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.

Hey 40k Folks -

This could turn into show, but my goal here is an on-topic and insightful conversation around the following? I don't think our hobby is sinking. I don't think there is a majority of people who really believe this. I think that there is an angry and loud minority on the inter-tubes.

I don't understand what folks are so negative regarding the table top, fluff, and hobby. I do understand that people spend a lot of time building, painting, and reading about these models (whether fluff and/or rules). The time investment is immense, so any changes or threats to "the way I want it" or "they way it used to be" make for a hot subject.

This could be a change to the rules or just a bad string of games. Heck, even the case of my Deathwing a bad 2.5 years of games followed by a "bad" change.

The question still stands for me, is the people I choose to surround myself with see the game for what it is and adapt their tactics/ list building to meet the meta. We will experiment and get tabled or table someone - yet talk about the lists weaknesses against the meta/ off meta picks. And it is enjoyable. I am in a game that is constantly changing due to frequent model/ rule changes. I get decent play out of the lists I build and modify. I win and get ousted at tournaments with my DA, Nids, and Sisters.

Why are people so focused on the negative? Was just on a friendly DA Facebook group talking about a book got for X-Mas. A different member went on about how it was against the fluff - when really all I saw was just a lack of imagination on their part due to a sentence in a codex disagreeing with a well explained passage about why a company commander wasn't part of the inner circle. This lead to a number of bashing comment on the author. Why?

Why are people so negative, yet stick around? Why do people who seem to have nothing, but bad, to say about the hobby not just do something else? There are tons of different things to do with your time - why pick something that infuriates you?

People are passionate about the hobby and it brings out the vocal complaints when stuff isn't being done well. Unfortunately GW is a company that is not consumer friendly and outright ignores its customer base. So you have passionate people and a company that operates in a manner that is cold and passionless as GW's actions show little to no concern about quality of rules, fluff, or being fun. They just want to make models for people to buy. All that resentment and thus negativity spills over into other topics of discussion because it feels like our concerns and wants fall on deaf ears. Some people are better than others at keeping the negativity from spilling over.

That being said there are always a small minority that tend to be socially lacking and aren't able to be flexible in the least about things. In any area of interest you will find these kinds of people but when you have a community of disgruntle and passionate members then that negativity can possibly result in a feeding frenzy / negativity echo chamber of sorts.

If it can be debated on the internet then you will always find negative minded folk.

Unfortunate truth in today's world.

People focus on the negatives because there are a lot of negatives to focus on. 40k is an appallingly bad game with some decent models (though less and less with every new release) and great fluff (though less and less with every new release). But people keep coming back to it in the desperate hope that the things they enjoy about the hobby can make up for the bad parts. Whether or not this is true depends on the person, I guess.

It's easier to complain and be negative then be positive and constructive, people don't want to put the effort in and take the easy way out. Granted there are a few things about the game I'm disappointed with but as stated I tend to adapt and overcome, and often enjoy the challenge of facing new things that may or may not be considered too strong, silly rules ect.

Here is my opinion, as someone who plays/used to play sisters of battle, black Templar, and word bearers: GW is very inconsistent with how it treats its Lore and balance. They will shift things all over the place to sell a new product, and do halfassed digital books for things they consider dying. They will make a new model for space marines every month, but leave most other armies with monopose single option HQs and take away options from rulebooks because of said terrible models. Say hello to my Venom blade archon with clone field...which sits on my shelves since 5th edition.

Human nature. No one is immune.

The trouble, in one sentence or less:

People who hate losing way more than they like winning.

Anger isn't necessarily confined to the game, people will bring their unrelated agendas and personality quirks into 40k.

40k is very different than a videogame in that there is a strong element of social interaction, from rules interpretation to "balance" to expectations of etiquette. Demonizing GW can serve to triangulate friction, rather than blaming the party across the table, you can blame an impersonal 3rd party. In these respects making GW an acceptable and distant common enemy preserves peace within the 40k fanbase.

Exorbitant prices and corporate-driven agendas are more valid criticisms (like GW's frivolous lawsuits), but I don't you were talking about more mature and grounded behaviour.

-Games take several hours.

-The typical player may only get to play once a week or less, due to scheduling issues with other players etc.

This leads to players that don't get enough of the game to satisfy their tastes, and have spare time on the internets.

Now combine that with:

-tons of balance issues and legitimate complaints about the game, as well as severe issues with the company running the game.

