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.
2019/10/29 19:37:24
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Vankraken wrote: I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?
Which aspects of 7th are missing that make the game totally unplayable for you?
2019/10/29 19:59:20
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Shadenuat wrote: I miss facings and somewhat templates (without them + auras blob armies became too prevalent; and flamers became weaker). I also liked some of the moving and shooting rules better before I guess.
I do not miss all the instant death rules, whole units running from a failed morale check, and only few factions having ability to charge from transports. Also that godawful psychic phase with dice pool and random powers.
Facings and templates were fun for armies capable of exploiting them. For everyone else? Not so much. It'd be nice if flamers were better at taking on hordes and a couple other minor things, but I can't for the life of me imagine it would ruin the enjoyment of the game by not having them.
Vankraken wrote: I had fun playing 6th and 7th. 8th came out and I gave it a fair shake but the game stopped being fun because of the design choices GW made. Hundreds of hours of work and thousands of dollars of models became in part wasted because it has become 10x harder to find a game of 7th as everyone else has moved on to 8th. Frankly it sucks to have a game I loved get tossed aside and trampled while this mess of a game (8th) is being proclaimed as some golden age of GW or whatever. So what exactly is there to be positive about when the game I started with got completely rewritten and removed most of the aspects that I found enjoyable?
Which aspects of 7th are missing that make the game totally unplayable for you?
In general the tactical gameplay of using terrain, blast weapons having proper area of effect, AV system so you don't have pulse rifle spam being the most effective form of anti tank, special rules and mechanics built into units. Directional casualties suck for an Ork player but I like how it gives the shooter some decision making in inflicting casualties. The risk/reward of deep strikes is another major thing where taking the risk of a danger close deep strike to melta a tank or get in firing range of some backfield artillery units. I also find myself strongly disliking stratagems as they feel a bit too MTG like and don't cater to redundant units or MSU play styles. Also dislike the +1 and -1 to hit garbage as it isn't well implemented (-1 to hit hoses Orks but only an annoyance to space marines). Weapon profiles and their roles are far too bland and similar due to the lack of true cover mechanics, no blasts, the AP changes, no AV, and general reduction of mechanics and special rules.
The game is less unplayable and more along the lines of being boring as watching paint dry.
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I get the feeling you've missed out on the bigger changes since the inception of this edition. When is the last time you played?
- I'll commensurate with you on terrain. I play ITC more, because terrain is often too easy to ignore.
- Blast weapons -- for me -- I can do without. Think of it this way : it prevented blobbing, but that did that really do? It just slowed the game down as people maximized their 2". The random shots now represents the variability of the templates.
- Pulse rifle spam is hardly good AV. It's good AV in a pinch, but that's about it, which is not any stronger than those S5 glancing AV11. It wasn't always easy to keep the sides of a predator away from them. Mathematically 10 shots then was about 0.84 glances or 25% of a vehicle's hull points. 10 shots now comes to 0.6 wounds, which is 5% of a vehicle's wounds. Obviously they would never have taken down AV12 or better, but for perspective these days it takes 36 fire warriors the entire game (at long range) to kill a tank.
- Directional casualties were cool, but again...for shooting armies and really tended to slow the game down.
- Deep striking mishaps were thematically cool, but really just aggravating. Even when you weren't near enemies you can land in terrain and die. What's even the point of using it other than random clutch drops that MIGHT kill something useful?
- Stratagems add so much for me. I think GW has become FAR better at making them than the earlier days. Have you seen the new marine ones?
- Orks get around modifiers ok these days (they don't even care about -2 or worse, anyway) - have you seen their new rules?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/10/29 20:17:03
2019/10/30 03:02:26
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
So to answer the question, I would deep strike because I thought it was cool and thematic and I thought I could make it work and if it did work it was glorious and made for a good story and if it went horribly wrong it could also make for a good story. I can completely understand why people like the current system and hated the old system. If you were looking for a competitive game then it definitely wasn't for you because some of the time it felt like you were playing against the game as well as the opposing player but those are the sorts of things that drew me to 40K and kept me around when better games started coming up.
Totally valid, but I feel like there are tons of ways to create memorable moments if people step outside the strict matched play arena.
2019/10/30 13:36:01
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I get the feeling you've missed out on the bigger changes since the inception of this edition. When is the last time you played?
- I'll commensurate with you on terrain. I play ITC more, because terrain is often too easy to ignore.
- Blast weapons -- for me -- I can do without. Think of it this way : it prevented blobbing, but that did that really do? It just slowed the game down as people maximized their 2". The random shots now represents the variability of the templates.
- Pulse rifle spam is hardly good AV. It's good AV in a pinch, but that's about it, which is not any stronger than those S5 glancing AV11. It wasn't always easy to keep the sides of a predator away from them. Mathematically 10 shots then was about 0.84 glances or 25% of a vehicle's hull points. 10 shots now comes to 0.6 wounds, which is 5% of a vehicle's wounds. Obviously they would never have taken down AV12 or better, but for perspective these days it takes 36 fire warriors the entire game (at long range) to kill a tank.
- Directional casualties were cool, but again...for shooting armies and really tended to slow the game down.
- Deep striking mishaps were thematically cool, but really just aggravating. Even when you weren't near enemies you can land in terrain and die. What's even the point of using it other than random clutch drops that MIGHT kill something useful?
- Stratagems add so much for me. I think GW has become FAR better at making them than the earlier days. Have you seen the new marine ones?
- Orks get around modifiers ok these days (they don't even care about -2 or worse, anyway) - have you seen their new rules?
-Blast weapons made the battlefield as a whole matter more as to how close units where to each other. A lot of times when firing blast weapons, it was important to account for where misses could go so firing close to friendlies was risky while firing in congested areas meant that your misses could still hit other enemy units. It gave the feeling of artillery/bombs/etc blowing up stuff and also made the weapon far more reliant on battlefield conditions (unit concentrations, spacing, etc) than just the theorycraft numbers of how much damage on average this weapon does. 8th edition "blast" weapons shoot like machine guns with Ork RNG shots.
