I didn't do is say that anyone who disagrees with me is acting like a child, those were your words. It has nothing to do with either agreeing or disagreeing with me, if you are acting like a child you are acting like a child... simple as that.

1) I've played D&D and never bought a single book. In fact, no one at the table but the DM had bought anything.
2) That's not true. The rulebook that the DM has bought will sway people. If you want to go with a different edition, you basically have to be the one to buy the new rulebook. In 40k there is a much more accepted standard of "well, we have to get the latest book, now that it's out."
3) I never try to take the high road. I get into the muck with you. You don't deserve someone that takes the high road to discuss things with you.
4) No one was acting like a child but you. Until I came along.

 Purifier wrote:

C) Yeah, if the product is inferior or if my experience with the product is inferior. In this case, 40k is the only game I am gonna find anyone to play against me with, so any other product fails that test.

Wow, so you don't know anyone who plays anything other than 40k? You don't anyone who plays card games of any kind, even something as simple as War? You don't have a computer or a gaming console? Not a single person? I'm sorry, hearing that makes me kinda sad for you. Do you need a hug?

40IsTerrible wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

C) Yeah, if the product is inferior or if my experience with the product is inferior. In this case, 40k is the only game I am gonna find anyone to play against me with, so any other product fails that test.

Wow, so you don't know anyone who plays anything other than 40k? You don't anyone who plays card games of any kind, even something as simple as War? You don't have a computer or a gaming console? Not a single person? I'm sorry, hearing that makes me kinda sad for you. Do you need a hug?

Clearly that's exactly what I meant. Atleast I have you playing the idiot, so I guess my statement wasn't entirely true.

Ultimately the definition of a 'Beer and Pretzels' game will differ for everyone individually.

While 40k may not meet many of the traditional or standard definitions, I don't think it can be argued that the game is a 'more involved game meant to be played for fun'.

 Purifier wrote:

Clearly that's exactly what I meant. Atleast I have you playing the idiot, so I guess my statement wasn't entirely true.

Well at least you made a friend now We can play war together so that way you can stop complaining about how hard it is to have adult conversations about which rule edition to use, and how the big bad company made lots of money but isn't listening to what you want and that makes you mad. Don't worry I'll listen to your childish rants while we play cards.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Would you continue to purchase products from a company if you:

A) Found their products to be flawed or inferior in any way, or they did not meet your standards

I already do. I pay for Xbox Live despite the fact that I abhor the idea of paying for a service like that.
I buy Modern Warfare games despite the fact that their netcode is horrible and I dislike how they do sniper rifles.

B) You disprove of the company and it's policies

It depends. I buy a lot of technology and disagree with many of the policies many tech companies have with respect to "offshoring".

C) There are alternatives available that do not have problems A and B?

Literally no such thing. At all.

Let's say you buy a car and it has issues/the company does not seem to care about it's customers. Would you buy a car from them the following year? The year after?

It depends. There's no yes or no answer here.

No, you wouldn't. Despite this, many of the naysayers continue to support the very thing they hate.

It's cute that you think you can read my mind, especially when you're wrong.

I played Everquest for a decade - as a monk - despite how marginalized non-rogue DPS was for a very long time.
I did so because - and here's what you've completely and utterly failed to understand - I still had fun playing with my friends and guildmates. The fact that I also complained and pushed for change using reasonable arguments on their official forums has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.
Just one example of my enjoying something I do while simultaneously wanting to do something to improve my enjoyment.

Many of you call people that try to stymie complaining 'GW apologists'. I am not excusing GW for anything. I personally don't find many of the complaints to be an issue FOR ME, but I don't find it necessary or productive to hop into discussions and needlessly complain about things.

It's needless? I'm surprised.
And, from what I could tell from the OP, this kind of feedback was literally exactly what he wanted.

Simmer down please, gentlemen.

And a beer and pretzel's game to a hard core historial simulator player is very different from somebody that finds 40k complicated.

30 years ago, a game like Axis and Allies was seen as B&P compared to Advanced Squad Leader. For a lot of people Axis and allies is too complex.

I haven't read the thread, but I suppose I owe my $0.02.

Beer and pretzels, to me, means that the game is intended to be played at the same time one would drink beer and eat snack foods. That is to say, at parties, at a buddy's house, even in an FLGS if it has a BYOB policy (or a beer license).

This tells me that the intent of the game is to be entertaining and fun, and is meant for young adults (who can drink) but not for children at all. Older adults are, of course, accepted, but I would not expect to see them at my buddy's house or at the type of parties I go to.

