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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Players who refuse to get better and spend their time blaming any set of circumstances for it instead of accepting it as a personal flaw. That could also just be replaced with 'people who bug me' though so take it for what its worth.

You do realize there is a significant difference between "refusing" to get better and "being unable" to get better, yes? It's like saying poor people "refuse" to be rich.

As for blaming the circumstances... sure. But that doesn't make it a personal flaw. Having too much work to do, or having children, or having a wife, or simply enjoying other things more than 40k, is not a personal flaw. They may not improve, but they don't have to. No one should make them. No one should say "you must spend six hours a week doing 40k-related things, to improve." They should be allowed to enjoy the hobby however they want. And yes, this includes attending GTs. Bad players should be able to attend GTs, even if they have no hope of winning, if they want to.

You're confusing getting better with 'making massive leaps in skills' which is simply not how personal development works. Also there are vast differences between developing a skill versus acquiring wealth so that's not an apples to apples comparison. And yes blaming anything is a personal flaw - even if you only play 1 40k game a month you have the opportunity to get better, even if your only games ever are at a GT you have the opportunity to get better. It is 100% this line of thinking that frustrates me because it makes it seem like if you aren't able to make large strides in developing a skill set it isn't worth pursuing. Ultimately if your enjoyment is painting then you should get better at it, if its forging the narrative then get better. You should always endeavor to achieve more and further develop your skills, small wins are still progression - but you have to make the choice to improve (and that is a mental decision only).

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Players who refuse to get better and spend their time blaming any set of circumstances for it instead of accepting it as a personal flaw. That could also just be replaced with 'people who bug me' though so take it for what its worth.

You do realize there is a significant difference between "refusing" to get better and "being unable" to get better, yes? It's like saying poor people "refuse" to be rich.

As for blaming the circumstances... sure. But that doesn't make it a personal flaw. Having too much work to do, or having children, or having a wife, or simply enjoying other things more than 40k, is not a personal flaw. They may not improve, but they don't have to. No one should make them. No one should say "you must spend six hours a week doing 40k-related things, to improve." They should be allowed to enjoy the hobby however they want. And yes, this includes attending GTs. Bad players should be able to attend GTs, even if they have no hope of winning, if they want to.

You're confusing getting better with 'making massive leaps in skills' which is simply not how personal development works. Also there are vast differences between developing a skill versus acquiring wealth so that's not an apples to apples comparison. And yes blaming anything is a personal flaw - even if you only play 1 40k game a month you have the opportunity to get better, even if your only games ever are at a GT you have the opportunity to get better. It is 100% this line of thinking that frustrates me because it makes it seem like if you aren't able to make large strides in developing a skill set it isn't worth pursuing. Ultimately if your enjoyment is painting then you should get better at it, if its forging the narrative then get better. You should always endeavor to achieve more and further develop your skills, small wins are still progression - but you have to make the choice to attempt o get better (and that is a mental decision only).

What exactly do you mean by getting better? Most of the 40k players I know that only play once a month don't really think about it. They play a game, understand what they did wrong, maybe buy a box of models... and then by the next month, because they've not kept up with it (due to time and energy), they make exactly the same mistakes.

Even your "mental decision only" takes mental effort that people should not be forced to spend on the hobby if they do not wish to. It's not their job.

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
Its definitely a great game, but I think GW has made some big mistakes in courting a specific type of player with their space marine branding. What started as a cool idea has more or less devolved into a mary sue power fantasy.Now the community is inundated with constant threads complaining that their tabletop experience didn't match their expectations. I think GW could fix this problem by writing more books where space marines- especially first founding chapters- are killed more frequently in mundane ways.

Unfortunately, only the Imperial Fists and their successors can die on mass for the entertainment of the reader

Scarabs and tyranids bug me the most.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What exactly do you mean by getting better? Most of the 40k players I know that only play once a month don't really think about it. They play a game, understand what they did wrong, maybe buy a box of models... and then by the next month, because they've not kept up with it (due to time and energy), they make exactly the same mistakes.

Even your "mental decision only" takes mental effort that people should not be forced to spend on the hobby if they do not wish to. It's not their job.

Getting better is doing any number of things better and evaluating where you did well and where you didn't. Were you able to finish the game in a faster time frame than last week? Did you make better choices in the shooting phase this time? Were you better able to screen against your opponent than your prior game? All of these are relatively small improvements but if you choose (keyword) to take an active role in examining these pieces you are improving, you are getting better at 40k. If you take these small things they will eventually snowball into bigger and bigger improvements.

And if you aren't passionate about a thing why are you doing it? Who cares if its your job? I believe in this entire process not just for 40k and my work life but really my entire life, you should always always be looking for ways to improve. Maslow tells us that self actualization is ultimately as important to us as breathing and eating.

If you're a competitive player then getting better is paramount to your drives and goals.

If you're a narrative player trying to recreate your own stories, this is going to be less of an issue. Getting better would mean other things... like making your tables look better or making your stories tighter.

Getting better at the game as a goal and a drive is not universal to tabletop players.

 auticus wrote:
If you're a competitive player then getting better is paramount to your drives and goals.

If you're a narrative player trying to recreate your own stories, this is going to be less of an issue. Getting better would mean other things... like making your tables look better or making your stories tighter.

Getting better at the game as a goal and a drive is not universal to tabletop players.

Correct and if you read what I wrote I acknowledge that fact - I specifically said if painting is your hobby get better at painting, if forging the narrative is your hobby get better at storytelling. I entirely acknowledge(d) that there are multiple venues through which one can improve in the hobby of 40k. The issue is that many people choose not to in any facet.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What exactly do you mean by getting better? Most of the 40k players I know that only play once a month don't really think about it. They play a game, understand what they did wrong, maybe buy a box of models... and then by the next month, because they've not kept up with it (due to time and energy), they make exactly the same mistakes.

Even your "mental decision only" takes mental effort that people should not be forced to spend on the hobby if they do not wish to. It's not their job.

Getting better is doing any number of things better and evaluating where you did well and where you didn't. Were you able to finish the game in a faster time frame than last week? Did you make better choices in the shooting phase this time? Were you better able to screen against your opponent than your prior game? All of these are relatively small improvements but if you choose (keyword) to take an active role in examining these pieces you are improving, you are getting better at 40k. If you take these small things they will eventually snowball into bigger and bigger improvements.

And if you aren't passionate about a thing why are you doing it? Who cares if its your job? I believe in this entire process not just for 40k and my work life but really my entire life, you should always always be looking for ways to improve. Maslow tells us that self actualization is ultimately as important to us as breathing and eating.

Why should people care? You haven't shown me that.

And as for your question about "why aren't you passionate about something why are you doing it?" well, the answer is that they get enjoyment out of some other part. Perhaps they enjoy the narrative of the game, and it doesn't matter how long it took, or perhaps they got a kick out of seeing if they could kill my Warlord rather than making good shooting choices? Maybe they were more excited to see a whole Leman Russ tank company on the field than they were concerned with screening it?

People don't have to get better from a competitive perspective to get better at the parts of the game they enjoy. They do have to choose to get better at those parts, you're right, but if they want to spend their energy at getting better at something else (making a inherently unbalanced list work) then who are you to tell them "NO! You must shorten your game length! You must screen your models! Why are you focusing on that irrelevant task?!"

And since they lack infinite time to look at warhammer (because of life commitments) then they only get better in the areas of the game they prioritize, rather than the ones you think they should prioritize.

This is why casual players don't really "get" competitive players: the view that if you're not competitively improving, you must not be passionate about the game. That's silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
If you're a competitive player then getting better is paramount to your drives and goals.

If you're a narrative player trying to recreate your own stories, this is going to be less of an issue. Getting better would mean other things... like making your tables look better or making your stories tighter.

Getting better at the game as a goal and a drive is not universal to tabletop players.

Correct and if you read what I wrote I acknowledge that fact - I specifically said if painting is your hobby get better at painting, if forging the narrative is your hobby get better at storytelling. I entirely acknowledge(d) that there are multiple venues through which one can improve in the hobby of 40k. The issue is that many people choose not to in any facet.

This standard is impossible to prove. How do you know someone is getting better at storytelling? It's in their head. How do you know someone is improving in looking up the minute details of fluff that would affect how they build their list?

It's called personal development for a reason. Ultimately this isn't a discussion worth engaging in because you've chosen to be offended by the concept. If you're fine with complacency be my guest - however don't post about all of the things wrong with the game (and this isn't directed specifically at you Unit1126 but as a more general 'you)'. Further to the point I rarely see people who are dedicated hobbyists and story tellers spending their days complaining about 40k because they've learned to focus on their own actualization of their hobby. The people I see whining and complaining tend to be people who play the game first and look for excuses rather than opportunities to grow.

If you don't want to get better at something you shouldn't be doing it - no matter what it is.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
It's called personal development for a reason. Ultimately this isn't a discussion worth engaging in because you've chosen to be offended by the concept. If you're fine with complacency be my guest - however don't post about all of the things wrong with the game (and this isn't directed specifically at you Unit1126 but as a more general 'you)'. Further to the point I rarely see people who are dedicated hobbyists and story tellers spending their days complaining about 40k because they've learned to focus on their own actualization of their hobby. The people I see whining and complaining tend to be people who play the game first and look for excuses rather than opportunities to grow.