-The pulse weapon example is because of stacking + to wound modifiers that made spamming pulse rifle fire an effective anti Knight weapon. This ties into both the weaknesses of toughness only (anything can wound anything which is stupid) and 8th tendency to have stratagems and other bonuses result in weird situations. In general the feeling that you needed proper AT weapons to deal with an AV13 or AV14 vehicle (or flank around to the side or rear armor) was a compelling gameplay experience instead of throwing a lot of dice at a meatbox on treads (or these days mostly hovering on air).
-Directional casualties again made positioning matter more and factored into target priority and such outside of just number crunching damage outputs. Tying back into the battlefield conditions mattering more.
-Whats the point of using deepstrikes now? The point of them is to get into a position that you couldn't effectively get into while starting on the board and had that whole risk/reward aspect of making risky drops (and using your models to force more risky drops from your opponent). Once again the battlefield mattered and tied in strongly to AV firing arcs in addition to being a counter to hiding behind LOS or putting important characters in the back of unit blobs. Now the 9" bubble means your really not dropping behind the enemy unless they are really incompetent. No AV or directional casualties means getting a flank has little to no effect. (also terrain is basically being in area terrain or no bonus to your save so getting around cover isn't a factor really).
-Stratagems feel too much like a gimmick and again reminds me more of something from Magic (tap a CP and play *insert 40k equivalent to wild growth* to wound on 3s instead of 4s). In general 8th is barren on core gameplay mechanics and unit profiles (especially on older units) and instead relies on stacking bonuses from your subfaction and stratagems to do something "interesting". Stacking bonuses and modifiers feels artificial and clunky. I like my units being able to do their function based on the core and codex rules they have been given without needing to conjure some super power ability from Gork or sending in the logistical drone to give a Fire Warrior the only EMP grenade the army has.
-I don't think d6s are well suited for +1 and -1 modifiers they way 40k does it and i especially don't like modifiers when unit profiles vary as much as 40k's does unlike a game like bolt action where units generally hit on the same value but modifiers are designed around how movement and terrain. You don't have the Germans as an army hitting on 3+ base while the Italians are all hitting on 5+ base then trying to stack on flat modifiers for cover, terrain, etc. Seems like GW might of learned a bit from the stupidity of Eldar getting army wide minus to hit (and stacking it with other - to hit bonuses) but in general I dislike how the math of this stuff plays out.
The crux of the problem of 8th is that it lacks the feel of being a tactical game (as in movement, terrain, spacing, placement, directional shooting, area of effect, risk taking, etc) and its much more along the lines of throwing dice at the enemy and watching things poof out of existence. Even the morale system before was good (when stuff wasn't all fearless) where units would fall back and may rally. Multiple games i've had units that had fallen back return to play an impactful part of the game or made the conscious decision to inflict moderate casualties to multiple units in a turn to force as many morale checks as possible to better neutralize some of their army instead of just focus firing down each unit one by one. That also leads to the general lack of ways to diminish an enemy's ability to fight beyond removing models when before there was things like pinning, forcing jinks, blind, morale causing falling back, fear (again the rare Ork or CSM opponents lol), etc. The game now is much more "roll dice, remove units until one side has nothing else to remove" which is closer to the game Risk than I would like 40k to be.
GW so far hasn't done anything to help shore up any of these weaknesses and instead seems hell bent on pushing power creep and going the whole "layer bonus on top of bonus" route instead of fleshing out the core rules to have some more depth of mechanics. Then again from a design point of view they built themselves in a corner by having such a small base set of rules to work from that it would be difficult to build out the foundation of the game without making it complete unstable or requiring a complete redo of most units in the game.
Last game of 8th for me was probably a year ago but again I find myself enjoying playing 7th (which I've done since then to much enjoyment whenever the opportunity presents itself). Nothing in the past year has made me care to try 8th again as it still lacks what i crave from 40k.
Thanks for taking the time to write that all out. I do feel like the nostalgia glasses are guiding the perspective a bit.
For example -- while units could flee and then rally it was so, so unlikely to be impactful. Most times those units were severely wounded or too far out to make it back before the end of the game. Typically they would just be a hindrance for kill points if you could get them behind cover.
Directional casualties were fun for the person doing the shooting. It was completely unfun for the one being shot. Why? Because you've completely removed their agency. Armies that moved faster had the flexibility to exploit it better. That's literally all it ever was.
The same thing with facings (when people stopped arguing which facing they were in) -- what did facings do? It forced my tanks into a corner from which they would never move. That's not engaging. Would I support some directional bonus to wound or AP? Yes - as long as it's not something that causes large disagreements.
These random blasts you talk about applied to the crappier armies with bad BS. The armies with the multi-blast shots and good BS didn't see the crazy scatter, but they also didn't see tons of hits unless the opponent was bad.
The common thread for all these things - one army is stronger and more capable of exploiting the rules.
You speak about modifiers and stratagems in terms of stacking rules. What were spells like invisibility doing? How were death stars in 7th operating? Rules stacking - I put this character in to make the unit fearless and this one in to make the unit 3++ etc etc. So, the dynamic didn't change. Just the application of much of that stacking is placed behind a cost now, which creates a better opportunity for balance.
- In the near future Black Templars will have a stratagem to prevent fall back. One could get into combat and use regular fists to keep the unit alive. On their turn you force them to stay and finish them off freeing you up to go deeper with a fresh unit on your turn.
- Incursors can lay mines and make part of the battlefield really hard to get through.
- I have to lend consideration to putting fire down into their backfield to open up a spot for me to land deepstrikers.
- Some armies can redeploy models effectively creating a feint
- I can exploit bad positioning by warp timing a defiler and dropping a considerably large mortal wound bubble
While I enjoyed 7th it was never a playground for tactical genius. In my opinion, anyway. Could 8th improve? Absolutely, but it's the most fun I've had with 40K despite the agony of losing terminators to gretchin in 2nd edition.
2019/10/30 22:55:36
Subject: Re:Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
I personally think morale in 7th was worse. Anything meaningful was immune as no one would risk an expensive unit on that risk. Anything that lost in combat was outrun by the faster army barring lucky rolls.
Combos make your army function, but they dont play the game for you. There is a lot to be had in the missions played.
2019/10/31 00:30:56
Subject: Re:Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
If there is a venn diagram of the competitive players playing un-fun lists and complaining about the game not being fun then I would imagine the cross-section is pretty small.
