Switch Theme:

Losing Interest in 40k, thanks to Space Marines  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoiler:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm sort of shocked that other games don't take off given the price difference.

I mean, I know 40k is cooler than World War II because it's World-War-2-but-with-wizards-and-monsters or whatever, but holy cow. If you're just looking for a game to play, you could buy like six to eight World War 2 armies for Chain of Command for the price of the books you'd need to play 40k with one SM army right now.
Then I would just have armies from a setting I am not interested in, for a game with no community to play with. Paying too much for GW minis that I actually want and can use is still far better than paying any price for miniatures I do not want and can't use.

If you're not interested in World War 2, I get that. Chain of Command is more an example than anything else though, and I still find it shocking that there is no wargame setting out there that has your attention (or anyone else's). Is there some essence of 40k that makes it way better than any other of the myriad wargame settings that are out there?

The "no community" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've bootstrapped 3 games in my club now just by finding them and showing how good and fun they were. The number of players varies (from like 6 to 20) across the 3 games, but we went from zero local players to at least 6 in all cases. The only reason there's "no community" is people don't build the community, and the reason they don't start building the community is "there's no community". All it takes is one World War 2 nerd in the area and a fun toy displayed on your desk (I have a Soviet T-35 on my desk at work and netted myself 2 CoC players that way).

The minis is a whole 'nother discussion, but again, is there no setting nor set of minis that look agreeable outside GW? Citadel is cutting edge in its casting and sculpting, but it's not so far ahead of some other efforts as to make their sculpts totally bad. Some 3rd party manufacturers are pretty damn cool, even when they copy emulate GW's designs/concepts. Plus, there are even some games you can play with GW minis that aren't GW themselves, though I think you'd be overpaying at that point.
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm sort of shocked that other games don't take off given the price difference.

I mean, I know 40k is cooler than World War II because it's World-War-2-but-with-wizards-and-monsters or whatever, but holy cow. If you're just looking for a game to play, you could buy like six to eight World War 2 armies for Chain of Command for the price of the books you'd need to play 40k with one SM army right now.


It's not just about cost, it's about value. If somebody is not interested in Chain of Command then they are not getting much value for their money. I might prefer that a box of Bladeguard Veterans cost less than 60$CAD, but I buy one because I assess that I will get value out of the box both from the hobby aspect but also because I know I will get plenty of tabletop time out of them. My choice. Weird eh?

I know, that's a shocking choice is what I'm saying. It's not like World War 2 minis have less hobbying (Though they can if you want, there's a whole gamut of mini manufacturers and requirements). The tabletop time thing is, again, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone said "someone else has to play the game first" then no one would ever play any games. I do recognize that becoming a community leader is difficult, though, so no worries.

Maybe it's COVID keeping me from playing, but if all I'm doing is building and painting the models, I get WAY more value and fun out of World War 2 minis than GW minis, because you get so many for so cheap and they're still excellent quality.


It's good that you get way more value and fun out of WW2 minis. Did you sell your Baneblades?

I restarted the local Flames of War and Team Yankee scene at my FLGS when I moved back circa 2014 (military so I move around - the local scene had died out). Lent out armies, ran tournies etc. Didn't love 4th Ed FOW, and came back to 40K with 8th. Still play FOW and TY from time to time, but the group has enough members now that it can roll on without me pushing. I still prefer to spend my time (both hobby and tabletop) and money on 40K. Weird eh? I bought those Bladeguard with my own free will. Quite happy with them.

How many Mk IVs, T34s, T72s and Leopards do I really need (in a variety of scales as well..)? If I walk away from 40K those Leopards will still be there waiting for me. Plus I use them as training aids with my junior officers.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Perhaps you as a customer don't care about quality. Some cheaper options might be more appealing to you. That doesn't mean GW is grossly overpriced.



Definitely a strawman. How are GW's one-man stores/UK manufacturing/WD upping the quality of their product?


It isn't a strawman. I didn't say those things upped the quality - or at least that was my intent so apologies if I worded it wrong. Those things contribute to the cost. A strawman is someone calling out a 28mm historical that is cheaper and completely ignoring the quality difference and other cost considerations.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Perhaps you as a customer don't care about quality. Some cheaper options might be more appealing to you. That doesn't mean GW is grossly overpriced.