A&A trends out of the beer and pretzels category for me because of the time investment rather than the rules complexity (or lack thereof).

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Would you continue to purchase products from a company if you:

A) Found their products to be flawed or inferior in any way, or they did not meet your standards

I already do. I pay for Xbox Live despite the fact that I abhor the idea of paying for a service like that.
I buy Modern Warfare games despite the fact that their netcode is horrible and I dislike how they do sniper rifles.

B) You disprove of the company and it's policies

It depends. I buy a lot of technology and disagree with many of the policies many tech companies have with respect to "offshoring".

C) There are alternatives available that do not have problems A and B?

Literally no such thing. At all.

Let's say you buy a car and it has issues/the company does not seem to care about it's customers. Would you buy a car from them the following year? The year after?

It depends. There's no yes or no answer here.

No, you wouldn't. Despite this, many of the naysayers continue to support the very thing they hate.

It's cute that you think you can read my mind, especially when you're wrong.

I played Everquest for a decade - as a monk - despite how marginalized non-rogue DPS was for a very long time.
I did so because - and here's what you've completely and utterly failed to understand - I still had fun playing with my friends and guildmates. The fact that I also complained and pushed for change using reasonable arguments on their official forums has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.
Just one example of my enjoying something I do while simultaneously wanting to do something to improve my enjoyment.

Many of you call people that try to stymie complaining 'GW apologists'. I am not excusing GW for anything. I personally don't find many of the complaints to be an issue FOR ME, but I don't find it necessary or productive to hop into discussions and needlessly complain about things.

It's needless? I'm surprised.
And, from what I could tell from the OP, this kind of feedback was literally exactly what he wanted.

If you continue to support products/companies that you find to be lacking that is your decision. Just note that this is the reason many companies do not change policies despite what are perceived as common complaints/criticism. That's really the crux of the issue.

A lot of the people that have been playing this game for a long time, often as far back as Rogue Trader, are the most vocal about what they dislike about it, yet continue oil the cog.

You are literally fueling the fire and complaining while pouring on the gasoline.

XenosTerminus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Would you continue to purchase products from a company if you:

A) Found their products to be flawed or inferior in any way, or they did not meet your standards

I already do. I pay for Xbox Live despite the fact that I abhor the idea of paying for a service like that.
I buy Modern Warfare games despite the fact that their netcode is horrible and I dislike how they do sniper rifles.

B) You disprove of the company and it's policies

It depends. I buy a lot of technology and disagree with many of the policies many tech companies have with respect to "offshoring".

C) There are alternatives available that do not have problems A and B?

Literally no such thing. At all.

Let's say you buy a car and it has issues/the company does not seem to care about it's customers. Would you buy a car from them the following year? The year after?

It depends. There's no yes or no answer here.

No, you wouldn't. Despite this, many of the naysayers continue to support the very thing they hate.

It's cute that you think you can read my mind, especially when you're wrong.

I played Everquest for a decade - as a monk - despite how marginalized non-rogue DPS was for a very long time.
I did so because - and here's what you've completely and utterly failed to understand - I still had fun playing with my friends and guildmates. The fact that I also complained and pushed for change using reasonable arguments on their official forums has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.
Just one example of my enjoying something I do while simultaneously wanting to do something to improve my enjoyment.

Many of you call people that try to stymie complaining 'GW apologists'. I am not excusing GW for anything. I personally don't find many of the complaints to be an issue FOR ME, but I don't find it necessary or productive to hop into discussions and needlessly complain about things.

It's needless? I'm surprised.
And, from what I could tell from the OP, this kind of feedback was literally exactly what he wanted.

If you continue to support products/companies that you find to be lacking that is your decision. Just note that this is the reason many companies do not change policies despite what are perceived as common complaints/criticism. That's really the crux of the issue.

A lot of the people that have been playing this game for a long time, often as far back as Rogue Trader, are the most vocal about what they dislike about it, yet continue oil the cog.

You are literally fueling the fire and complaining while pouring on the gasoline.

You just refuse to see the grey area, don't you? It's just all so black and white to you. Do or don't! No middle ground!

clively wrote:
GW states that 40k is meant to be a "beer and pretzels" game. I believe they are off their rocker.

So, what does "beer and pretzels" mean to you? Is there an amount of time such a game should take? Is there a community aspect, meaning something played by more than two people at a time? Should it be something you could teach in 2 minutes or less and for that player to have a reasonable chance of success?