I rarely find that it's un-fun to play any sort of list. I think, perhaps, where it becomes less fun is when your strong list totally rolls over your opponent's weak list. There is no challenge and as such it is boring.
2019/10/31 13:15:01
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Look if you want the happy clappy cult version of a forum where there are no issues or mistakes by the company because they are infallible you could ask The Grand Alliance to open a 40k board.
Otherwise you got to take the rough with the smooth remember given GW's own stance and backed up by the pricing scheme, GW consider themselves to be the Armani or Tiffany's of war gaming and as such they should be expected to back that up with quality and not just what they charge.
If you think there are no critics on TGA you'd be mistaken. Its just that people there are better at expressing their ideas without being...gakky...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 13:15:30
2019/10/31 13:18:58
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Wayniac wrote: I think the major question is does "fantastic models" give a pass for everything else? For many people, it seems like the answer is "Yes, with good looking models I don't care about good rules".
There's some truth to this. If GW really crashed the system into a wall the community would pick up rules on their own. There's just something about the models and lore that evokes feelings and it just hasn't been replicated, for me, with Warmahordes / X-Wing / MtG / etc.
2019/10/31 13:25:01
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Or they've gotten banned because TGA is essentially the unofficial GW forum. They've lightened up on some of their circlejerk though lately.
Thing is, after a while of criticism being dismissed, you start to get more negativity as people get frustrated that being nice isn't working.
If they got banned it was probably for a valid reason, but I don't think we have a means to determine that. You can peruse this thread about balance and see people disagree or criticize the system:
Nobody should think the Iron Hands "nerfs" were good, because they weren't. The issues are:
1. Their Super Doctrine, which should NEVER have made it through the "what if" stage of game design, which can be said for Super Doctrines in general
2. Vehicles like Repulsors and Executioners gaining too much with absolutely no drawback
What do they nerf?
1. The Dread character Strat
2. Deny the Witch Strat
3. Healing the same vehicle (because nobody focus fires on a vehicle to kill it, especially since it isn't like knocking a vehicle down to a lower damage bracket doesn't do much against Iron Hands, yep)
You missed a bit in that analysis.
Namely the Ironstone, which in tandem with invulns (you missed that, too) and healing made for super durable tanks. People were running techmarines on bikes, to repair flyers. Despite popular opinion it isn't always simple to off a tough vehicle in one turn. Scratching off 15 wounds and seeing 6 to 9 come back immediately is quite something.
They also increased the cost of the 4+ overwatch strat.
In fact as SoCal there wasn't a single Repulsor among the top 10. 12th place had one.
Nick Nanavanti (5th) ran IH successors with Master Artisan, which according to the forums is trash as well as Stealthy -- 25 Stalker Intercessors, 5 Scouts, Redemptor, Contemptor, Ven Dread, 3x3 Suppressors, Devs w/ Grav cannons w/ Pod, 2 TFCs.
So, is move and shoot plus reroll 1s busting the game wide open with this unit selection? I don't think so. Before the new books you would have looked at this list and laughed. The really rough part is trying to kill those Intercessors being 2+/6+++ with really strong guns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 14:29:30
2019/10/31 14:32:26
Subject: Re:Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Tamwulf wrote: Post about feeling good about the game, and everyone takes a giant all over it. So DakkaDakka!
The post is about only wanting positivity and doing GW's job for them.
I suspect also some questioning of why at our historically "best" time for the hobby why we are dissatisfied?
I think it really is our expectations are greater, there should be lessons learned and not repeat past mistakes.
We as gamers are experiencing "Groundhog Day" where we daily, yearly, experience the same day, same mistakes, same loose rules wording that one would think should be "perfect" by now.
GW is no longer a small studio, connectivity and collaboration are easier than ever: why does the hive mind of GW keep missing these things?
One idea is what I see at my work: not enough of the old experienced folk stick around to work with the new millennials and history and best practices are lost.
The new designers are doomed to repeat the errors of those who came before them.
Music industry dusts off really old hits decades before most people forgot about and get new bands to play them and funny how old is new again and what was good then is good now (once properly updated/modernized).
Rules can work the same.
I really like innovation and something completely new is awesome to see, we just need to be able to look back and see what worked, what did not.
Gw has become better, but they've also decided on an absurd release schedule. It's really hard to playtest, edit, and release book after book after book. They're over extending their employees, but this is what we wan't isn't it? If the codexes weren't coming out at break neck speed people would be just as pissed for the opposite reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zerosignal wrote: It's not like they've had 35 years to get this right or anything *coughs*
(looks at Dungeons and Dragons)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 14:37:31
2019/10/31 15:03:54
Subject: Re:Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Phaeron Gukk wrote: My core problem with 8th edition at the moment is that after paying quite a lot of money for the rulebooks and then printing/noting/downloading another half-book of FAQs, the game still needs loads of Rule 0. That's insane.
"But it used to be worse!"
"How is that relevant now?"
You mean rule 1? I haven't seen that at all. In fact I haven't seen an argument like that of any other edition so far in 8th.
2019/10/31 15:45:42
Subject: Re:Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Daedalus81 wrote: Gw has become better, but they've also decided on an absurd release schedule. It's really hard to playtest, edit, and release book after book after book. They're over extending their employees, but this is what we wan't isn't it? If the codexes weren't coming out at break neck speed people would be just as pissed for the opposite reason.
Usually, you would have a "plan" of how abilities and costing is to be figured out. Some guidelines on how to approach all factions.
Then the plan for the specific faction and what makes them different and unique.
I see things like flamer weapons "auto-hit" so they tend to price them more for those armies that have bad ballistic skill.
Bolter weapons both in Deathwatch and SM's in general have added bonuses due to their Codex rules, they should be priced with that considered.
Simple little rules or things to keep track of to ensure that no faction, squad, model, weapon gets too cheap or too expensive for what they do.
It's a bit more complex than that. Your Deathwatch example - adding points to those units right now would crush that army. Even with 2 point SS they're weren't taking over the game. The only time you get concerned about things like flamer cost is when every model in the unit can take it like GSC, but even then those units, while brutal, aren't destroying the game (which ties into army design).