Definitely a strawman. How are GW's one-man stores/UK manufacturing/WD upping the quality of their product?


It isn't a strawman. I didn't say those things upped the quality - or at least that was my intent so apologies if I worded it wrong. Those things contribute to the cost. A strawman is someone calling out a 28mm historical that is cheaper and completely ignoring the quality difference and other cost considerations.


At a certain point, I'll take an almost undeniably higher quality game experience, and you can keep the...admittedly higher quality graphic design on box art and in codexes.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







TangoTwoBravo wrote:

It's good that you get way more value and fun out of WW2 minis. Did you sell your Baneblades?

I restarted the local Flames of War and Team Yankee scene at my FLGS when I moved back circa 2014 (military so I move around - the local scene had died out). Lent out armies, ran tournies etc. Didn't love 4th Ed FOW, and came back to 40K with 8th. Still play FOW and TY from time to time, but the group has enough members now that it can roll on without me pushing. I still prefer to spend my time (both hobby and tabletop) and money on 40K. Weird eh? I bought those Bladeguard with my own free will. Quite happy with them.

How many Mk IVs, T34s, T72s and Leopards do I really need (in a variety of scales as well..)? If I walk away from 40K those Leopards will still be there waiting for me. Plus I use them as training aids with my junior officers.


I did not sell my Baneblades, though I've only used them for apocalypse recently (so they're effectively shelved) because of how bad the 40k rules are for superheavies and superheavy detachments right now.

I haven't bought nearly as much GW lately though, because of the price. And it's not that weird to go back and forth from FOW/TY to 40k, as their rule-sets are very similar. I understand what you're saying about value or whatever, spend your money as you wish.

But 5 28 (or 32mm) infantry for $60 is asking lot, and I'll continue to be shocked that people think it isn't.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Perhaps you as a customer don't care about quality. Some cheaper options might be more appealing to you. That doesn't mean GW is grossly overpriced.



Definitely a strawman. How are GW's one-man stores/UK manufacturing/WD upping the quality of their product?


It isn't a strawman. I didn't say those things upped the quality - or at least that was my intent so apologies if I worded it wrong. Those things contribute to the cost. A strawman is someone calling out a 28mm historical that is cheaper and completely ignoring the quality difference and other cost considerations.


The point you don't seem to be getting is those other cost considerations are irrelevant to me, the person buying the models. I understand GW has costs other companies do not have, but they also have economies of scale other companies don't have. The internal machinations of the company making the stuff I'm buying is not relevant to the value proposition. I care about 2 things if we ignore the quality of the game for a moment:

1. The absolute value. Is £20+ too much for a single plastic character model? I happen to think so, and haven't bought a GW character at retail in...probably over a decade now.
2. The relative value. Can I get similar models for a cheaper price elsewhere? Do they look as good? If not, how much am I willing to trade quality for price?

Literally none of the other factors you listed on the previous page concern me so there are no other cost considerations. Are you suggesting I should be OK paying more for a given box of models because GW produces WD - a magazine they charge for? If so, why? If not, why bring it up as a cost consideration?
   
Made in us
On a Canoptek Spyder's Waiting List





America

See, I think that Warhammer 40k is a super fun game, and a great hobby with all the like, modeling and stuff. But I think one of the biggest issues, mostly with the fluff but also with the gameplay, is that it's really easy to overthink it. There is a lot to unpack and if you unpack it all at once, I think, it can end up pretty unfun.
Now for things like model prices and such, sure, it might be better in other places and I think that is worth overthinking because it can save money on a fun hobby. But when it comes to gameplay and lore, it just feels a lot like some of you are trying to not have fun. Sorry if that's rude.
   
