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.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
That's a fair point, can't argue with that one.

But supposing that there was a tournament that ran 7th edition, and you didn't sell your army, would you play in it?

Sure! I still consider WHFB the superior game art-wise as the factions differ a lot and come at very interesting themes. 40k suffers from 85% of all factions being boring tin cans.

I'm not saying that 7th was balanced, not at all, but 8th took a hard hit towards randomness and the ridiculously overpowered magic just tops it off. A game mechanic that's fully based on luck and adds nothing visually should never be such a game-breaker. Skaven slaves e.g. are under-costed and extremely effective, but at the same time, I'm fine with that fact as a horde of skaven looks cool and makes the game more interesting to watch. Even people who do not know about the game see that huge unit and go like "Aww, that's a HUGE number of troops! Cool!" whereas when using magic, people just seem to roll some dice and then remove some models.

 Elemental wrote:

And so on. GW probably couldn't be more honest about how they're desperately trying to milk the fanbase for as much money as possible, everything comes second to that desire, and they don't really give a toss about how workable their games are. And I don't really want to support such a cynical attitude.

Word.

Is quitting GW games a trend? I've played wargames for nigh on ten years now. whilst no wargaming veteran, i've seen 4 editions of 40k come and go. And in all that time, every new codex annoyed people. every new price rise annoyed people. every new edition/change annoyed people. and some quit. some griped and stayed playing. some left. So even *back* then, it was pretty much exactly the same as it is now, except people moaned about rhino rush and starcannon spam than aircrons and draigowing spam.

THe big different though, between then and now is there are viable alternatives.

5 years ago.. even 4 or 3 years ago - basically before the rise of Warmachine Mk2, there really was only GW. your only alternative to 40k was WFB, and vice versa. GW really was the only game in town, and you either put up with it, or you shut up. But now? Now playing other games has never been more viable. and more than that, other games - warmachine/hordes, infinity, malifaux, dropzone commander, dystopian wars, flames of war and so on - are getting table time. they're being seen, and they're drawing interest. there are stable, viable alternatives, and thats why, in my mind, leaving GW is more feasible now than it was when i started gaming. I play in 2 gaming groups. in one, its an even split between malifaux, warmachine/hordes and flames of war. in the other, 40k and fantasy get 40% of the table time, with GW specialist games getting a look in (quite nice to see bloodbowl, inquisimunda and epic games), as well as the other 50% being primarily warmachine/hordes. its a nice split, but GW does not dominate. and from my experiences back home in ireland, its the same trend there. Since Warmachine Mk2 has hit the scene, the whole meta has shifted.

Now, its true that some people play multiple systems, including GW games. i think they're a bit of a minority though. From my personal, anecdotal experience, GW players view their choices as 40k, or Fantasy. Players who play non-GW core games, like Warmachine/Hordes are, in my experience, more likely to play other systems.

Now, why must people pick sides? i certainly dont. 40k isnt for me, but i will still buy GW kits for the conversions i can do to my WM figures. I do think age has something to do with it. Without trying to sound demeaning or anything, i find that after a while, people tend to "grow out of" wanting GW games. I know i have. Without being mean about it, GW games simply dont offer me what i'm looking for at this stage in my life, and i've moved on accordingly. i had to laugh a while back, when i went to a scottish tourney near edinburgh. they were running 3 games - flames of war, 40k and warmachine/hordes. a lot of the older games (40s, 50s etc) were playing Flames of War. A lot of the mature, young adults (late 20s, early 30s) were playing warmachine/hordes, and all the kiddies (with a few extremely overweight, and overhaired exceptions) were playing 40k. i'd never seen games so divided along age lines in my life. and i'm not saying this in any kind of a bad way. i loved tintin cartoons when i was a kid. downloaded them recently because of a movie, and all the charm was gone - they simply hadnt aged with me. I remember an article with the GW designers and they basically explained how they had tailored the rules (favouring rote repitition, and rote memorisation of stats) to appeal to teenagers, and they said how what appealed to older players (implementation of knowledge as opposed to memorisation of knowledge) wasnt what they wanted to put in. the style of rules was based on research into how teenagers actually thought, as opposed to how adults thought. it was quite an eye-opener, and very enlightening. i enjoy learning about game-theory and that artiicle really interested me. and thats fair enough. GW tailors their games, and it seems to be that if this is true (and i have no doubt that it is), then moving on from GW games is a natural part of the cycle for some. some people need different things as they get older. its just a shame that others add an extra dimension to it with "us" and "them", and "quitting" and "taking sides".