There's also design philosophy. Just look at how stratagems are worded in the new books as compared to the old.
And then there's the overall balance of the army. Adeptus Mechanicus can D3+1 repair and repair the same vehicle twice, but Iron Hands cannot, because they also have a repair spell as well as other tough units and relics to consider.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 15:46:46
2019/10/31 16:00:19
Subject: Re:Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Daedalus81 wrote: ...Gw has become better, but they've also decided on an absurd release schedule. It's really hard to playtest, edit, and release book after book after book. They're over extending their employees, but this is what we wan't isn't it? If the codexes weren't coming out at break neck speed people would be just as pissed for the opposite reason...
Most games a) don't burn their core rulebook and re-release it every 2-4 years, b) partially update armies instead of burning their "codex" and re-releasing it every 2-4 years, and c) release stuff for everyone all at once. GW's written themselves into a corner with the "Codex" release model that forces them to be kind of crappy at writing the rules/balancing the game.
A lot of people were predicting re-releases of codexes as in just rewrites with nothing new this year. Obviously we got marines, but with a substantial "value-add". Models can't all be ready at the right times. It just is what it is and its better for models to have rules when they come out, isn't it? The manner of the supplements is potentially good for gamers, because they don't have to re-buy the supplement when the core SM book gets updated. Will it pan out like that? No idea. It could be we would see 9th before that's a thing.
The CSM book was a tragedy, but it exists for new players not the old -- points should have been in the PDF for previous owners.
A subscription model would solve a lot of problems for them and us, but it probably won't happen for a while yet (partially because people really like books).
2019/10/31 16:11:10
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
techsoldaten wrote: There is absolutely nothing about Games Workshop to be positive about.
K.
The real world buying power of the average player has not increased in over 30 years, yet GW raises prices annually (often at a cost exceeding inflation.)
What does GW have to do with the lack of meaningful wage increases in the world?
GW releases new models with OP rules to increase sales, then walk them back a year later so consumers need to buy more models.
You mean like how they increased the points on the Executioner before the supplements came out? Or how buggies were modestly priced? I don't see GSC bikes and vehicles storming the scene, do you? Were eliminators dead hard when they came out? What about suppressors? What's the state of Venomcrawlers and CSM? I could go on...
GW releases broken rules and never clarify so consumers will argue about them endlessly instead of discussing the problem with broken rules
Never clarifies? Give an example of which ones that have been missed by the 2 week and semi-annual FAQs.
GW actively undermines the competitive scene through factional power imbalances such that the best army is usually about whoever brought the fanciest models instead of the quality of the player.
K, well, let's ask those players about that then?
overpriced luxury goods with little worth after the initial purchase.
Really? Little worth? For models that hold their value for decades? You should recgonize that worth is underpinned by the luxury bar set by GW.
demanding price and rules stabilization - no new rules until GW fixes the problems with the old ones (call it the "Grey Knights" principle.) You shouldn't have to keep paying more for a broken product that doesn't serve other players very well.
The first is the consequence of the world. You can ask. You might not receive. The second is being asked for often and is received on a far more regular basis than before. Is it perfect? No.
The company uses points / rules to sell models, the way they do it actively dilutes the value of what is essentially a luxury good. You can talk about attitudes all you want, but there's a point where your opinion devolves into an expression of how much this system has screwed you recently. You can talk about individual personalities within GW all you want, but the only one who matters is Kevin Roundtree who decides how this circus will play out year after year. You can talk about individual releases all you want, but GW is a billion dollar company who makes its money off volume of sales.
And these things are demonstrably false. Feeling burned by the CSM update taking second fiddle to Marines? I get that, but there's little reason to be absurd about everything to make that point.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a bit more complex than that. Your Deathwatch example - adding points to those units right now would crush that army. Even with 2 point SS they're weren't taking over the game. The only time you get concerned about things like flamer cost is when every model in the unit can take it like GSC, but even then those units, while brutal, aren't destroying the game (which ties into army design).
There's also design philosophy. Just look at how stratagems are worded in the new books as compared to the old.
And then there's the overall balance of the army. Adeptus Mechanicus can D3+1 repair and repair the same vehicle twice, but Iron Hands cannot, because they also have a repair spell as well as other tough units and relics to consider.
It is actually THAT simple.
You do understand I was talking how some things ARE already being applied in Codex books now?
The flamer example I gave because I DO see the point cost difference applied in the books.
Heck, they give differing prices for plasma pistols and other weapons depending if it is a character or a joe-grunt using it: differing levels of capability.
My intent was they show some degree of awareness in this regard and just have to apply it more consistently and thoroughly.
Every time a stratagem is developed for a faction like that very good example of methods of repair do have to be taken into account.
This is where keywords play such an important role because it was the ability to cross-buff from one faction to another that created huge unanticipated outcomes that did break the game, that is where 6th and 7th went a bit off the rails.
Sure, I think they're getting better at it. Some things are still a little free-wheeling and others require a more delicate touch over hard and fast guidelines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 16:26:45
2019/10/31 16:38:04
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Wayniac wrote: For most of us the issue is like was said before: It feels like Groundhog Day. They *don't learn* and keep making the same mistake year after year, edition after edition, and people continually make excuses for or give them a pass presumably because they feel mediocrity is "good enough" or like the models so much that they don't really care if they have to work the rules a bit to make them work better (or maybe they are lucky enough to be part of a group that doesn't mind house ruling or agreeing on things).
But there still remains the fact that we are paying a multi-million-pound company, with an international presence more money than we should (whether or not you feel it's justified, it's more than almost any other miniature manufacturer. There might be valid reasons i.e. the cost of maintaining stores, but it's still overpriced) for good models and probably the worst quality in rules (both from an actual rule design standpoint and quality as there are always tons of proofing errors or just poor wording that needs to be fixed), something that likely would never fly in any other product.
Fair points. I don't agree that they don't learn, however. The newest books are proof of that despite the perceived power levels. They are better and more carefully written.
Just look at how often explosions are now tied to unmodified rolls rather than subject to modifiers.