To me games like poker or even Yahtzee qualify. But what is a good definition we could use? And, does 40k qualify?

It means to me a non serious game played for fun with other people.

I have been collecting 40K miniatures since Rogue Trader days but only started playing the game in the 6th edition. It does seem odd to me that GW made the bear and pretzel statement. They almost seem to me to be saying that they want the rules to be like D&D, where many DMs play their own version of the game. Every group I have played D&D used a customized version of the game. (which works due to the closed group) The huge problem with this for me is that the majority of my 40K games are pickup games and you really can't have different versions of 40k every time you want to play the game with someone. I don't think a game can be a beer and pretzels type of game and still enable strangers to have pickup games. Not unless the game has very precise rules with little need to house rule everything.

I don't have a problem with the current rules, but it does take a good amount of negotiations to get a game going that meets both players expectations.

In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

In my opinion there isn't much room for gray areas or neutrality when it comes to the expectations some people have for GW/40k in general.

The reason? The outspoken tend to be the most 'experienced' players, or those that have watched how GW has been designing this game for over a decade. The inability for some people to not see trends or realize what is manifesting itself in front of their own eyes.

To many, 40k really is Black/White. A codex is either good or bad. An edition is either good or bad. The rules are either good or bad.

The truth that circles back to the original topic? 40k is a game that has always been designed/intended to be played for fun, regardless if that fits the definition of 'beer and pretzels'.

It's hard to be objective when you have such a limited view on the game, but it is far easier to accept 40k for its flaws when you realize how the designers intend the game to be played/encourage you to play it.

Barfolomew wrote:

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

So WH40k=MTG

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

The nice thing about MTG though is WOTC has a strict tournament ruleset where things can be banned, answers can be printed, or entire strategies can be obsoleted simply with the introduction of new core mechanics.

40k doesn't have this luxury. Sometimes an answer to the current 'meta' appears with a new book, but it's far too inconsistent to expect any sort of reliable solution to what is unbalanced from a competitive perspective.

Anpu42 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

So WH40k=MTG

Except I haven't experienced all of the dire problems that the internet says existed. My best friend plays Farsight Cadre with four Riptides, and the game's enjoyable. Another friend of mine plays Sisters and Orks. A third, Space Wolves and Eldar. A fourth, Black Templars and Imperial Fists. There's even more besides at the FLGS, but every game in 6th Edition has been fun. I really am not seeing what the Internet sees.

XenosTerminus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:

 Warboss Gobslag wrote:
In my opinion the beer and pretzels statement was made to just give GW an excuse so people could not blame them for problems in their game systems. You have a problem with balance? Sorry its just beer and pretzels, don't take it so serious! I think GW is forgetting that beer and pretzels is supposed to mean having fun with other people. To do that you do have to have good rules that provide at least some balance and clarity.

I agree

I've played MtG over beer and pretzels many times and find it a much better game because the rules are known and consistent. I don't have to play a card and then take a poll on if it is usable.

Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

The nice thing about MTG though is WOTC has a strict tournament ruleset where things can be banned, answers can be printed, or entire strategies can be obsoleted simply with the introduction of new core mechanics.

40k doesn't have this luxury. Sometimes an answer to the current 'meta' appears with a new book, but it's far too inconsistent to expect any sort of reliable solution to what is unbalanced from a competitive perspective.

I didn't play in MTG tournaments and I don't play in 40k tournaments, so I fail to see how having a tournament ruleset would have helped me enjoy MTG more.

XenosTerminus wrote:
If you continue to support products/companies that you find to be lacking that is your decision. Just note that this is the reason many companies do not change policies despite what are perceived as common complaints/criticism. That's really the crux of the issue.

Good companies address the complaints/criticism.
And you're still ignoring the fact that your stance requires there to be zero criticism, ever. Because either I bought it and I shouldn't be criticizing something I bought, or I didn't buy it and why do I care if I didn't buy it.

In other words, your stance is pointless.

A lot of the people that have been playing this game for a long time, often as far back as Rogue Trader, are the most vocal about what they dislike about it, yet continue oil the cog.

Yup. And there's no problem with that at all.

You are literally fueling the fire and complaining while pouring on the gasoline.

Not really. You act like it angers me or that I expect change. I don't really. I just wish it would because it would make literally everything better.

To me "beer and pretzels" means a well balanced and simple game.

I am a competitive person. I've never played wargames competitively, but even in a casual game it is totally against my nature to do anything other than look to win. I can't NOT look at an army list and do the calculations, I can't NOT think about what will best see me win.

As such, 40k is a horrible beer and pretzels game IMO. It's far too unbalanced, both internally within armies, internally within it's core rules, and also unbalanced across armies.

I always found Fantasy a much better beer and pretzels game, but I mostly lost interest in that with 8th edition.

I still like the 40k universe, which is why for some strange reason I persist with it.

To me a 'Beer and Pretzel' game , means a game that is fast to learn and play .
Straight forward rules that deliver good game play with the minimum of fuss.
Because if you are drinking alcohol, you need well defined concise rules to prevent drink related 'incidents'.

And the games are generally fun focused for casual play.EG Pass The Pigs, Snakes and Ladders, etc.

XenosTerminus wrote:
In my opinion there isn't much room for gray areas or neutrality when it comes to the expectations some people have for GW/40k in general.

The reason? The outspoken tend to be the most 'experienced' players, or those that have watched how GW has been designing this game for over a decade. The inability for some people to not see trends or realize what is manifesting itself in front of their own eyes.

To many, 40k really is Black/White. A codex is either good or bad. An edition is either good or bad. The rules are either good or bad.

The truth that circles back to the original topic? 40k is a game that has always been designed/intended to be played for fun, regardless if that fits the definition of 'beer and pretzels'.

It's hard to be objective when you have such a limited view on the game, but it is far easier to accept 40k for its flaws when you realize how the designers intend the game to be played/encourage you to play it.

Tosh.

The "let's all hug and have a good time" philosophy is a flawed concept that has been used to excuse a poor quality product, and people like yourself perpetrate that philosophy as if it's some sort of ideal.

While it would be lovely if everyone was willing to 'play nice' and not go balls out to win, that the ruleset allows for someone to turn up to a game with a "fun" list and their opponent to turn up to play the same game with a "rofl stomp, all your kitties belong to me" list how is that fun?

Wouldn't it be better, assuming a pretty standard idea of 'fun' if two players could turn up for a game, having never met before, having brought the models they like, in fairly certain knowledge that any rules conflicts that arise can probably be resolved by a quick examination of the rules in question, can then engage in a game where their decisions and luck (to a lesser extent) determine the outcome?

Wouldn't it be better if anybody could design a list, that may be slightly above or below the power curve, but will always have at least a fighting chance of making a decent account of itself? Rather than having a game where the power imbalance is such that barring a massive statistical improbability, the outcome is essentially pre-determined?

I'm not even talking tourney games or against WAAC players, I've played friendly games with my BA against Tau and Eldar lists which in no way could be accused of spamming or cheese, and simply had no answer for the vast difference in quality of the two books. I'm not claiming to be some uber player, quite the opposite, but surely if two armies with a mix of units that aren't going out of their way to be spammy or abusive should, at the very least, be roughly approximate in power? How fun do you think those games were for me? I'll give you a clue, I have stuck with my daemons since, and haven't lost. Again, not running cheese or spam, but how fun do you think the game I played against a Necron player using a mono-Khorne list (hardly the strongest choice in the book) where I'd pretty much engaged his whole force in assault by turn 2 and simply had to roll dice until he went away, was for him?

The facts are simple- if the rules are tight, the attitude of the player is irrelevant, there is no need for a gentleman's agreement, there is no need to "accept the flaws" or play the game as "the designers intended" as the rules prevent any sort of abuse of loopholes, and by making units as balanced as possible, spam disappears, because there are no longer units that are demonstrably more efficient in a given FOC slot (or if there are, points costs naturally limit how many can be chosen)

You simply have no argument, if the rules were better, there would be no downside. Excusing a poor product means you are complicit in allowing the sort of poor behaviour from GW that they've demonstrated for so long. In fact, rather than those who you criticise for continuing to play while expressing negative opinions walking away, perhaps you wouldn't mind? Because your attitude is probably more hazardous to the long term health of 40K than anyone who criticises it.

I have never stated I am excusing GW for it's ruleset or that every camp wouldn't mutually benefit if it were of a higher standard.

The difference between the two mindsets is that I have accepted I cannot rely on GW to provide what you describe. I am not so blind or ignorant to even for a moment assume GW will remedy this problem for myself, or anyone.

If you cannot accept 40k for what it is, and always has been, you will never be happy, and will likely never stop complaining about it. No quantity of lengthy internet diatribe will change this.

Clearly there are problems. Nobody is denying that. The fallacy is assuming that the problem will go away on its own, or that GW will take care of it for us. This is not going to happen.

Just as in reality, a problem is only a problem until you find a solution to it.