 Breotan wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
A quickie guys:

If you hate 8th Edition fantasy so much, then why don't you just play 7th?

Try finding a tournament that still uses 7th.

Oh, look. A strawman argument.

Please learn what strawman means before you use it in a sentence.

 kronk wrote:

Please learn what strawman means before you use it in a sentence.

"Strawman" is a pejorative used to describe anyone on the internet who disagrees with you.

Right?

 Testify wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Please learn what strawman means before you use it in a sentence.

"Strawman" is a pejorative used to describe anyone on the internet who disagrees with you.

Right?

That's... That's sarcasm, right?

 Testify wrote:

Your friend tried to field an all assault army that was also an all deep striking army. Sounds like he collected for fluff reasons since power-wise an all-khorne list sucks ass in 5th and 6th alike.

It did have a Thirster and a Grinder for popping armor and doing some heavy lifting. So yes, it was not top-competitive.

However, it could charge without taking free shots, had troops that could deal with 2+armor saves in CC, and eho did not fail charges because the first model took an overwatch bullet and increased the distance to cover.

In out meta, his army was not bad, really, as we have few WAAC types. It certainly scare the crap out of our Dark Angels Deathwing player, who may be happy that he'll never have to play against it. Even if he has one less person to play with.

But if "You picked the wrong faction, so eat crap forever. Hope you enjoy the hobby!" if the operative mindset, I guess you are right.

 Testify wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Please learn what strawman means before you use it in a sentence.

"Strawman" is a pejorative used to describe anyone on the internet who disagrees with you.

Right?

Exalted ;D

 cgage00 wrote:
But I always point out I enjoy painting and converting. Other games seem to lack the ability to freely create new models.

This is one of the main points in GW's favor. While some other companies (WGF, Defiance) are trying to make serious multi-part plastic kits, nobody is even close to GW's level in that front. When combined with the very expansive 40k background, GW really does have the most to offer when it comes to customizability.

 kronk wrote:
Please learn what strawman means before you use it in a sentence.

I tried to say that a page or so back... but I wasn't trying to be a blunt.

 Testify wrote:

 Sephyr wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Sephyr wrote:
I am part of a club here in Brazil and have contact with another one. In both cases, 40K has ceased to be the main game in the club. People who were just getting into the game here quit over 6th edition making their armies moot before they ever got to field them.

In my case, there's still a bit of 40K going on, because 4-6 people have armies that still work. But FoW, Infinity, Warmachine and even Dropzone Commander have picked up lots of steam. Hell, we even started a Mordheim campaign so people could play games and be in the hobby without being jerked around by GW.

In the other club it has been even more pronounced. They are actually holding tournaments of the other systems, where before 40K and Fantasy were the only ones that had enough people to make organizing feasible.

You see, this kind of thing is good for the industry. Those games are good, and are worth playing. They deserve to be played. The problem is when people play one game only (say, they might only play 40k), then leave entirely, selling their stuff, and picking up one other game entirely. There's no reason to do this, and it hurts both the industry and your options in the hobby.

If those people who now play, say, Dropzone Commander, don't play 40k for a long time, that's just normal. They've got a new, shiny game to play. The itch always comes back to play an older game though - which is why you keep at least one army around from a game you 'left'. Broadening your gaming options doesn't mean entirely getting rid of a whole system, that's just moving.

This is why I also prefer to stick to one army per system. You get to play more than one game, and you'll still have regular releases for the armies you collect.

I generally agree. The difference is that most of the people who changed here didn't just see something new and shelved their 40K. They threw it away with great force.

One of my friends had gotten into the game around february this year. By June he had a very nice Khorne Daemon army with plenty of juggernauts, bloodletters, the works. Not top-competitive but enough to have fun with, and definitely much better painted than my first army.

Then 6E dropped and well, sorry, all of that sucks now. Buy FMCs or go home, pal. He tried selling his army, failed to find a buyer, nearly left the hobby and pretty much only stayed because we pitched in to get him tons of bits to join our Mordheim campaign.