And you have a recipe for a negative player-base.

 Peregrine wrote:
People focus on the negatives because there are a lot of negatives to focus on. 40k is an appallingly bad game with some decent models (though less and less with every new release) and great fluff (though less and less with every new release). But people keep coming back to it in the desperate hope that the things they enjoy about the hobby can make up for the bad parts. Whether or not this is true depends on the person, I guess.

Peregrine basically nailed it.

There's a lot of great stuff to 40k. Most people that are salty about 40k aren't really so much butthurt about losing, but rather that the quality of the experience they love so much is decreasing.

For me, the pricing, increasingly insane rules, and just as importantly, declining quality of background and changing style of imagery to mimic something you'd find in a MOBA videogame as opposed to the more classic "heavy metal" look are all problems that decrease the quality of the experience. I love the 40k universe, which is what keeps me at least minimally engaged, but, like many others, the direction of the last few years isn't what we'd like to see.

No different than Star Wars fans who loved the original movies and griped tremendously about the prequel trilogy. They loved the original movies, despite some of their flaws, and there were very real and very compelling complaints about the prequels (still haven't seen the new flick so I won't comment).

Also too many people out there treat 40k as a truly competitive game, so it's inbalance only multiplies the negative behaviour. Even just mentioning this i've seen people get really edgy and snappy.

However the painting section is bliss, and others see 40k for what it is, a social make your own path game.

I don't think our hobby is sinking. I don't think there is a majority of people who really believe this. I think that there is an angry and loud minority on the inter-tubes.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true, and the evidence suggests that your opinion is incorrect.

Why are people so negative, yet stick around? Why do people who seem to have nothing, but bad, to say about the hobby not just do something else? There are tons of different things to do with your time - why pick something that infuriates you?

Because there's a great IP buried under the tons of crap GW has foisted on it.

 Peregrine wrote:
People focus on the negatives because there are a lot of negatives to focus on. 40k is an appallingly bad game with some decent models (though less and less with every new release) and great fluff (though less and less with every new release). But people keep coming back to it in the desperate hope that the things they enjoy about the hobby can make up for the bad parts. Whether or not this is true depends on the person, I guess.

I see a lot of people on here and elsewhere saying the same thing, that 40k is 'appallingly bad', but it always makes me wonder.

What makes a bad game? What makes a good one? We can focus on just the game portion of the experience (so excising 66% of the overall experience), but we're still left with the problem of finding an objective metric by which to evaluate a fundamentally subjective experience.

Sure, you can make arguments that 40k's rules are confusing and unclear, the balance in between the armies is lacking, the game system doesn't know what it wants to be (small skirmish-level or huge mass-battle), and many other things, but those are all just potentially influential elements to the actual most important factor: is the game fun?

Tabletop Wargaming isn't an artform (remembering that we're just talking about the game, not the models here), it's sole purpose is to entertain. So the only important matter is whether the game is entertaining.

In order for 40k to be 'appallingly bad' in an objective sense, it would have to utterly fail at being entertaining, but given the fact that it is -still- the most popular tabletop wargame in an arena that's only getting more competitive, I think we can safely say it has not yet failed at being fun, at least for most people who play it.

Now, if you'd used a less hyperbolic phrase, such as 'poorly designed' or 'underdeveloped', I would've agreed with you wholeheartedly, but you didn't. You said "appallingly bad', attempting to make an objective assessment of a subjective experience. I'd suggest in future to watch how you phrase things if that wasn't your intention.


To respond to the OP - most of the time, people will only provide their opinion of something if it's negative. How many times have you received adequate (not absolutely groundbreaking or particularly stellar, just adequate) service at a restaurant and then gone onto the internet to tell anyone who'll listen? There are a lot of people who'd never leave a positive review but would leave a scathingly negative review if anything at all was wrong. That's the lens you need to view 40k discussions online from. There's a VAST silent majority out there perfectly happy to play the game and not say a thing against it.

I myself honestly don't see the point of being negative about it, the game is what it is and there's no catharsis to be had by going onto the internet and sharing your complaints. GW doesn't listen, and at best you'll just get an echo chamber of other disgruntled players who share your opinion and all the community gets is more negativity.

It's why it's so refreshing to see people making suggestions on how to make the game better - they've identified a problem, but instead of just complaining about it and doing nothing, they're actively working to fix the issue. When we have a problem at work, we're not allowed to tell the supervisor about it until we've thought of at least one way to potentially remedy it. I reckon all the various 40k discussion forums would improve dramatically if a similar rule was introduced.