Made in gb
Jealous that Horus is Warmaster





I think that the Start Collecting boxes and some of the new Combat Patrols have been excellent value for money both as a starting point and force additions. For example, the Deathwatch CP comes with a Primaris Lt, Apothecary, 10 Intercessors, 3 Aggressors, and 2 Deathwatch upgrade sprues. For £85 it's not bad and the savings are pretty good. The Blood Angels CP, less so. The savings stay roughly the same but buying more than one is a bad choice, nobody wants 2 Librarians and 2 hover Rhinos.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Daedalus81 wrote:
calling out a 28mm historical that is cheaper and completely ignoring the quality difference and other cost considerations.

yeah, you get better quality for less, so there must be a reason why GW is worse but sells at a higher price

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 kodos wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
calling out a 28mm historical that is cheaper and completely ignoring the quality difference and other cost considerations.

yeah, you get better quality for less, so there must be a reason why GW is worse but sells at a higher price


And that reason is inertia (the "people are guaranteed to get a game with it" thing).

Other people say it's more fun than other wargames, but it makes me doubt how many other wargames they've genuinely tried out of the gazillion that are out there. 40k is fun, don't get me wrong. But I don't know if it's $60 for 5 28mm infantry fun. I guess for other people it is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/13 16:37:22


 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

I think most of the fun in 40K is just how ridiculous it is. It is something you can play and not take seriously and joke with the people you are playing with.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Slipspace wrote:
The point you don't seem to be getting is those other cost considerations are irrelevant to me, the person buying the models. I understand GW has costs other companies do not have, but they also have economies of scale other companies don't have. The internal machinations of the company making the stuff I'm buying is not relevant to the value proposition. I care about 2 things if we ignore the quality of the game for a moment:

1. The absolute value. Is £20+ too much for a single plastic character model? I happen to think so, and haven't bought a GW character at retail in...probably over a decade now.
2. The relative value. Can I get similar models for a cheaper price elsewhere? Do they look as good? If not, how much am I willing to trade quality for price?

Literally none of the other factors you listed on the previous page concern me so there are no other cost considerations. Are you suggesting I should be OK paying more for a given box of models because GW produces WD - a magazine they charge for? If so, why? If not, why bring it up as a cost consideration?


No, I get it. And it's fine. I just disagree with the shocked pikachu face over pricing.

Should you be ok paying more for models produced locally? Personally, I think so. It's more green ( UK produces more energy from renewables, less shipping ). It pays people in the country and keeps the tax dollars there. You're certainly free to disagree though. I'm no isolationist, but having more industry for jobs isn't always a terrible thing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
yeah, you get better quality for less, so there must be a reason why GW is worse but sells at a higher price


This GW giant was brought up earlier. One of these is $40. One is a kit that makes 3 variants and is $190 ( $166 on eBay ). To me there is no way I would waste $40 on the mantic giant even if I can't swing the GW one right now.

Others may feel differently. That's fine, but I find there is little way to claim GW has the inferior model.

Spoiler:

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/13 16:47:56


   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

 Charistoph wrote:
I think most of the fun in 40K is just how ridiculous it is. It is something you can play and not take seriously and joke with the people you are playing with.


Right, it has never been anything but.

If you're taking the game of 40k seriously....all I have to ask is why?

   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Racerguy180 wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
I think most of the fun in 40K is just how ridiculous it is. It is something you can play and not take seriously and joke with the people you are playing with.


Right, it has never been anything but.

If you're taking the game of 40k seriously....all I have to ask is why?



There is some truth in that.
But charging £32 for 5 28mm infantry kinda makes it serious in terms of Collection/financial commitements/ budgeting..

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This GW giant was brought up earlier. One of these is $40. One is a kit that makes 3 variants and is $190 ( $166 on eBay ). To me there is no way I would waste $40 on the mantic giant even if I can't swing the GW one right now.

Others may feel differently. That's fine, but I find there is little way to claim GW has the inferior model.

Spoiler:

1 kit for 150€ that makes 3 monopose models, or 1 kit for 35€ that is pos-eable with additional bits and add 30€ more for more bits to make 3 different models

if you are a collector, might be worth it, for gaming we are not talking about model quality alone but the game and paying 450€ were the only option for variation is to actually play 3 different units (as otherwise I have 3 times the same model) when I can get away with 105€ and the option to have 3 different models although I use the same unit 3 times

if we are talking about collections, painting and display, 1 Mega Gargant for 150 is ok if you like the model
but as a game were I pay premium price for medicore rules and need several of those I say Mantic offers the better quality here



Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I mean, it's all well and good to not take 40k seriously, but it's actually WAY easier in my experience to not take another game seriously than it is to not take 40k seriously.