Your friend tried to field an all assault army that was also an all deep striking army. Sounds like he collected for fluff reasons since power-wise an all-khorne list sucks ass in 5th and 6th alike.

If it's a balanced game then theres no reason that any army (except for something silly like all Grots) should be completely undesirable. It seems FMC are one of the strongest things now, so that's what everyone has and half of the codex is useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:
When I started wargames again, I got back into 40K, and intended to get back into Fantasy at some point. The former didn't really last, and the second didn't really happen.

I think my dissatisfaction stems from a simple thing--I don't feel like GW want me to have enjoyable games, instead they want to sell me stuff above all other priorities. Yes, other companies want to sell me stuff, but with Wyrd, Privateer, etc, I get the impression that they also care about balancing the game and making it genuinely tactical. With GW, everything seems to be a gambit to get more money. Neglecting unpopular armies for multiple editions while bringing out yet another Space Marine codex. Making flying units the new hotness, so that people have to buy allies or fortifications to counter that. The cycle of various units fluctating in power based on quirks of the rules as editions change, rather than their effectiveness having anything to do with their points cost. (I remember a thread from here about someone lamenting having to convert 120 Orks to have shootas to stay useful, which seems insane). And of course, the price hikes for reasons that can include "We now use a cheaper material." and "These minis are based on movies, so the bubble won't last long.".

And so on. GW probably couldn't be more honest about how they're desperately trying to milk the fanbase for as much money as possible, everything comes second to that desire, and they don't really give a toss about how workable their games are. And I don't really want to support such a cynical attitude.

I've certainly started feeling that recently as well. Such as when the cost of plastic scenery flew up (up by as much as about 70%) the month before 6th Ed dropped and scenery became must have. It's worrying that it's actually possible to guage changes in the game direction based on the price rice data...

In saying that, I do actually quite like 6th Ed, it's been fun to play so far, and I dodged most of this round of shafting because of this forum and a huge scenery order at the end of May, and I already have a core army I can add in bits. I dread to think how much it'd sting for new players now.

My reluctance to spend with GW is now because it seems so confrontational; they are actively trying to shaft customers and I get some amusement at foiling them (though to be fair they still win because I did give them about £250 for scenery anyway, even if I saved about £100).

Gnawer wrote:
So, I've been seeing a lot of posts about people quitting 40k and getting into other games. In our area we almost completely switched to Warmachine. But I was curious to know if that's really a worldwide trend, or just an usual internet hate thing.

EDIT: The question is about your recent preferences; of course, they can change later, new events can bring you back to 40k, etc.

This has been happening for 20+ years, at least. A lot of young gamers have always "grown up" and "graduated" onto historicals, etc.

I keep seeing posts about wargaming being this black and white (GW or not) experience. Where I live, many people have begun to play other games, but all of them still maintain a 40k or Fantasy army...even if they only use it from time to time.

It amuses me that some people here have the idea that people are leaving GW in droves....I know it is not the best sample out there, but the poll for this thread is defeating that argument. 73% of the people who responded to this poll are still playing 40k/fantasy (even if just a little), of those who actually fully quit GW only 13% even still play tabletop wargames.

 Lightcavalier wrote:
I keep seeing posts about wargaming being this black and white (GW or not) experience. Where I live, many people have begun to play other games, but all of them still maintain a 40k or Fantasy army...even if they only use it from time to time.

It amuses me that some people here have the idea that people are leaving GW in droves....I know it is not the best sample out there, but the poll for this thread is defeating that argument. 73% of the people who responded to this poll are still playing 40k/fantasy (even if just a little), of those who actually fully quit GW only 13% even still play tabletop wargames.

True, but does keeping an old army in a box somewhere or playing an ultra-friendly game with their brother every year count as being an active GW player/consumer? If so, I have a couple of friends who are active despite having not rolled dice in arnger for 5+ years.

 Testify wrote:

Also bare in mind it's only the US. Australia I guess would be more tempremental owing to the instability of the currency etc, though I'm not sure why AUS is so much more expensive than the rest of the world.

From this statement and all other statements you have made in this thread. You are seriously Bat Gak Crazeeeeeeeeeeee.

Why is it that one clown can totally derail a good thread? The premise was good, there was room for all in the discussion then boom, it all turns into a pile of gak.