If you don't want to get better at something you shouldn't be doing it - no matter what it is.

I disagree with you only because I find your position infuriating. You value improvement (and so do I for that matter) and do not believe something is worth doing unless one improves at it. Fair enough.

It is the gravest of errors, though, to assume then that other people's behavior must conform to your own standards. If they want to do something without getting better at it, that's their prerogative, and whatever my own beliefs, I refuse to tell others how to live their life until it interferes with my own.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
It's called personal development for a reason. Ultimately this isn't a discussion worth engaging in because you've chosen to be offended by the concept. If you're fine with complacency be my guest - however don't post about all of the things wrong with the game (and this isn't directed specifically at you Unit1126 but as a more general 'you)'. Further to the point I rarely see people who are dedicated hobbyists and story tellers spending their days complaining about 40k because they've learned to focus on their own actualization of their hobby. The people I see whining and complaining tend to be people who play the game first and look for excuses rather than opportunities to grow.

If you don't want to get better at something you shouldn't be doing it - no matter what it is.

I disagree with you only because I find your position infuriating. You value improvement (and so do I for that matter) and do not believe something is worth doing unless one improves at it. Fair enough.

It is the gravest of errors, though, to assume then that other people's behavior must conform to your own standards. If they want to do something without getting better at it, that's their prerogative, and whatever my own beliefs, I refuse to tell others how to live their life until it interferes with my own.

That's all well and good but the point of this thread is stuff that bugs you and that bugs me. So effectively what you did was you took issue with my tone (understandable, I tend to read as confrontational, especially via text when I'm not making a conscience effort to soften my language) and decided to take issue with my position as well - that said the point of the thread is clear and I stated what bugs me. What bugs you is me.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
It's called personal development for a reason. Ultimately this isn't a discussion worth engaging in because you've chosen to be offended by the concept. If you're fine with complacency be my guest - however don't post about all of the things wrong with the game (and this isn't directed specifically at you Unit1126 but as a more general 'you)'. Further to the point I rarely see people who are dedicated hobbyists and story tellers spending their days complaining about 40k because they've learned to focus on their own actualization of their hobby. The people I see whining and complaining tend to be people who play the game first and look for excuses rather than opportunities to grow.

If you don't want to get better at something you shouldn't be doing it - no matter what it is.

I disagree with you only because I find your position infuriating. You value improvement (and so do I for that matter) and do not believe something is worth doing unless one improves at it. Fair enough.

It is the gravest of errors, though, to assume then that other people's behavior must conform to your own standards. If they want to do something without getting better at it, that's their prerogative, and whatever my own beliefs, I refuse to tell others how to live their life until it interferes with my own.

That's all well and good but the point of this thread is stuff that bugs you and that bugs me. So effectively what you did was you took issue with my tone (understandable, I tend to read as confrontational, especially via text when I'm not making a conscience effort to soften my language) and decided to take issue with my position as well - that said the point of the thread is clear and I stated what bugs me. What bugs you is me.

Well, yes. What bugs me is people telling other people how to live their lives, when it has no impact on them at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, yes. What bugs me is people telling other people how to live their lives, when it has no impact on them at all.

And there you go, you've arrived at the point of the thread.

 Corennus wrote:
Primaris Marines.

Space Marines were already powerful... but now they're broken.

And how long will it be before we get:

Grey Knight Primaris Marines!


the nightmare

Grey Knight Primaris Custodes MegaExtremelords! Wearing mega ultra doomarmour.


... or you could just play knights, but they are not any kind of Space Marine so don't count.

The codices and supplementary books in gloss are nice.
But players need a less expensive access to the game.

Igougo is the only thing that really bugs me about the game. There is too much time where you just wait and have little to do aside from making armorsaves.
The turn sequence of lotr would be a step in the right direction (I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, we both fight CC). Or an activation system, but I have no experience with those aside from Star Trek Attack Wing.

The biggest complaint I have is that every time a new edition comes out it is streamlined for all of a month or 2.
Then all the codices start mucking it up.

This particular edition is the worst in regard to the promise vs delivery. Don't get me wrong, 8th is my favorite edition so far, but the rules when they first dropped were the simplest I've ever seen.
The fact that you could buy only 5 books (the indexes) to have all the rules for every faction was quite delightful.

Then they started up the codices, which pilled on rule after rule after rule. Yes, the indexes were bland and needed flavor, but when so much flavor is added you can no longer taste the original dish, you have to say enough is enough.