2019/10/31 16:49:48
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Karol wrote: I think it is unfair to compare video games, unless those are mobile games, to w40k. It is really hard to spend as much money on a game. For 800$ one can get a laptop good enough to play a lot of games. Same money spend on w40k, may give an army with all the required books, but that is it.
An $800 laptop gets you nothing capable of playing any modern video game. Many popular video games also contain loot boxes or season passes. The cost of video gaming is pretty high compared to the models I had for 25 years still doing service and the new ones I have I expect to last just as long.
also a language quesiton. Can passion in english be negative, or is there a different word used for ti then?
It depends. One can have a passion for something negative, but to them they don't likely perceive it as negative.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/31 16:51:00
2019/10/31 17:31:41
Subject: Re:Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Karol wrote: 700$ right now doesn't even give an army with all the books needed to be played. And as far as loot boxs go, well w40k is full of those too, there is a yearly seson pass book too. Can't play the game without buying a new CA.
Let's assume Primaris
CA - $35
Codex - $40
Supplement - $30
Primaris Start Collecting - $105 x 2 (assuming more expensive than current SC boxes)
ETB Redemptor - $40 x 2
Intercessors - $60
Invictor - $60 x 2
Librarian - $30
Captain - $35
Land Speeder - $35 x 3
That's $745 for 20 Infiltrators, 10 Intercessors, 6 Suppressors, 6 Eliminators, 2 Phobos Lts, Lib, Cpt, 3 Speeders, 2 Invictors, 2 Redepmtors at full retail price. That's damn near 2K points for a valid army. You can easily get all of this on eBay for 15% off (roughly $633).
Then you could say it's an average $50 a year in book refreshes. That laptop will be largely useless in 2 to 3 years.
So passion as a word is considered something good. thanks for explaining.
One can have a passion for murder or eating too much cake, so, not always good. So the determination of "good" is in the context of the situation and the observer.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/31 17:34:38
2019/10/31 18:11:06
Subject: Re:Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
and then you get to pay import tax, and 23% vat. And because the stuff costs more then a monthly salary here, the customs guys will open it 100% of time. Meaning you are paying more then 700$. But really am not going to argue about 10%. The difference is that a laptop or PC can be used for many things, and worse your watching movies on it. if you spend 600$ on a bad army, then paying 50$ per year to get updated rules sucks, specially when the updates don't fix a thing.
The same wouldn't apply for a laptop? I totally get the frustration with GK. I expected GW to do more about them sooner. I'm at least partially optimistic that PA might give them more psychic prowess, but it otherwise seems like they're going to wait until they can rewrite a codex to update them. It's really quite confusing couple with the 'no primaris' tag line.
That is interesting. Always good to get to know new things about different stuff. The context thing decided by the observer is a very interesting thing.
Don't quote me on anything as I'm not a trained linguist and English is weird.
2019/11/01 13:01:37
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
If you can't play a modern game on an 800dollar laptop then you are not wise in your purchasing of laptops to be used for gaming.
as for 25 years of service, this is just the thing -
you can't have one, lasting value of useful models, AND the radically revisionist numarine bizniz model that GW is pushing, and that might include paying people to shill for them on Dakka.
as for the negativity, complaints are expressions of perceived differences between what is actual and what is ideal.
GW (not the "hobby" as you try to frame things) is the subject of MUCH complaining because, well, they ar enot serving the interests of their stakeholders (the complainers).
If GW was, then there would be FEWER complaints.
Nothing is ideal,
but oh, how GW has gone so pitifully wrong...
that you try to wash it all aside with the '40k is in a better place than ever before, look at the fun times in CALI!' mantra is either rose-colored glasses, or shill-central.
I stand corrected. There's a Dell with a 1060 for $850. Now add a single game @ $60. We're already well past the cost of many armies. Considering that game isn't going to keep your attention for as long as painting and playing there's considerably more value to be had in the hobby.
But few people rarely dive head first into the hobby. They gradually collect, borrow models, and play with friends.
====
Gw has "gone so pitifully wrong"? Have you been playing the game? Or are you just gak posting?
2019/11/01 13:20:32
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Wayniac wrote: Again, the major issue seems to be that for most of GW's customers, the quality of the model is all that matters (and, to be honest, I find their style has gone way over the top in recent years, to the point of now being almost comical in the appearance and the number of pieces), and the rules are of secondary or even less importance.
While for many people this is fine, a lot of want some more "bite" in our wargaming and dislike the clearly MtG-inspired approach of 40k (and AOS) nowadays where it's more about how you combine units than how you use them on the field. And when you couple that with GW's track record of poorly written rules and wild internal and external balance, it really makes it hard sometimes to be overly positive about the game.
You're one of the few people that can express these thoughts without being ridiculous and I actually really appreciate that.
The MtG line has been parroted over and over again and I find it quite lacking. What do we think 7th was? This whole premise is a recently inspired meme that has caught on and gets wielded like a club. Were leaf-blower lists somehow NOT a MtG style where "it was more how you used them on the field"?
Should characters do nothing but shoot or fight?
And, still, despite these combinations I find no lack of decisions to make on the table -- beyond target priority. I really get the sense that some people don't play missions well and it shows.
I'd wager for most of the "whiners", it's less "This game sucks" and more "Imagine if this game was well designed". I know for myself it's not hatred, it's more lament and pity. GW has no excuse to not have an amazingly designed set of rules that's correctly balanced (and no, nobody means "perfect balance" as that's an unachievable goal) other than they don't feel it's worthwhile to do, and the fact most of the GW community seem to agree (or, at least, don't think it's that big a deal) makes it worse. Doubly so when you have propaganda mills like FLG and the ITC peddling the idea that the game IS well balanced because you see 8 variations of the same unit choices doing well in tournaments, and those people have their hand on the direction of the game, no matter how minor it may be.
It's all in how you want to view the world. "White knights" like myself recognize the flaws in the system. Its why I've spent over 100 hours coding and doing data entry to soften the edges of parts I don't like. The changes I see from GW are progressive. You could hardly say that anything that came out between the Castellan and marines was as oppressive as the Castellan. And we already have GW on the hook to deal with marines.
Now, our "job" is to play against the marines and figure out if they're still to strong or if they can be beaten. Clearly T'au has no problem doing so.
