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.

Firstly I want to give a bit of background I've been playing miniature games since around 1989, been lucky enough to have lived in an area where there were 5 different gaming clubs, won several tournaments, and briefly worked for Games Workshop. From this I have a good insight into the hobby, witnesses trends, and played against a wide range of opponents.

With that said, I think our hobby is going through a very ‘interesting’ development, one which I fear might be come at the cost of its overall health.

We need to establish first and foremost, that this hobby demands a lot of time, not only in the games being played, but in reading the rules, assembly, painting, writing lists, travel, etc.

While I agree that the time spent is most enjoyable, and offers a needed break from the stresses of life, it is a big investment. Time is the most valuable commodity, so how we spend it, is important.

The hobby, like all hobbies is meant to be a fun distraction, and sadly I see the GW part starting to slide away from this.

I am old enough to have experienced the hobby long before the Internet was being wwidely used by the public. While it has allowed hobbiests to connect and broaden their knowledge of the hobby, it has also allowed something darker to grow. I can honestly say that the gibby I grew yo with prior to the internet is ot the same with the advent of the Internet. It has fed the need to win, the sharp increase in tournaments , and the tournament mentality.

What do I mean by the tournament mentality, simply put, it is putting the aim of winning above all else. Applying the cold heartless mind of accountant points efficiency, interpretation the game as a series of rules to follow strictly as they are written, the tangible aspect of the hobby is just a means to an end, and the social contract of players coming to a table to have a mutually enjoyable experience only gets in the way. The two things that encapsulate this, are the infamous ‘net lists’, and players switching to buying models based upon their in game performance and not because they like the model.

Now contrast this with how the hobby first developed, games where treated as a very ‘Gentlemanly past time’, would require an independent Umpire to ensure the game runs smoothly as possible.

So why do I worry about the hobby’s future? Because the tournament mentality is forcing the hobby to adapt to it, the constant ‘meta watches’ and changes that GW make to their editions are a direct result of the tournament mentality and it’s influence. As GW is the main gateway into the wider hobby, it will usually be someone’s first taste of the hobby. So of they enter, spend all the time in learning the rules, building their models, painting their models, and then encounter the tournament mentality, it is not going to be something that seems like a good investment of all that time. Time is important, and as people get older and start families, they quickly realise that they don’t have half as much time as they once had to be so frivolous with. Which could easily push someone to think, “why bother?’. When they have spent hours investing onto the hobby, to encounter someone who is deep into the tournament mentality turn up with half assembled models, unpainted grey, books used for terrain, and a list that has been utterly minimaxed to curb stomp who ever is on the other side of the table, and all the while the game plays with no joy for the either side, just the cold race to claim a meaningless victory of tournament soldiers. Then we have to acknowledge that hobby gratification can be obtained more readily and easier from other hobbies, hobbies which demand a lot less time investment, and are not fraught with the worry of being altered by a contiguous mentally. Video games, board games, etc, all fall into this category, as they are very close to the wants of those in the hobby.

So while the tournament mentality player may get their needed win, it may come at a very costly price.

This is going to turn people away from the hobby, the imagination, and creativity is being squashed, and hidden away by this mentality. The hobby is a greying hobby, like any hobby it needs new blood, and as this is a hobby that had a big social aspect, we need to encourage a healthy social atmosphere, both to attract new players, and to retain those who are in the hobby.

All this and I haven’t even me mentioned the other big obstacle to that the hobby is facing. The cost to entry is getting far to high, factor that into the above situation that new players can fall victim of this, and I think the hobby is running on borrowed time. It may look like we are striding into a new golden era, but I think that is deceptive. Within a few decades, I think we will see a very sharp decline in the hobby.

Anyway, that is my rambling on this topic, it has been something that has been on my mind for quite some time, but what do you think?

AoS 4 seems like a firm and purposeful push in the other direction.

 stonehorse wrote:

So why do I worry about the hobby’s future? Because the tournament mentality is forcing the hobby to adapt to it, the constant ‘meta watches’ and changes that GW make to their editions are a direct result of the tournament mentality and it’s influence.

No its not.
If GW were catering to the competitive scene they'd not be rebuilding their rules system every 3 years.
GW aren't catering to the tournament scene, GW are catering to a market that will buy a new rules edition every 3 years in enough speed and volume to make it highly profitable. Until the market falls out of that system GW will continue to push these rapid updates.

Also way back in evne the 90s people wanted faster FAQ/Errata updates. We didn't get them, but people seriously wanted them - heck back in those days you could even have whole armies skip editions and not get an updated battletome/codex update (heck Dark Eldar skipped 2!)


GW are not building a tight, highly competitive optimised game system - if anything a LOT of GWs approaches to rules and gameplay go against such an approach.





As for prices rising - show me ANYTHING that hasn't gone up in price. In the last 2 years almost everything has gone from "eh prices are rising" to "that's insane and overpriced". "Cost of living" crisis is more than just the cost of living, its everything that made a huge jump in price and hasn't settled back down; for a whole myriad of reasons (some of which is 100% pure greed/need to keep the profits up each year). All hobbies and such are rising constantly in price, GW are no different save that their prices tend to just constantly creep rather than stay down and then make big leaps.



As for right now, if anything I'd argue that GW are more focused on recruitment of fresh blood than any other wargame in the market. A huge amount of GW's competition relies more on leaching customers out of GW; whilst GW itself focuses on getting actual new blood in. Stores on the highstreet, Collectible (and affordable) magazines with Hatchetworks*; multiple smaller game formats that are marketed and supported with smaller model counts, cheaper entry costs and faster game times**; investments in video games and TV; branding and outreach products.