-

This thread is so therapeutic

Soup should be nerfed.

I'm beginning to think that if you venture out of your chapter, craftworld, ruinous power, Sept, Forgeworld, Regiment, or whatever, at the very least you shouldn't count as battleforged.

Reemule wrote:
Soup should be nerfed.

I'm beginning to think that if you venture out of your chapter, craftworld, ruinous power, Sept, Forgeworld, Regiment, or whatever, at the very least you shouldn't count as battleforged.

So no Ynnari, no assassins, sisters of silence, anything like that?

Unpainted armies.

Poor sportsmanship.

Its not a perfect idea. Maybe Ynnaris should come with CP. But I think that overall soup needs to be cleared down to broth or something.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Soup should be nerfed.

I'm beginning to think that if you venture out of your chapter, craftworld, ruinous power, Sept, Forgeworld, Regiment, or whatever, at the very least you shouldn't count as battleforged.

So no Ynnari, no assassins, sisters of silence, anything like that?

Exactly.

Sister of silence should be part of a single faction with SoB, inquisition, Grey knights, etc and Ynnari should just be 3 characters available in the Eldar or Drukhari codexes.

Techpriestsupport wrote:
People who get a land raider model and assemble it with the godhammer lascannon mounts on the rear hatchways instead of the front ones. Putting them on the front hatchways is the only sensible way to mount them. Putting them on the front hatchways lets the marines embark and disembark from the rear hatchways and the lascannon mounts give them some cover from fire from the front while they're. Going thru the hatchways. Putting them on the rear hatchways means the barrels of the lascannons block the front hatchway and they don't cover the marines as they embark or disembark.

This, so much this!

All marks of Land Raider guns should be on the front doors, it makes me sad when they're on the back! Also, it looks so much better on the front.

I hate when I have a unit that can't see an enemy unit/character (wall, corner, etc) but it can see an enemy character just an inch further away In front of it and they cant shoot. So stupid.

Reemule wrote:
Its not a perfect idea. Maybe Ynnaris should come with CP. But I think that overall soup needs to be cleared down to broth or something.

To do so, the Inquisition and its lackies needs to be properly rewritten into either a full army or a thoughtfully redesigned expansion force with the intent of replacing soup armies entirely.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

The "we don't have a plastic box labeled "unit X", therefore unit X is not allowed" attitude from GW. The push to single-loadout/single-pose units. People saying "It's GW's responsibility to fix all the things, I must assume that every game I play is a hardcore tournament game in which I have no ability to talk to my opponent about what I'd like to play and no responsibility for adjusting lists, tables, or the mission, because it's obviously GW's fault I'm not having fun." People analyzing a unit on a linear spectrum of OPness rather than asking themselves whether it's fun or interesting to use/face. And people who try to impose their interpretation of the fluff on other peoples' armies.

 Fafnir wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Its not a perfect idea. Maybe Ynnaris should come with CP. But I think that overall soup needs to be cleared down to broth or something.

To do so, the Inquisition and its lackies needs to be properly rewritten into either a full army or a thoughtfully redesigned expansion force with the intent of replacing soup armies entirely.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

I don’t feel like losing the battle forged to add in some of the options mentioned makes the options unplayable. If you want a inquisitor, play an inquisitor. Just realize it won’t be battleforged… The guy with 3 more CP over his opponent isn't guaranteed a win...

Reemule wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Its not a perfect idea. Maybe Ynnaris should come with CP. But I think that overall soup needs to be cleared down to broth or something.

To do so, the Inquisition and its lackies needs to be properly rewritten into either a full army or a thoughtfully redesigned expansion force with the intent of replacing soup armies entirely.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

I don’t feel like losing the battle forged to add in some of the options mentioned makes the options unplayable. If you want a inquisitor, play an inquisitor. Just realize it won’t be battleforged… The guy with 3 more CP over his opponent isn't guaranteed a win...

If its not Battle Forged you can't play in Matched Play.

Reemule wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Its not a perfect idea. Maybe Ynnaris should come with CP. But I think that overall soup needs to be cleared down to broth or something.

To do so, the Inquisition and its lackies needs to be properly rewritten into either a full army or a thoughtfully redesigned expansion force with the intent of replacing soup armies entirely.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

I don’t feel like losing the battle forged to add in some of the options mentioned makes the options unplayable. If you want a inquisitor, play an inquisitor. Just realize it won’t be battleforged… The guy with 3 more CP over his opponent isn't guaranteed a win...

Crucially, playing matched play against an opponent requires armies to be battle-forged. So you would also be prevented from playing in most of the games around the country here in the US.

EDIT:
ninja'd! Good one Farseer.