Either we work to make the system better or we piss and moan and everyone is unhappy. Would GW listen more to a unified community or a fractured one with a handful of people sending them really gakky emails?
Also, there is no propaganda from ITC or FLG -- at least not that I consume as I rarely catch their stream. Reece gave a heads up about IH and IF. The sentiment you see expressed is each individuals expression of ITC, because they've played both sides and they truly appreciate what ITC offers for competitive play.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/01 13:23:43
2019/11/01 13:58:34
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Also @Daedalus81, the mtG comparison comes fro the trying to stack psychic powers and buffs to make the "killer combo". I only played like two games of 7th edition but it didn't seem to have that problem (it had its own big issues, of course). Having played Warmahordes for a bit, the MtG style is also (way more) prevalent there so it at least feels like a similar goal. Reward trying to figure out "If I take X with Y and Z, and then I apply A, I can do 50 wounds in a turn" rather than "If I maneuver this unit here and if this other unit can hold its ground for a turn, I can get an advantage" sort of tactics which were traditionally what you saw in wargaming.
One of those things happens at list building. "Theoretically my army can do X." You won't be wondering whether or not your units will maneuver to deal with a situation at that time.
When I'm playing there are choices to make. People with reductive reasoning boil it down to target priority and perhaps its true for those who simply play little of the mission and shot gunline all game. For me, however, (this is in ITC) I've found it important that I can exploit non-combat objectives when I come up against a list designed to limit my ability to score secondaries or is otherwise hard to kill. I might find myself shooting a non-optimal unit to open a hole big enough to sneak scarabs into a backfield objective or their DZ. I have to be hyper cognizant of their flyers, their ability to pull off my spreaders, and sneak a flyer in to assassinate a character.
There is a lot to mentally do other than X shoots Y and as effectively as possible and I win.
And you can see units like what you speak of in the Incursors and Haywire Mines, but that unit isn't always going to shape the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klickor wrote: Also a difference in how you do the MTG style. Warmachine is built around it with smaller armies, sideboard/second list, and very well written rules to make it all possible.
In 40k its just an extra mechanic put on top of everything to cover for the lackluster basic rules. And the lack of standard for rules writing make it a mess.
Didnt feel as bad if the game was over turn 1/2 30 min in to the game there in Warmachine compared to doing it in 40k. Spending 30 min deploying and getting the game decided in your opponents turn 1 shooting phase feels way worse I feel. I dont even have to make a mistake, besides not playing the best list, in 40k to lose the game before I have even moved a single model. I had a lot of turn 1 wins as cryx in warmachine in which my opponent mostly blamed themselves for losing since they did a mistake, very rarely they blamed the game or the dice. Had they played correctly, and they knew it, I wouldnt have been able to do that combo for either a caster kill or scenario victory.
But showing up to a tournament and having a bad table for your matchup and going second you can just lose right there if not winning the roll off in 40k. In my last 3 tournaments game 1 I have killed about 115pts of enemy units while loosing over 5000pts. Worst matchup of the lists on worst board rolling of the worst deployment and going second. There wasnt a single thing I could do. Never happened in warmachine for me.
Having a third of the model count as 40k and half the time to play it makes tcg style combos much more bearable. You werent deploying 100+ models and expecting a 3h game in warmachine after all.
I think something is quite wrong if you're getting tabled every single game and can't kill more than what amounts to 3 squads of IS. Seems...off...
When I play dice are never a topic as to why the game was lost. I review with my opponent what they think I could have done differently and I do the same for them.
And there are no 'bad tables' in ITC. Everything is standardized as are other formats.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/11/01 14:05:54
2019/11/01 14:47:19
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Klickor wrote: In Sweden we have very varied terrain in tournaments ITC or non ITC. Very rarely are the tables mirrored. Usually more terrain on most tables than what I have seen from tournaments in the US. Makes each game more interesting most of the time but sometimes a table slips through and is quite bad for certain matchups but if its one out of 10-20+ tables it isnt so bad.
Three tournaments in a row I got the most open table in my opening game. Had deployment been quarters or short side it would have been ok but long side each time. Of course I didnt get to choose side either so there it got slightly worse but wouldnt have changed who won but only by how much. And then I got to go second with my Blood Angels against 3 shooty armies. Twice against guard and once against freebootas. The terrain on the table against the ork player would block line of sight well if he only had infantry but he had 3 fliers and 2 gork/morkanoughts that just saw over everything so only 5 scouts on the table were completely out of los.
I could of course have killed 5-10x more pts in each of those games if we played during the times when killpoints or victorypoints were all that mattered to not lose as much but I tried to go for the unlikely comeback in each game and gambled since my chance of winning if not gambling was 0 at that point. And wins are much much more important than a few VPs during a loss. I was really unlucky those 3 times and I kmow if it had been any other table it could have been a very different results. The other games I played during those tournaments were all close with some wins, some losses and a few draws as well.
But I feel like you have not played many games if dice have never decided a game for you. I have had games in fantasy in which the first spell turn 1 miscasts and half the army flees. Assassination attemps in warmachine in I needed to not roll like 4+ones in a row with a single reroll for back up. Or in 40k having units like terminators getting 0 hits after a charge despite being mastercrafted or having a large blast miss, scatter and hit even better than the original target and then having a few important units flee of the table turn 1. Or something people at my club still talk about from a team tournament when my friends opponent scattered 10-12 inches into the same terrain piece 6 or 7 times in a row. 9" would have been fine.
Sometimes dice just decide it for you. The guard player I met in the 2 tournaments is a former ETC player who is working his way back on the national rankings and the team again. We discussed the games and we both came to the same conclusion. On that table all I could do was deploy rather aggressively and hope for turn 1 or hope he rolls bad and I roll good. But on some of the city tables he could have been toast.
Your experience doesn't seem like an impeachment of 40K, but rather that of bad table design coupled with unfavorable matchups coupled with worst case deployment zones. Given the chance for that I would be designing my lists to take advantage of drop pods and use other means to hide units or pressure my opponent.
Dice are a factor, because its a dice game, but it doesn't help me to focus on whatever wild swings might pop up, because I can't change them. Plan for the worst - hope for the best.
2019/11/01 16:19:53
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
techsoldaten wrote: Happy to agree new releases are not always OP, but that's also not the only tool GW uses to put wargamers at a disadvantage.
Here we go - the classic arguing both sides of the coin.
GW constantly modifies rules in ways that manipulate the value of the models players already own. Think about it. FAQs and Chapter Approved have made Forgeworld all but unusuable. New Codexes mean wargamers are constantly adjusting their lists to adapt to the new meta. New Editions fundamentally alter the meta, I can't think of a list that survives one edition to the next. Campaigns like Vigilus and Psychic Awakening don't seem to do much but buff a few units that don't have a place in most lists.
Ok guys we can tell GW to stop trying to balance the game. Its all a ploy. Absolutely none of the units that got point drops in CA needed them, right? Those sneaky GW bastards making the bad units cheaper.
Plenty of FW models are strong. It's just the giant-ass models that have no purpose being in 40K competitive.
If you think this is just a way to achieve balance in the game, how come that never happens? More precisely, why does that only happen for some factions? How come factions like Grey Knights languish at the bottom of a competitive stack while NuMarines just got a ruleset that's the envy of all other factions? Or Necrons, or Renegades and Heretics, or Old Marines. Is that some unfortunate oversight that happens because an overworked rules team who just can't get around to reexamining balance in the game, or is that the result of a marketing plan skewed toward the constant sale of new models?
It has happened and continues to happen. When new unit types become available to armies it changes up a lot of how the game works. Having snipers become a regular appearance when they were practically unheard of 6 months ago changes a lot about the game. The Castellan was a complex combination of a too strong unit and soup. NO ONE on this board could agree on the right fix to that problem and ignoring the procedural steps GW took to nerf it is ignoring history to make a specious point.
Old marines are doing great with the new book. People just like Primaris more, because new models are cool (and consequently less expensive to field). Necrons are competitive. It also seems quite possible that R&H is being shaped up for a release under GW proper given the models popping up in Blackstone Fortress. GK is the odd man out, because their army is focused around a unique aspect that hampers their points cost. The +1A was a bigger buff for them than any marine army - it just isn't enough to tip the balance for them yet.
If it's some marketing ploy then why did old marines get more new direct buffs than Primaris in the new book?
You start to see the consequences of the real game when you consider 40k isn't cheap. Let's say someone spent $2,000 on an army, buying it direct from Games Workshop. Immediately, those models lost 10% - 25% of their worth because they can be bought for that price off eBay new in the box. Once you assemble them, they have lost about 50% of their worth, because that's what someone pays for assembled models. If you paint them, you've lost about 70% of the worth and have a much smaller pool of people to buy them because different folks have different tastes.
Are metal models replaced by superior plastics going to drop in price? You bet.
Now take that out a year. Chapter Approved changed the cost of your infantry, either you need more or less of it. There was a campaign book that added some special rules for your elite troops, now you need a copy to benefit from the rule. There's a new tank that has twice the range of the one you currently own for less points, now you need that. You buy all this new stuff, the real cost of your army has increased to $2,500.
It doesn't help to just make up numbers along side ridiculous assumptions.
Now take all that to the competitive scene. A new Codex just came out, the other faction that was bad a year ago is now dominating competitions. That's not so bad, but GW just released a beta rule that makes it illegal to use a strategy your army relied on. You don't want to get shot off the table, so you switch your list to a different playstyle entirely. It works, kind of, but you can see how it could be a lot better. So you go back to the well and get a bunch more models to add to your army. The real cost for that army just went up to $3,380. Had you bought the models a month earlier, you could have avoided the annual price increase.
Oh, I see, we're still in Make-gak-up-istan. Good day.
2019/11/01 16:53:13
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Another poster hit it on the head. It has become painfully apparent that GW is all about the churn. Models that were good in 7th are no where near the top in 8th. At this point it is clear that GW is pushing model sales with rules and that feels slimy.
How many of these do you see on top tables regularly?
Master of Possession
Dark Apostle
CSM Greater Possessed
VC Armigers
Reivers
Honor Guard
Helblasters
Custodians
Wardens
Metamorphs
Locus
Biophagus
Ridgerunners
Jackals
Rockgrinder
Goliath
Plague Marines
The new Skitarii transport (I don't even know its friggin' name that's how common it is)
Any terrain piece
How many of these did you see before the marine books?
Land Speeders
Devs Drop Pods
Centurions
Whirlwinds
TFCs Librarians
GW is sloppy in their rule writing. They don't take the time to think how changes will effect a lot of units. For example, my wulfen are a non-starter vs TFCs + tremor shells. There is no counter play for me, halving my move/advance/charge turns my 200 point unit into battlefield decoration. (I guess I could outflank them but finding a spot to come in w/in 6" of a board edge to make a 9" charge with about a 50/50 chance isn't viable). With one wave of their hand 100+ bucks of units I bought and spent 20-30+ hours painting to play the game are on the shelf.
So, you expect GW to never have a rule that limits movement, because it might affect a unit that wouldn't like that? Seems more like you just like giving up especially with a unit that rerolls its charge has a much better than 50/50 shot. I'm not really feeling bad for the unit swinging 5 times with a power fist axe with no modifier, 2s to hit, run and charge, 5+++, 2 wounds, and death throes.
The new primaris Tigurius unit is the same. I literally bought a "new" Tigurius model 6 months before the primaris one came out and now have a model that I cannot "legally" use in a game of 40k that I bought in this edition, only a few months ago with no warning that it may be invalidated and just finished painting in time for it to go on my shelf forever. There is nothing to be positive about in this situation.
....just use your old model as Primaris...there is nothing that states this is illegal....
2019/11/01 18:27:41
Subject: Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
bananathug wrote: Re-roll 9" charge is about a 47% chance, using a cp or re-roll all bumps it up to about 52%...
It's not just a rule that lowers movement but one that has no counter play. Can reduce the movement on 2 units, no one cares about LOS, range is the whole table, no ability to interact with the strat. GW doubling down on rock, paper, scissors which leads to matches decided before models hit the table...
Sorry, yes, brain fart.