Do you know what's NEVER a discussion I've had to have with any other game?
"Hey do you want to play casual/narrative/competitive?"
You have to have that discussion with 40k because some people don't take it seriously (casual players), some people do take it seriously from a narrative perspective (narrative players), and others take it seriously from a gamesmanship standpoint (competition and competitive players), and the game is insufficiently well-put-together to reconcile those three playstyles without prior discussion.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/13 17:12:44


 
   
Made in gb
Jealous that Horus is Warmaster





I would say discussing what kind of game someone wants to play is a good thing. If I know before I start that my opponent is expecting a serious WAAC environment then I doubt I'd go forward because I wouldn't enjoy that game. Better to get an experience both will enjoy rather than just one. Of course, if people aren't comfortable in social settings, which I know can be an issue, then this might not be preferable. But TBH I've found it's very rare that a tournament-style player is likely to be found at a pick-up game in a local store, be it GW or FLGS.
   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





 kodos wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

This GW giant was brought up earlier. One of these is $40. One is a kit that makes 3 variants and is $190 ( $166 on eBay ). To me there is no way I would waste $40 on the mantic giant even if I can't swing the GW one right now.

Others may feel differently. That's fine, but I find there is little way to claim GW has the inferior model.

Spoiler:

1 kit for 150€ that makes 3 monopose models, or 1 kit for 35€ that is pos-eable with additional bits and add 30€ more for more bits to make 3 different models

if you are a collector, might be worth it, for gaming we are not talking about model quality alone but the game and paying 450€ were the only option for variation is to actually play 3 different units (as otherwise I have 3 times the same model) when I can get away with 105€ and the option to have 3 different models although I use the same unit 3 times

if we are talking about collections, painting and display, 1 Mega Gargant for 150 is ok if you like the model
but as a game were I pay premium price for medicore rules and need several of those I say Mantic offers the better quality here




I dunno, I've seen a lot of variety out of the Mega-gargant kit...
I can't say that I realized the Mantic Giant was pose-able or had additional bits, but then again I haven't seen too much of them online. I've seen more variety out of Para Bellum's Jotnar but that may very well be conversion work.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 kodos wrote:

1 kit for 150€ that makes 3 monopose models, or 1 kit for 35€ that is pos-eable with additional bits and add 30€ more for more bits to make 3 different models

if you are a collector, might be worth it, for gaming we are not talking about model quality alone but the game and paying 450€ were the only option for variation is to actually play 3 different units (as otherwise I have 3 times the same model) when I can get away with 105€ and the option to have 3 different models although I use the same unit 3 times

if we are talking about collections, painting and display, 1 Mega Gargant for 150 is ok if you like the model
but as a game were I pay premium price for medicore rules and need several of those I say Mantic offers the better quality here



I think you'd likely only ever have one of those as it encompasses all of your allied points as well as 1/4 the army.

Quality of game is quite a subjective term especially depending on what you're looking for. Rolling out a historical as a "better game" has zero sway on my decision making, because I'm not interested in historicals right now.

I'd also imagine you'd find a lot more flaws in a game were there to be as large of a community playing and discussing those games. You and a handful of people at the shop aren't going to quite care to find flaws in a game you're enjoying.

   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

Unit1126PLL wrote:I mean, it's all well and good to not take 40k seriously, but it's actually WAY easier in my experience to not take another game seriously than it is to not take 40k seriously.

Do you know what's NEVER a discussion I've had to have with any other game?
"Hey do you want to play casual/narrative/competitive?"
You have to have that discussion with 40k because some people don't take it seriously (casual players), some people do take it seriously from a narrative perspective (narrative players), and others take it seriously from a gamesmanship standpoint (competition and competitive players), and the game is insufficiently well-put-together to reconcile those three playstyles without prior discussion.

I've actually had that discussion with WMH, but that's often unusual because it has become the predominate assumption that there is no game besides the competitive. At one LGS, one of the guys literally stated, "We play only Steamroller here." Gave me the shivers.