If you cannot personally find a solution this problem, it's best to get rid of it entirely.I don't care how harsh this sounds, or if this offends anyone that has devoted a lot of time and money to this hobby.

It's just that- a hobby. This isn't life. It's ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Shockingly enough, the game is functional. It is still fun to play when you take a step back and just let go. Make it fun for you or cut it off. Nonstop negativity literally kills you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Obviously you didn't play the same MtG that I did. I got out of that game faster than water out of the Sun - hated getting my tribal Angel deck's face beaten in by players who had the money and time to build decks that basically were themeless but kicked ass.

Here is the big difference. Using the same cards, WotC has about 8 different official formats one can choose to play. 4 are constructed, 3 are not pre-constructed decks. You have:

With official tournaments
1) Standard Constructed - Runs about $350 uses the 2 most recent blocks
2) Modern Constructed - Runs about $1000 uses the 9 (I think?) most recent blocks, has some banned cards.
3) Legacy Constructed - Runs about $2500 uses everything except for a limited number of banned cards.
4) Vintage Constructed - Runs about $3000 uses everything, though some cards are 1 of.
5) Draft - Runs about $15, open 3 boosters, each player picks a card and passes to their left or right, build your 40 card deck and play
6) Sealed - Runs about $25, open 6 boosters and build a deck

Intended for casual only
7) Commander Constructed - Runs up to $2000(?) uses everything except for a limited number of banned cards.
8) Cube - Runs up to $4000(?) for whomever builds the cube and power level. Everyone drafts, builds decks and plays.

I can also add layers on top of this by playing one of these officially supported formats.
- Two-headed giant
- Planechase
- Archenemy

A lot of people I know attend limited drafts and sealed events, use those cards in Standard Constructed decks (filling out the rest with single card trades or purchases), then move them to a Commander or casual constructed deck once they rotate out of Standard. The card gets multiple uses in multiple formats, even if it under performs at one of them.

If I buy a Space Marine, I can only play 40K and then, I can only play it in a Space Marine army. If my Space Marine army sucks, I'm screwed until they feel like updating it.

XenosTerminus wrote:
The difference between the two mindsets is that I have accepted I cannot rely on GW to provide what you describe. I am not so blind or ignorant to even for a moment assume GW will remedy this problem for myself, or anyone.

And you're assuming I do assume that. I don't.

If you cannot accept 40k for what it is, and always has been, you will never be happy, and will likely never stop complaining about it. No quantity of lengthy internet diatribe will change this.

Where have I said I'm not happy? That I don't enjoy playing?

If you cannot personally find a solution this problem, it's best to get rid of it entirely.I don't care how harsh this sounds, or if this offends anyone that has devoted a lot of time and money to this hobby.

It's just that- a hobby. This isn't life. It's ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Shockingly enough, the game is functional. It is still fun to play when you take a step back and just let go. Make it fun for you or cut it off. Nonstop negativity literally kills you.

... I've said it is fun to play. Are you telling me I'm not having fun simply because I'm complaining?

Care to actually respond, or do you just want to throw out strawman arguments like they're relevant to the discussion?

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
The difference between the two mindsets is that I have accepted I cannot rely on GW to provide what you describe. I am not so blind or ignorant to even for a moment assume GW will remedy this problem for myself, or anyone.

And you're assuming I do assume that. I don't.

If you cannot accept 40k for what it is, and always has been, you will never be happy, and will likely never stop complaining about it. No quantity of lengthy internet diatribe will change this.

Where have I said I'm not happy? That I don't enjoy playing?

If you cannot personally find a solution this problem, it's best to get rid of it entirely.I don't care how harsh this sounds, or if this offends anyone that has devoted a lot of time and money to this hobby.

It's just that- a hobby. This isn't life. It's ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Shockingly enough, the game is functional. It is still fun to play when you take a step back and just let go. Make it fun for you or cut it off. Nonstop negativity literally kills you.

... I've said it is fun to play. Are you telling me I'm not having fun simply because I'm complaining?

Care to actually respond, or do you just want to throw out strawman arguments like they're relevant to the discussion?

Notice how I didn't directly reply to your comments.

My contribution was an overall comment to Dakka and the general Internet 40k community in general.

You are getting awfully defensive for something that was clearly not directed at you personally. If you don't care about any of this, why are you replying like you do?

Beer and Pretzels: The Total Opposite than what is going on here right now.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Beer and Pretzels: The Total Opposite than what is going on here right now.

Agreed, this is more like 'liquor and a regretful evening'