Tremor shells were in the old codex. The only thing that changed is being able to do it twice. Two units for 3CP is no small cost. Were I SW these days I'd either be packing a WW, because Eliminators are dinks, or podding Long Fangs with 4 PC and a PG and Wolf's Eye (reroll wounds) /Keen Sense (not hit penalties) them and you should just about kill two TFCs since they bring their own reroll 1s (on only one TFC) -- or they could kill an entire Eliminators (and more) squad in cover. It's potentially an exceptional meta choice.
I didn't say that newly released models are top of the pile, just models that were popular in previous editions are not the units with the best rules this edition (reapers, shining spears, primaris were never seen on a table in 7th, grav and cents started this edition as non-competitive, thunder wolf cav are laughably bad, bikes, wraithknights, rhinos, drop pods, broadsides, screamers, warp spiders, fen wolves...). Nothing is universal but on balance it doesn't seem like a hard pattern to recognize.
There is no pattern. And you've outlined it on your own. Rhinos were "great" last edition, because they were free. Reapers were nerfed quickly and were most successful, because of Ynnari and Doom, which applied to Haywire and Disintegrators, which has all been nerfed.
So what is GW's objective then? Ynnari - an entire army went from incredible to meh in this edition. Did they want to stop selling the characters? Were they selling too much Eldar? Were Eldar suddenly noncompetitive after the Ynnari nerf ? (hint: no)
Using the old tiggy as a new primaris tiggy is not viable without significant kit-bashing as the sizes are not the same and I don't know about your area but in mine the model profiles have to be similar to use a conversion. Counts as are frowned upon in most to all tournaments.
Why does the profile need to be the same for a model they can't target anyway? Stick him on a plinth and tell them to get bent.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/11/01 18:30:08
2019/11/01 21:03:37
Subject: Re:Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Sorry, but you've created this idea of "changes are made solely for the benefit of GW sales" and creating post-hoc rationalizations for it.
You state:
The top performing units this edition are, with very few exceptions, units that were not top performing last edition.
It's like pointing to a Lascannon in 7th and remaking how effective it can be and then looking at it in 8th and wondering why it isn't the tank destroyer of yore. The system changed. The models and equipment that work best within the system changed. GW had no direct foresight into which of those models would be best when the indexes launched. Its patently absurd.
But you're never going to provide a list that can be contextually reviewed, because you're making a loose assertion about some mental connection you made that you haven't really spent the time to think about deeply. Shining spears didn't get used last edition, because Wraithknights were far too good via Destroyer weapons as were a number of other Destroyer weapon based platforms available to Eldar. Rhinos were free. Bikes weren't good last edition, because they were bikes. Bikes were good, because they were the best way to deliver a bunch of characters under invulnerable saves and FNP very quickly without needing to be in a transport - and narrowly for only one subset. No one else used bikes. To claim bikes used to be good is, again, such a poor revision of history.
And we come to the over-arching dynamic - the suvivorship bias of Warhammer:
"If a unit isn't on top tables it isn't good."
As if the preferences of competitive players have automatically deemed units 5% weaker than what they've chosen to be unmitigated garbage. Bikes are not bad this edition. It's just been hard to convince people to use them "because disintegrators exist". And yet Primaris are now running around like crazy. Bikes always double tap for 4 shots, have T5, M14. Compare to an Intercessor at 4 points less who has 1 extra attack, fires only 1 shot on the move most of the time, but 2 shots max with 1 extra AP. 4 points increases toughness, nearly doubles the damage output and they can pick up a 4++ (or 3++) not to mention what WS can do with bikes. Are they going to get used outside WS? Probably not, because its easier to sit in cover with Intercessors matching the best doctrine available.
with one TFC shutting down two units that's a 100ish point unit invalidating 500ish points of my army with no counter play.
You do have counterplay, but your expectation of counterplay is essentially they shouldn't be able to do that. And that's kind of not good for the game. Yes, sometimes you're going to need to clear a landing zone. Sometimes you're going to need Stormfangs. A WW left on its own that gets tagged on turn 3 already did its job. Though I doubt they're going to sacrifice any meaningful unit on that when wolves are in their face.
GW removing standard Tiggy from the dex is them intentionally removing a unit mid-edition. They should have taken him off the shelf when they knew they were going to primarisize him this edition, no reason to keep his model on the shelf other than predatory business process. They knew at the outset of 8th they were going to replace him and it's BS to let people buy a model that they will no longer support. No Model No Rules is bad enough but it should at least be supported by No Rules No Model. I'm not sure why you guys are defending this pretty slimy move.
And the new CSM models? Those are what? I didn't have to buy them just like you don't have to buy Tiggy to play him as primaris -- guess what -- my old Havocs are using new Havoc rules. Can GW never update models for fear of offending our sensibilities? Should GW be required to announce all their model releases years ahead of schedule and let their current inventory rot? If you like a model, buy it. If you don't then proxy something else.
And you'll note that GW didn't update old Tiggy rules enticing people to buy the old model more and then bait and switch to Primaris. He got new rules and a new model at the same time.
where games can be won or lost before turn 1 and we are okay with that
Games aren't being lost on turn 1 unless you have a really bad matchup on a really bad table. I know it's popular to say, but its not what happens most games. You didn't suddenly lose, because wulfen were half move.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/11/01 21:10:17
2019/11/02 13:28:08
Subject: Re:Hobby Positivity - If you are angry at the hobby, please read this
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Complaining about something does not make you a negative person. Making complaints is a way to actually improve a company's product or service.
Sure. You can click my profile and see recent posts from me that criticize GW.
Yet, I'm a white knight compared to the people who come in here in bad faith, like some here, and say some of the most ridiculous gak.
Some want to claim 40k is like MtG? I'll disagree and provide my thoughts on why.
Some want to claim
There is absolutely nothing about Games Workshop to be positive about.
supported by conspiracies? That's not useful criticism. It's not going to change anything GW is doing. It isn't going to win support.
There were a rash of totally obscene posts when the Executioner went up in points, too. Feel free to go review them, because they're illuminating in the context of the strong rules marines got.
And I'm going to go as far to say the "non white knights" need to call this gak out more. Otherwise your silence is implicit support.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/02 22:06:19
Post about feeling good about the game, and everyone takes a giant 
all over it. So DakkaDakka! 