And I've had 40K players in the same area act the same way, in which if the game was not set up with the next tournament rules in mind, then it was a no go, and they assumed that this would be the "normal" way to play.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Rihgu wrote:

I can't say that I realized the Mantic Giant was pose-able or had additional bits, but then again I haven't seen too much of them online. I've seen more variety out of Para Bellum's Jotnar but that may very well be conversion work.


It's posable in the sense that you can rotate the waist and arms and that's about it.

https://blog.untilsomebodylosesaneye.net/2018/10/thats-big-one.html

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Unit1126PLL wrote:I mean, it's all well and good to not take 40k seriously, but it's actually WAY easier in my experience to not take another game seriously than it is to not take 40k seriously.

Do you know what's NEVER a discussion I've had to have with any other game?
"Hey do you want to play casual/narrative/competitive?"
You have to have that discussion with 40k because some people don't take it seriously (casual players), some people do take it seriously from a narrative perspective (narrative players), and others take it seriously from a gamesmanship standpoint (competition and competitive players), and the game is insufficiently well-put-together to reconcile those three playstyles without prior discussion.

Right. My point is, though, that other games don't require this level of discussion, precisely because people don't take them as seriously typically. To say "40k is fun because it isn't taken seriously" is evidently false, as some people DO take it seriously. Very seriously.

Charistoph wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:I mean, it's all well and good to not take 40k seriously, but it's actually WAY easier in my experience to not take another game seriously than it is to not take 40k seriously.

Do you know what's NEVER a discussion I've had to have with any other game?
"Hey do you want to play casual/narrative/competitive?"
You have to have that discussion with 40k because some people don't take it seriously (casual players), some people do take it seriously from a narrative perspective (narrative players), and others take it seriously from a gamesmanship standpoint (competition and competitive players), and the game is insufficiently well-put-together to reconcile those three playstyles without prior discussion.

I've actually had that discussion with WMH, but that's often unusual because it has become the predominate assumption that there is no game besides the competitive. At one LGS, one of the guys literally stated, "We play only Steamroller here." Gave me the shivers.

And I've had 40K players in the same area act the same way, in which if the game was not set up with the next tournament rules in mind, then it was a no go, and they assumed that this would be the "normal" way to play.

Good point, I didn't think about WM/H when I wrote that. I also haven't played that game more than twice. But yes, the point is that other games which get taken "more seriously" than 40k often don't require that discussion, because 40k is actually pretty serious to some people.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Yeah, nothing was more joyless and miserable than my local area's WMH scene, good f'ing lord. Playing a few games of a fairly casually built wmh list (wanted to bring cool dragons, made a list to include the most big dragons while still being reasonably usable) against a competitively built wmh list had me running back to the darkest dark age of 7th ed, lol.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm sort of shocked that other games don't take off given the price difference.

I mean, I know 40k is cooler than World War II because it's World-War-2-but-with-wizards-and-monsters or whatever, but holy cow. If you're just looking for a game to play, you could buy like six to eight World War 2 armies for Chain of Command for the price of the books you'd need to play 40k with one SM army right now.
Then I would just have armies from a setting I am not interested in, for a game with no community to play with. Paying too much for GW minis that I actually want and can use is still far better than paying any price for miniatures I do not want and can't use.

If you're not interested in World War 2, I get that. Chain of Command is more an example than anything else though, and I still find it shocking that there is no wargame setting out there that has your attention (or anyone else's). Is there some essence of 40k that makes it way better than any other of the myriad wargame settings that are out there?

The "no community" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've bootstrapped 3 games in my club now just by finding them and showing how good and fun they were. The number of players varies (from like 6 to 20) across the 3 games, but we went from zero local players to at least 6 in all cases. The only reason there's "no community" is people don't build the community, and the reason they don't start building the community is "there's no community". All it takes is one World War 2 nerd in the area and a fun toy displayed on your desk (I have a Soviet T-35 on my desk at work and netted myself 2 CoC players that way).