Please for the love of christ , the next time a neutral toned thread comes up, don't get your hackles up, put away your defender of the hobby gloves and try and have a reasonable (is this possible on dakka?) discussion.

Bullockist wrote:

 Testify wrote:

Also bare in mind it's only the US. Australia I guess would be more tempremental owing to the instability of the currency etc, though I'm not sure why AUS is so much more expensive than the rest of the world.

From this statement and all other statements you have made in this thread. You are seriously Bat Gak Crazeeeeeeeeeeee.

Why is it that one clown can totally derail a good thread? The premise was good, there was room for all in the discussion then boom, it all turns into a pile of gak.

Please for the love of christ , the next time a neutral toned thread comes up, don't get your hackles up, put away your defender of the hobby gloves and try and have a reasonable (is this possible on dakka?) discussion.

What an insightful post.

It's obvious that *not* mindlessly bashing GW, regardless of the reality of the situation, is regarded as "flaming" or "trolling" in the dakka discussions sub-forum. Honestly this place is worse than the OT.

[Edit] Nevermind

 -Loki- wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Both new editions of GW's main games are just plain money grabs geared towards teenagers, all the tactical positioning that was part and parcel of 6th / 7th ed Fantasy is all but useless now and 6th ed 40k has adopted some of the worst rules of it. Add to that that GW herself decided to ignore 20+ years of fluff in their newer rules and Codex and it was just too much for me.

I sold 6 of my armies and just kept my initial Dark Elves and Imperial Guard that were the armies that originally brought me into miniature wargaming back in the 90's, hoping against hope that maybe GW will again someday make a rules system geared for people that like to think during a game instead of just rolling buckets of dice.

Huh, this seems like an odd claim. Positioning is much more important in 6th edition than it was in 5th edition, with position-based wound allocation and cover saves, models out of line of sight being unable to be hit, flyers being extremely constrained in movement and thus requiring careful planning as to their positioning, etc. What specifically makes you think 6th edition eliminates positioning or "dums down" the game?

Random charge range.

I still have yet to see a reasonable argument of how random charge ranges 'dumb the game down'. It's different, and people may not like it, but that's all I've heard - reasons why people don't like it. I haven't yet seen anyone explain how it dumbed the game down.

2d6 is too wild. It is also another random element, add too much of those and you will cross a luckfest line. Some randomness is necessary but there's too much in 6th, not to the point of quiting for me but close. 4+d6 or 6+d3 could be better, should be fixed though imo.

As for quiting, the most probable scenario for me is that Bombastic Matt, digging up another ancient furry cat race, squats, monkey or sth in order to make the fluff even more blatantly fantasy in space and ridiculous in a bad way, will find that old RT mutations picture and add it to codex or rulebook in some form thinking it's cool. That or something similar might do it for me and can happen as Matt seems to be on the roll lately.

Im taking a break from 6th ed. With my new job taking up nights and Saturdays, any hopes of wargaming are slim now.


I find that its easier to jump on my PC and put in a few hours of borderlands 2 or an RTS.

Depends on what you mean. I no longer purchase new things for warhammer really. Or very rarely and seldom play 40k/Warhammer. Nowadays I enjoy other games more and I prefer skirmish based games. But I still have all my old GW models and don't mind using them every now and then.

 Kingsley wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
As GW plc seem to have quit bothering delivering decent game play, in regaurds to tactical depth and game balance.

So customers who think quality rules and game play are important probably will go else where.

Hmm. I've found that 6th edition 40k is much more deep and tactically interesting than 5th edition 40k was. I suppose your mileage may vary?

I haven't found 40k a 'deep' experience for at least 14 years to be honest!

6th edition has moved around the strengths of the units a little and forced people to re-evaluate their army lists. Although the human-element (and depth if you like) of 40k has been on the 'strategic' level for years - i.e. choosing what you bring to the table when making an army list.

I'd definitely be interested in hearing what you think the improvements are though,

So, I went a bit different direction. Instead of finding new games to play; I just decided to start making my own, or just play around inthe dead Specialist Games universe. By making my own games, I can use any miniatures I want to use and dig into my existing collection.

As a result, I have pretty much left buying from GW, except for the occasionaly one-offs; for good.