Well, GW doesn't treat their player base nicely. They have mutated to a miniature making company selling their products to collectors. The gaming aspect has fallen behind. However, I think that most of their customers are players in the first place. Its a bad situation.

Some of the blame is on us too. Sure some of the new codices are really strong (looking at you eldar/tau/necrons) but we don't have to play super cheese all the time, it hurts the game. I play tau, but I started before it was this good, I had no idea what it was like when I rejoined 7thed. I played them because I liked them, and as such I don't bring cheese. I'm never going to bring stormsurges, no more than 1 Riptide, and avoid the new stealth cadre. I play with alot of friends, one of which is brand new to the game, played like 4 games, so what's the fun in bring cheese and smashing him? We all need the chill out a bit and do the same with our lists.

xana666 wrote:
Some of the blame is on us too. Sure some of the new codices are really strong (looking at you eldar/tau/necrons) but we don't have to play super cheese all the time, it hurts the game. I play tau, but I started before it was this good, I had no idea what it was like when I rejoined 7thed. I played them because I liked them, and as such I don't bring cheese. I'm never going to bring stormsurges, no more than 1 Riptide, and avoid the new stealth cadre. I play with alot of friends, one of which is brand new to the game, played like 4 games, so what's the fun in bring cheese and smashing him? We all need the chill out a bit and do the same with our lists.

I don't think it's fair to hold players responsible for the game's balance issues. A company is responsible for the quality of its product, not the consumer. As the saying goes, "hate the game, not the player".

xana666 wrote:
Some of the blame is on us too. Sure some of the new codices are really strong (looking at you eldar/tau/necrons) but we don't have to play super cheese all the time, it hurts the game.

Kinda hard to do sometimes though, isn't it?

I mean, back in fifth, all you had to say was 'I love the idea of airborne guard', or 'I love grey knights', and frankly, whatever you took had a really good chance of blasting whatever you wanted off the board. And regardless of your intent, you were tfg.

In sixth and seventh, it was 'I love saim hann eldar' and 'decurion'. Especially if your mate plays blood Angels or chaos.cI mean when your alternative to not play super cheese all the time is to essentially gut your own codex in terms of what's ok to field, put massive terms and conditions on what your opponents with allow you to play, and essentially tie yourself in a knot over it, then I really have to question the logic of this approach, it's a bit of a race to the bottom, frankly. What's the point in playing a game with really cool toy soldiers,when, at the end of the day, you're not actually allowed to play with your really cool toy soldiers.

If anything, this approach 'hurts the game' just as much, because there is a whole host of options you are now forbidden to field. The eldar player might as well shelf his whole army, and that's hardly fair either, is it?

///

It's human nature to focus on the bad things rather than the good - we're mentally geared to dominate and control the world around us (even if we're programmed to be less dominant when it comes to other humans) - and so focussing on the 'bad' things is focussing on the 'things that need fixing'.

With things like games, we can't ever have that control, so we get stuck in this continual "I need to fix this" thought loop that builds up toxic levels of frustration.

"I like this" -> "Actually, this could be better" -> "I ca't make it better" -> "This makes me angry." -> "Ah! I better get more humans to help me make it better" -> "None of us can make it better." -> "This makes us all angry." -> "This bit's cool though." -> "Actually, this bit could be better" -> -> ->

Because neckbeards, that's why.

Why are people so negative, yet stick around? Why do people who seem to have nothing, but bad, to say about the hobby not just do something else? There are tons of different things to do with your time - why pick something that infuriates you?

Can't sell my army to anyone, so am stuck with it. There is nothing good about playing IG. Because I invested 2 years of working in germany, I have two years less money to spend on other stuff. If I knew that IG is going to be fun to play for less then 6 months, and that in two years there are going to be cheaper and better systems to play I would save my many. Although If I had that typ of precognition powers, I would probably invest it in to lotto .

For most of us this is how we spend our free time and our (poorly managed) hobby budget on

It sucks when you don't have controll over "your" hobby or investment. If you want to see just how silly all is compare it with an other hobby. Lets say fishing. Amateur fishers would be outraged if city council adjusted the rules of fishing every few years forcing you to buy all new fishing gear or be forced to never catch a fish or fish alone ( this is why using metaphors sucks : P )

The mismatch of us thinking that it is our hobby and the company doing what it wants creates a lot of friction.
There are multiple solutions to this friction but most aren't truly satisfying.

-Changing your view on what is your hobby. From my hobby is 40k to collecting painting and playing with miniatures.
This works for a lot of us but it sucks when you just want to be able to play 40k in a store.

-Accepting the change 40k brings.
This is hard when you cant afford (both in time and money) to keep up with GWs changes,, and there might be some changes you just don't like at all such as the end times or age of sigmarification.

- Find a new hobby.
This might be the sanest thing to do. Sadly most of us are kinda addicted to it, this might not be what we live for bit it comes close for some of us.

 gmaleron wrote:
It's easier to complain and be negative then be positive and constructive, people don't want to put the effort in and take the easy way out.

 Rayvon wrote:
Because some people suck and feel the need to bring others down as well as themselves.

 Tigramans wrote:
Because neckbeards, that's why.

I always find it interesting how many people on these forums bleat about how everyone should be positive, constructive, polite etc., only to immediately dismiss any legitimate criticism of GW/40k with not just negativity but also bile, insults, condescension etc..

http://www.torrentoffire.com/7348/product-management-games-workshop-and-the-future

Even Torrent of Fire is looking to close the drapes on promoting 40k.

As I said in another thread on here a few days back. 40k in my neck of the woods has seen a substantial drop in players and many gaming clubs dropping it all together. Warmachine and Dropzone are the replacements, and the clubs seem happier. Clean rules and no rules debates to understand how the games work.

The 40k rules questions alone would go on for days and see people drop off social media, over simple things like D Weapons (how do they work). The rules aren't clean and it leads to frustration.

Deadnight wrote:

xana666 wrote:
Some of the blame is on us too. Sure some of the new codices are really strong (looking at you eldar/tau/necrons) but we don't have to play super cheese all the time, it hurts the game.

Kinda hard to do sometimes though, isn't it?

I mean, back in fifth, all you had to say was 'I love the idea of airborne guard', or 'I love grey knights', and frankly, whatever you took had a really good chance of blasting whatever you wanted off the board. And regardless of your intent, you were tfg.

In sixth and seventh, it was 'I love saim hann eldar' and 'decurion'. Especially if your mate plays blood Angels or chaos.cI mean when your alternative to not play super cheese all the time is to essentially gut your own codex in terms of what's ok to field, put massive terms and conditions on what your opponents with allow you to play, and essentially tie yourself in a knot over it, then I really have to question the logic of this approach, it's a bit of a race to the bottom, frankly. What's the point in playing a game with really cool toy soldiers,when, at the end of the day, you're not actually allowed to play with your really cool toy soldiers.

If anything, this approach 'hurts the game' just as much, because there is a whole host of options you are now forbidden to field. The eldar player might as well shelf his whole army, and that's hardly fair either, is it?

The attitude towards Eldar is why I sold them off (I rarely got in games but I was hella keen on viable Biel-tan) It's awful hard to get motivated and search the net for inspiration when there's naught but outright hatred towards <insert faction here>

Regarding 40k as a whole, I figure most people just want fun games where they don't need to worry about being tabled by the latest hotness or what-have-you. Bearing in mind I'd love to fight down a titan et al as a "Bring it on!" type of let's-see-how-long-I-last, but I certainly don't want that to be the case in ever single game. To each their own though, but compromise must happen between players and such.

Not sure if this makes much sense,I've been drinking as it's boxing day

 Tigramans wrote:
Because neckbeards, that's why.

Jup veterans that GW [MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius] too many times are more likely to be angy / negative.
Also the nature of annon internet usage. Here we can vent / spamm all our negative toughs as lord_poopy_farts_the_brave_2 without anyone ever knowing that it was really you and without any "real" social interaction.

 vipoid wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
It's easier to complain and be negative then be positive and constructive, people don't want to put the effort in and take the easy way out.

 Rayvon wrote:
Because some people suck and feel the need to bring others down as well as themselves.

 Tigramans wrote:
Because neckbeards, that's why.

I always find it interesting how many people on these forums bleat about how everyone should be positive, constructive, polite etc., only to immediately dismiss any legitimate criticism of GW/40k with not just negativity but also bile, insults, condescension etc..

Yeah, it's often the defenders of 40k/GW that turn casual disagreement in to a vitriolic exchange.

So often it comes down to people making negative comments about the game and then the retort comes instead of supporting the game, attacking the person who made the negative comment.