The minis is a whole 'nother discussion, but again, is there no setting nor set of minis that look agreeable outside GW? Citadel is cutting edge in its casting and sculpting, but it's not so far ahead of some other efforts as to make their sculpts totally bad. Some 3rd party manufacturers are pretty damn cool, even when they copy emulate GW's designs/concepts. Plus, there are even some games you can play with GW minis that aren't GW themselves, though I think you'd be overpaying at that point.
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm sort of shocked that other games don't take off given the price difference.

I mean, I know 40k is cooler than World War II because it's World-War-2-but-with-wizards-and-monsters or whatever, but holy cow. If you're just looking for a game to play, you could buy like six to eight World War 2 armies for Chain of Command for the price of the books you'd need to play 40k with one SM army right now.


It's not just about cost, it's about value. If somebody is not interested in Chain of Command then they are not getting much value for their money. I might prefer that a box of Bladeguard Veterans cost less than 60$CAD, but I buy one because I assess that I will get value out of the box both from the hobby aspect but also because I know I will get plenty of tabletop time out of them. My choice. Weird eh?

I know, that's a shocking choice is what I'm saying. It's not like World War 2 minis have less hobbying (Though they can if you want, there's a whole gamut of mini manufacturers and requirements). The tabletop time thing is, again, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone said "someone else has to play the game first" then no one would ever play any games. I do recognize that becoming a community leader is difficult, though, so no worries.

Maybe it's COVID keeping me from playing, but if all I'm doing is building and painting the models, I get WAY more value and fun out of World War 2 minis than GW minis, because you get so many for so cheap and they're still excellent quality.
See, you are revealing the true downsides to the 'other games' that are so often raised as great alternatives. "You can play this game, just build the community yourself!" Is a problem, not a solution. The amount of labor and effort I would have to put into that is worth a lot to me. Once that is accounted for, playing another game is actually MORE expensive for me; I am just substituting money with time and energy of which I have less to spare than money. I don't want to expand my hobby time with tons of cheap minis; I already have a to-do pile that will take me years! Further; GW minis often require less work on my part to assemble a high-quality product. And I certainly don't want to build a community from scratch, which amounts to putting in a huge amount of effort to MAYBE get to a place where I have people to play with regularly. Maybe, because those efforts can fail and go nowhere.

If it were really as easy as the proponents of such an approach say, we would see it happening all over the place.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Right. My point is, though, that other games don't require this level of discussion, precisely because people don't take them as seriously typically. To say "40k is fun because it isn't taken seriously" is evidently false, as some people DO take it seriously. Very seriously.


And some people take criticizing GW very seriously.

   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Daedalus81 wrote:
I think you'd likely only ever have one of those as it encompasses all of your allied points as well as 1/4 the army.

for a Mega Gargant army you need at least 2 at 2k points
Daedalus81 wrote:
Quality of game is quite a subjective term especially depending on what you're looking for. Rolling out a historical as a "better game" has zero sway on my decision making, because I'm not interested in historicals right now.

I'd also imagine you'd find a lot more flaws in a game were there to be as large of a community playing and discussing those games. You and a handful of people at the shop aren't going to quite care to find flaws in a game you're enjoying.

it is not about the flaws you find over time, but that there is not put much afford into writing the rules in the first place
AoS is better than 40k in that regard (because it is less popular if they would do as bad as with 40k people want keep playing it) but still just an average skirmish game among many others

Rihgu wrote:
I dunno, I've seen a lot of variety out of the Mega-gargant kit...
I can't say that I realized the Mantic Giant was pose-able or had additional bits, but then again I haven't seen too much of them online. I've seen more variety out of Para Bellum's Jotnar but that may very well be conversion work.

there were some videos comparing the 2 gaints as they are the same height, the standard kit has 2 heads and 4 arms (2 of each) and fur for the shoulders, an extended kit that adds resin parts for another pair of arms, another head additional feet and shoulder covers
and there is the "transformed" one that has resin parts that turns it int a nightstalker monster

add in the Conquest Giants and you get 3-4 very different giants for less while the Mega Gargants all have the same body (and pose), but the Mantic Giants are made for gaming and you have to invest some more work to make it into a display model (for most people who play gray anyway this makes no difference)

Daedalus81 wrote:
It's posable in the sense that you can rotate the waist and arms and that's about it

already more than the Mega Gargant can do without using a knife and Green Stuff

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/13 18:28:13


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Right. My point is, though, that other games don't require this level of discussion, precisely because people don't take them as seriously typically. To say "40k is fun because it isn't taken seriously" is evidently false, as some people DO take it seriously. Very seriously.