GW are going nuts getting their brand out there, even rebranding it from Games Workshop to Warhammer. You can very clearly see that newblood is a big focus of their attention.


*and I think the change they've made there to including more starter sets for the AoS version will work well. I think GW realised that too many were being bought out by people after super cheap models who were already customers; rather than allowing stocks to focus on real new people

** which is also a boon for many mature gamers who might have cash and models, but less game time.

Not sure I agree.

The wider wargaming hobby is a mix media affair. Some just paint, some just play, others just read. And within those there’s significant crossover and niches.

Take painting. Not traditionally something I’ve enjoyed, but this year I’ve broken that duck and thrashed out a ton of stuff. I favour quick and easy tricks to get the job done. But my mate Psysquig is a phenomenal painter, and working on a competition level. So we’re both painting, but taking completely different approaches to the same enjoyment and hobby hours.

Gaming wise? Well the paining is a means to that end for me. Currently doing Necromunda scenery so I can run a campaign with sumptuous settings. Whilst I intend a narrative heavy campaign with lots of interaction? I’ll be hosting a few warm up games for my prospective players so we can get to know each other and find a middle ground between what everyone wants. Others will want a hyper competitive experience.

Reading I’m currently on a long running Old Hammer kick. Others will stick to the latest books, or collecting limited editions.

The important thing is? None of us are doing it wrong. It’s all valid exploration and expression of the hobby.

The tricky bit is compromise. And that’s by no means always gonna be 50/50 of give and take. I shouldn’t complain about coming across hardcore “WAAC” competitive players in a placed tournament with cash prizes anymore than such a player should complain about how narrative based my Necromunda campaigns tend to be, and how I can and will use NPCs and external events to knock overly successful gangs down a peg or two.

But outside of clearly stated events? Definitely give and take. Sure I’ll take on your Tournament List this week, but I expect you to commit to a non-meta-gamed list of “whatever you fancy” at a later date.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So the gaming side isn’t the be all and end all. I’d love to have some way to reasonably tell what percentages of hobbyists are active or regular gamers, and how many are just doing the creative side.

I could point to lots of hobby channels on YouTube, but let’s face it, Mighty Algorithmo ensures we won’t see anything like a complete picture.

Stonehorse,
The negatives you list are real, but only if you consider GW "the hobby". Further, they've been the case for at least 20 years and GW is growing and growing and growing.

Come over the indie side of the hobby and you'll find a flourishing of incredibly affordable miniatures (even multipart plastics) great rulesets and a variety of approaches to the gaming other than tournament style.

Honestly, even GW somewhat realizes this, releasing a steady stream of skirmish games,often with a narrative emphaisis with a lower investment required.

I've been in the hobby since the mid 90s and it's never been bigger, more diverse, higher quality and more affordable than it is right now. And it gets better every year.

For more on this sort of thing, check out Tabletop Minions, One Page Rules and Chicago Skirmish Wargames

I disagree. I like the narrative aspect, I play campaigns, I build elaborate tables for my games, I never play with unpainted models and never, ever netlist.

At the same time I want the games I play to have unambiguous, precise rules. I want balanced options for me and my opponents to choose from and I want my decisions to matter and not be overshadowed by randomness or bad matchup. I enjoy the intellectual challenge and the satisfaction of making good moves.

I know the rules and will use them to win. Not knowing them is not a virtue just like sloppy measuring isn't.

Cyel wrote:
I disagree. I like the narrative aspect, I play campaigns, I build elaborate tables for my games, I never play with unpainted models and never, ever netlist.

At the same time I want the games I play to have unambiguous, precise rules. I want balanced options for me and my opponents to choose from and I want my decisions to matter and not be overshadowed by randomness or bad matchup. I enjoy the intellectual challenge and the satisfaction of making good moves.

I know the rules and will use them to win. Not knowing them is not a virtue just like sloppy measuring isn't.

Very much agreed and I wish more people realised that having good balanced firmly understood rules is a huge boon for narrative and open gaming. Sure GW will likely never actually give us rules like that (or if they ever do, keep them for more than 3 years....) but still its an ideal.

With a known set of rules you can do all the fun things you want- double one army size to represent a siege - endless wave for a survival game etc... With known structures you can do more narrative funky things whilst having some idea how they will impact gameplay and what kind of game you are building. Rules that are insanely random or poorly put together or badly balanced are a nightmare for narrative because you're left with just engaging the same way each time - see what the random gives you.

Personally I find it can also take fun out of things because now that smart tactical move you made - it doesn't matter; or that mistake; also doesn't matter. Ergo when the random is too strong it swamps things and makes the player less and less important. Random should be that rare moment a bad situatoin turns good or a good plan suddenly fails -

I’d also agree.

I had my first game in years the other week. Heresy 2.0. And I got my arse kicked.

Not because my opponent power gamed, but because I made seriously rookie errors. Like facing down Plasma Pie Plates, and not spreading out. Not being familiar with the cover rules, or that his Plasma Mortars ignored cover, and so moved Heavy 1 weapons when I’d have been fine standing still.

Just those wee basic bits of knowledge could quite possibly have turned the game in my favour. Certainly my overall plan was sound and I had the better mix of units to meet the scenario.

Knowing the rules does not mean abusing the rules.

Which reminds me, I must arrange a rematch!

Agreed - I love losing when I can understand the game enough to see mistakes I made that led to the loss and things my opponent did that led to victory.

You can learn and improve from those and come back better next time. If you game a lot you can experiment and test things out and there's a logical flow to the game that you can structure around.