For me, it's because while I constantly get enticed by 40k, I realize every time that the game is utter trash if I would try to play it in the way I have to, which is pick-up games at a game shop/GW shop. Maybe it would be a different story if I had a club that played in a certain way, but I don't. I would be showing up on weekends at a game store, seeing if anyone wanted a game, and then having my enjoyment 100% dictated by if my opponent is a douchebag or not.

What makes a game good/bad? Good rules that actually try to be balanced for an enjoyable game, without favoring any one faction or trying to push stronger things to sell models (i.e. the opposite of what GW does), being well-written to avoid having rules discussions or house rules to fix glaring holes in the rules (i.e. the opposite of what GW does), and being able to be played equally well in both a competitive and casual manner without screwing both over (i.e. the opposite of what GW does).

There's negativity because GW is a company that basically says they don't care about their customers, because they feel their customers are fanboys who will buy anything that they put out just because it has "Citadel Miniatures" on the box, and therefore can ignore writing rules that work while peddling the fantasy that they actually have a game that works, instead of something that lets you bring out your miniatures from the cabinet from time to time. They compare themselves to Apple in the sense that they must feel that people are lining up to buy anything they put out, and will buy it based on the brand name alone, regardless of the actual substance. The company itself is delusional and it shows in virtually everything they do.

Why do people still post? Because there's hope. I played 40k last time in 2000, and I've thought about 5-6 times since then of coming back. Last weekend I went to a newly-opened Warhammer store and bought a box to start playing again, and then I started to read through the rules again and see what it would cost me to start playing, and came to the realization that there's no compelling reason for me to play again because I want to play a game first, and miniatures second, while GW's entire modus operandi is miniatures first and the game second. There's no actual game, it's just pushing a bunch of models around and rolling a bucketload of dice, and that doesn't even sound remotely fun, and since the miniatures alone aren't enough to get me to play, why bother when there are other games out there that don't have crappy rules? It would be another story if I really was "omg so kewl" with the miniatures and was a painter/modeller first and a gamer second, but I'm not. I ultimately want a game to play, not miniatures to collect. Until 40k goes back to that (which I doubt it ever will) then I really can't see how it's the right game choice for me, since I know I would get frustrated and ragequit the minute that my well thought out, fluffy army gets steamrolled by some WAAC netlist, since I have zero interest in playing 40k in any competitive fashion whatsoever, but there's no guarantee that I can play it in a casual, narrative and/or campaign style of play due to relying on pickup games and events (if any are even run, last time I was looking at game stores they never had any events other than tournaments, it was all just "show up and play" which is probably the worst way possible to even attempt to play a game like 40k).

I'll put it this way: This time last week I was planning out a Khorne Daemonkin army for an escalation league, thinking of how to make it fluffy and writing up a backstory for the army, two days ago I was scouring eBay for bits to customize my Chaos Lord, today I'm back almost 100% on Warmachine instead because 40k as a game doesn't appeal to me at all, and the miniatures alone aren't enough to justify the high price for a lousy game. I can easily afford it, but why would I when there are other games that I will get more enjoyment out of and where I can actually improve as a player?

Also, it's very telling that nearly all the pro-GW posts tend to devolve into name calling or just outright ignoring facts, while the anti-GW posts are usually well thought out and back them up. All the "Why is everyone negative?" posts tend to insult huge swathes of people and completely ignoring their viewpoints and what is often actual evidence beyond "I'm having fun, so it's great" which is the most common retort.

Are we salty, or are you drunk on the kool-aid?

Some of us simply remember better times and want things to go back to how they were. GW has made it clear that they do not wish to hearmfrom us, so here we are.

Those who were the most vocal and salty started playing Warmahordes and every time they've sighted a 40k game over other tables, they emidiately started patrolling round it and barking happilly how awful 40k is and how superior Warmachine rules are.

Ironically, after a few months they grew tired of warmachine cause they said that every game was the same and that tourney builds are boring but everything else is garbage and unplayable.

So, we've got no warmahordes running atm. Some are trying mantic now - they like it so far.

X-wing is about to be started too.

As for me, i somewhat agree that 40k has a lot of crappy rules and an awful lot of balacne issues and that it deserves a hefty lot of criticysm but it's still playable and is very capable of being interesting, tactical and fun.

I do think that a lot of things need improvement and that you need at least some houserules to make the game more enjoyable. And that all this problems can be easily overcome if GW was a bit more caring and insightful.