And some people take criticizing GW very seriously.
I take people acting as if my time is worth nothing very seriously.
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, it's all well and good to not take 40k seriously, but it's actually WAY easier in my experience to not take another game seriously than it is to not take 40k seriously.

Do you know what's NEVER a discussion I've had to have with any other game?
"Hey do you want to play casual/narrative/competitive?"
You have to have that discussion with 40k because some people don't take it seriously (casual players), some people do take it seriously from a narrative perspective (narrative players), and others take it seriously from a gamesmanship standpoint (competition and competitive players), and the game is insufficiently well-put-together to reconcile those three playstyles without prior discussion.


Leaving aside the difference between "casual players" and "serious narrative players" in a 40K context, I think that the issue you are grappling has little to do with rules or how the game is put together. 40K Matched Play is a bit of a lingua franca for tabletop wargamers. As such it brings together all sorts of people. The "design" issue perhaps is that players have lots of freedom to make their list.

If you only play among friends then there is no communication problem. Only want to play "narratively?" Go for it - no obstacles. The issue is that you both want to play "narratively" and might even have different ideas of what that word means.

Some 30 years ago I was in a group that played WW2 Microarmour (1/285 scale). We used a modified version of Yaquinto's "88" system for the mechanics. We took turns being the referee and played double-blind. The referee brought the models and the two sides didn't know what each other's force was, nor the victory conditions. Movement was done on maps, and the referee determined when things could be seen. All the battles were "historical." There was no power-gaming from a list perspective, although rules-lawyering happens in any game...Years later with FOW and Team Yankee I found that while "historical" all the battles I had on the tabletop were in a competitive mindset. We almost never played "scenarios." People want to build and play "their dudes", not fill out a checklist of what the scenario calls for. That works well in boardgames such as ASL where you have all the pieces and map boards.

Our home-brew microarmour was great fun (especially the double-blind part), but it only worked in our little microcosm. It was hard to bring in new players. After about three years the group drifted apart. My point, though, is that if you are devoted to "hard core narrative 40K" then you pretty much have to play with close friends or a club of like-minded people. That is not GWs problem if you are not part of such a group. Out in the wilds of the FLGS' of the world I think that Matched Play is the lingua franca.

Boy are we off topic! Darned Space Marines! Its their fault! There, back on topic.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yes, all of that is true. But what is confusing is why it is that way - other than inertia, of course.

Why is Matched Play the lingua franca? Just because it's supposedly the most balanced?

Or is it because of inertia? Clearly balance isn't the only reason, given how much it fluctuates (though I'd agree now we're approaching a rather okay balance state, especially once books like CWE get their release).
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, all of that is true. But what is confusing is why it is that way - other than inertia, of course.

Why is Matched Play the lingua franca? Just because it's supposedly the most balanced?

Or is it because of inertia? Clearly balance isn't the only reason, given how much it fluctuates (though I'd agree now we're approaching a rather okay balance state, especially once books like CWE get their release).


Matched Play has the most assumptions/parameters built into the design. The players can have a "fair" match without prior discussion. A narrative match, though, requires coordination as well as the two players having compatible collections and interests. You might really want to refight some battle you read about in a Forgeworld book. I might know nothing about that or simply not find that battle to be my cup of tea especially if you wan to recreate something specific.

We can both rock up to the table with Matched Play lists and the parameters are already set. The terms have been agreed upon ahead of time without our having to communicate. We can then build a bit of a story around our two collections. Or just get on with the game.

When I play in my basement with my son or friends its narrative with a cool story. Lets do a last stand/thunder run as the Governor's convoy tries to make the roof of the embassy to get on the last Stormraven!

At the FLGS? Matched Play.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I'm not sure that's true, though. You can't just rock up to the table with Matched Play and play.

Because that pre-game conversation still has to happen for 40k, even for a PUG where both sides are prepared to accept the Matched Play rules.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: