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.

XenosTerminus wrote:
who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes

He never actually said that. Quite the opposite, he said that the game is good but it has a lot of problems and he doesn't think highlighting them is a bad thing.

You see the world in black and white. "You're either with us or against us!" He doesn't.

It's like if you have this friend that's an awesome guy and you love being around him, but he keeps kicking dogs. You can choose to just run with your hands-off approach where if one thing doesn't please you about something, you simply leave that person never to talk to him again, or you can decide that you want to try and change him to stop kicking dogs. And if you can't manage that, maybe you could compromise and have him kick seagulls instead. No one likes seagulls anyway.

You don't actually seem to read what he says, based on your reply. Do you just make it up in your head what you think the opposition says?

XenosTerminus wrote:
Yes. it's popular for a reason.

Two reasons, actually. The awesome fluff/models (which don't depend on the rules, or even playing the game at all), and GW's past business successes that have given them a near-monopoly in the tabletop wargaming industry and ensured that one of their games is always the default choice, and preferably the only choice that has enough players in your area.

If you do not like the current state of the game, why do you play it? Why do you continue to buy the books, models, and support a company who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes?

As said previously, people can hate the game but still buy and play because they love the fluff/models, because they've invested a lot of time and money and don't want to throw it all away, because it's the only game their friends play, etc.

It's another thing entirely to continuously complain about something you have 100% control over, expecting different results every time you are disappointed.

Except we don't have 100% control over the problem. None of us have the power to change the rules and make the game work the way we want it to. Which is unfortunate, because most of us could probably do a better job of running the game than the incompetents at GW.

 Purifier wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes

He never actually said that. Quite the opposite, he said that the game is good but it has a lot of problems and he doesn't think highlighting them is a bad thing.

You see the world in black and white. "You're either with us or against us!" He doesn't.

It's like if you have this friend that's an awesome guy and you love being around him, but he keeps kicking dogs. You can choose to just run with your hands-off approach where if one thing doesn't please you about something, you simply leave that person never to talk to him again, or you can decide that you want to try and change him to stop kicking dogs. And if you can't manage that, maybe you could compromise and have him kick seagulls instead. No one likes seagulls anyway.

You don't actually seem to read what he says, based on your reply. Do you just make it up in your head what you think the opposition says?

I am generalizing. I don't find it necessary to meticulously reply to each individual sentence like some people do- and yes, I did read his entire response.

It's a general attitude held by a lot of people around here, that's all.

Basically anyone who claims they still like the game and are looking for ways to find the 'good' seem very quick to jump into a thread and comment on how 'terrible' the rules are.

Here's an example: anyone who religiously watches/follows a particular football team in the NFL. It's a love-hate relationship. They may absolutely hate the team or what they are doing during a particular season, but they continue to watch them regardless because they have hope and still love the sport. That is fine, I have no issue with that.

What I do find an issue with is the people that have this dedication but complain ALL SEASON about how the team is terrible, the coach makes bad calls, player X is really not doing anything right, etc. It's tiresome to watch games around these people that are overly negative for something they appear to care a great deal about. While some would argue it's passion that drives this attitude, these people need to understand that overly negative people/complainers are not enjoyable to be around or converse with.

So you still like the game? Great. Then actually find something positive to say or do with it. Be constructive in forum posts instead of only pointing out what is bad about the game.

 Blacksails wrote:
To me it only means that I'm drinking beer and eating pretzels.

AMAZING!

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
To me it only means that I'm drinking beer and eating pretzels.

AMAZING!

I should also add that I'm not overly fond of pretzels.

 Blacksails wrote:

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
To me it only means that I'm drinking beer and eating pretzels.

AMAZING!

I should also add that I'm not overly fond of pretzels.

Pretzels just make you more thirsty and actually absorb a portion of the alcohol, therefore REDUCE the enjoyment of a game involving alcohol.

This is science.

XenosTerminus wrote:


Pretzels just make you more thirsty and actually absorb a portion of the alcohol, therefore REDUCE the enjoyment of a game involving alcohol.

This is science.

Yeah, but then I'd just want to drink more.

Beer and Pretzels has a few different connotations in my eyes.

First, it’s a state of mind. You go into the game relaxed, playing for fun. Winning is nice, but secondary to having a good time.

A good B&P game should also be simple, fast, and fun. Inexpensive is nice, but not required.

While you can play 40k casually for fun, it is not a simple game. Too much prep work getting a game going, too many rules to explain to a new player. Something like Space Hulk: better as a B&P game.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I also take it to mean a casual gaming experience. More specifically it is a game that you don't necessarily need a lot of preparation or extensive background knowledge of the game, to play.

Currently my "beer and pretzels" game of choice is Zombicide. Its fast to set up, easy to teach, but provides a lot of fun for gamers and non-gamers alike. You can definitely drink and still play the game (relatively) well.

In my stinky opinion 40k isn't a beer and pretzels game unless you use the very broad definition of "casual gaming experience" or you are referring to the intended play style. I very much believe GW intends for 40k to be a casual gaming experience, but the game fails to achieve that goal based on the amount of material that you need to consume as a player (rules, models ect.) making it anything but a casual experience.

Battletech is still labeled by some as a beer and pretzels game, and I think in 1984 when it first started it was. But in the last 30 years rules and unit expansions have made it a convoluted mess that is rather daunting to start up. Still, you can recreate that basic, fun play style of the original game but you just have to work at it a bit. I think 40k is in the same boat. Years of expansion have bloated it to the point where you need a virtual library of rule books and appendices in order to play.

Battletech's core rules are virtually identical to what they were when released. Battletech and 40k should never ever be mentioned in the same sentence when discussing rules

For me it means casual play for fun with your friends.
Playing a game and spending half the time cracking tasteless jokes and making phallic references

 Peregrine wrote:
As said previously, people can hate the game but still buy and play because they love the fluff/models, because they've invested a lot of time and money and don't want to throw it all away, because it's the only game their friends play, etc.

If you hate the game why do you play it then, just because you spent some money doesn't mean you have to ability to tell the company how it should run its business model. Remember just because you buy a product does not make that company your bitch. They do what they need to do to make money, and if you love this company so much wouldn't you want it to continue to make profits so it can continue to exist?

 Peregrine wrote:
Except we don't have 100% control over the problem. None of us have the power to change the rules and make the game work the way we want it to. Which is unfortunate, because most of us could probably do a better job of running the game than the incompetents at GW.

Here's an idea, instead of complaining that the company you claim to love it changing things in a way you don't like just agree to play by the previous rule set. Look at D&D, some people don't like 4th Edition so you know what they do... they play using a previous editions rules that they actually liked. When I see people like you complain that this company, which owes them nothing, changed things without asking for the permission of each and every person who spent any amount of money on the game, all I see is a 5 year old who is throwing a tantrum.

Wow, it's Black/White Thinking day here at the Dakka outpatient ward.

Things can be really bad in one way, and still be an overall pleasant experience. LIke every single romantic relationship in the history of mankind.

the 40k hobby can be awesome, while the rules are substandard.

40IsTerrible wrote:
Look at D&D, some people don't like 4th Edition so you know what they do... they play using a previous editions rules that they actually liked.

If D&D had the kind of pick-up games that 40k does, this might have been a relevant comparison. If D&D had you buying armies for a certain rulebook for hundreds if not thousands of dollars, this might have been a relevant comparison.
None of those are true though. In 40k, you build an army based on what codex you are playing, so if different people play different editions and have bought armies for different editions (what units you buy changes. Don't deny it.) it's gonna be even harder than normal to get a pick up game in this niche universe that playing 40k is. In 40k you're halfway forced to go with the latest edition because in order to get games we have to find a common edition, and "the latest" is the easiest and the one that makes most sense.

In D&D all you have to do is sit down and join the game. If the DM says it's edition 1, then that's that. It doesn't affect you to any large degree.

40IsTerrible wrote:
When I see people like you complain that this company, which owes them nothing, changed things without asking for the permission of each and every person who spent any amount of money on the game, all I see is a 5 year old who is throwing a tantrum.

I could say that about your complaining about people complaining. It's an incredibly low stance to take to simply say "everyone that doesn't agree with me are babies."

Also, D&D groups (and RPG groups in general) play the system the DM prefers. 40k requires finding an opponent, and using the standard, but lousy, rules is often easier then finding players willing to use other rules.

XenosTerminus wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes

He never actually said that. Quite the opposite, he said that the game is good but it has a lot of problems and he doesn't think highlighting them is a bad thing.

You see the world in black and white. "You're either with us or against us!" He doesn't.

It's like if you have this friend that's an awesome guy and you love being around him, but he keeps kicking dogs. You can choose to just run with your hands-off approach where if one thing doesn't please you about something, you simply leave that person never to talk to him again, or you can decide that you want to try and change him to stop kicking dogs. And if you can't manage that, maybe you could compromise and have him kick seagulls instead. No one likes seagulls anyway.

You don't actually seem to read what he says, based on your reply. Do you just make it up in your head what you think the opposition says?

I am generalizing. I don't find it necessary to meticulously reply to each individual sentence like some people do- and yes, I did read his entire response.

It's a general attitude held by a lot of people around here, that's all.

Basically anyone who claims they still like the game and are looking for ways to find the 'good' seem very quick to jump into a thread and comment on how 'terrible' the rules are.

Here's an example: anyone who religiously watches/follows a particular football team in the NFL. It's a love-hate relationship. They may absolutely hate the team or what they are doing during a particular season, but they continue to watch them regardless because they have hope and still love the sport. That is fine, I have no issue with that.

What I do find an issue with is the people that have this dedication but complain ALL SEASON about how the team is terrible, the coach makes bad calls, player X is really not doing anything right, etc. It's tiresome to watch games around these people that are overly negative for something they appear to care a great deal about. While some would argue it's passion that drives this attitude, these people need to understand that overly negative people/complainers are not enjoyable to be around or converse with.

So you still like the game? Great. Then actually find something positive to say or do with it. Be constructive in forum posts instead of only pointing out what is bad about the game.

Let's take your own approach here. If you don't like the content of the forums, DON'T VISIT THEM. Listening to you complain about people complaining about something doesn't add anything to the atmosphere. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We want GW to address problems with the rules. You are not enjoyable to be around or converse with.

JPong wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
who evidently is doing nothing right in your eyes

He never actually said that. Quite the opposite, he said that the game is good but it has a lot of problems and he doesn't think highlighting them is a bad thing.

You see the world in black and white. "You're either with us or against us!" He doesn't.

It's like if you have this friend that's an awesome guy and you love being around him, but he keeps kicking dogs. You can choose to just run with your hands-off approach where if one thing doesn't please you about something, you simply leave that person never to talk to him again, or you can decide that you want to try and change him to stop kicking dogs. And if you can't manage that, maybe you could compromise and have him kick seagulls instead. No one likes seagulls anyway.

You don't actually seem to read what he says, based on your reply. Do you just make it up in your head what you think the opposition says?

I am generalizing. I don't find it necessary to meticulously reply to each individual sentence like some people do- and yes, I did read his entire response.

It's a general attitude held by a lot of people around here, that's all.

Basically anyone who claims they still like the game and are looking for ways to find the 'good' seem very quick to jump into a thread and comment on how 'terrible' the rules are.

Here's an example: anyone who religiously watches/follows a particular football team in the NFL. It's a love-hate relationship. They may absolutely hate the team or what they are doing during a particular season, but they continue to watch them regardless because they have hope and still love the sport. That is fine, I have no issue with that.

What I do find an issue with is the people that have this dedication but complain ALL SEASON about how the team is terrible, the coach makes bad calls, player X is really not doing anything right, etc. It's tiresome to watch games around these people that are overly negative for something they appear to care a great deal about. While some would argue it's passion that drives this attitude, these people need to understand that overly negative people/complainers are not enjoyable to be around or converse with.

So you still like the game? Great. Then actually find something positive to say or do with it. Be constructive in forum posts instead of only pointing out what is bad about the game.

Let's take your own approach here. If you don't like the content of the forums, DON'T VISIT THEM. Listening to you complain about people complaining about something doesn't add anything to the atmosphere. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We want GW to address problems with the rules. You are not enjoyable to be around or converse with.

Oh but the forums do contain things I enjoy conversing about, and not everyone falls into the category I described. My point was there are too many overly negative people that sabotage perfectly reasonable discussions with their overly negative outlook on anything related to this hobby or the topic at hand.

Complaining about complainers =/= pointing out that people are overly negative about this hobby and need to reevaluate why they are in it in the first place.

GW will not address rules because of relentless moaning sessions about your distaste for their decisions in the far reaches of an internet forum. Nice try though.

 Purifier wrote:
If D&D had the kind of pick-up games that 40k does, this might have been a relevant comparison. If D&D had you buying armies for a certain rulebook for hundreds if not thousands of dollars, this might have been a relevant comparison. None of those are true though. In 40k, you build an army based on what codex you are playing, so if different people play different editions and have bought armies for different editions (what units you buy changes. Don't deny it.) it's gonna be even harder than normal to get a pick up game in this niche universe that playing 40k is. In 40k you're halfway forced to go with the latest edition because in order to get games we have to find a common edition, and "the latest" is the easiest and the one that makes most sense.

It is actually quote a spot on comparison in my opinion, if you've ever looked at the price of D&D books you would know that people spend large amounts of money on each edition to make sure they have everything they need to play. Also, there are plenty of one session adventures that are made to be "pick-up games." So maybe the "army" you are building is an army of books, if someone whom you want to play D&D with has an "army" of books from a different edition does that mean WoTC is ruining it's product because there two people have to act like actual adults and sit down and talk about how they want to proceed if they actually want to play a game together? How dare a company force people who spend money on their product actually have to come to some sort of agreement with another person before playing their game. Why would that do that to their customers, don't they know that they must continue to cater to each and every person who spent $5 on one of their products, instead of doing things that could make them the money they need to continue to function as a company?

 Purifier wrote:
In D&D all you have to do is sit down and join the game. If the DM says it's edition 1, then that's that. It doesn't affect you to any large degree.

In Warhammer all you have to do is sit down and decide which edition you want to play with. Seems exactly the same to me.

 Purifier wrote:
I could say that about your complaining about people complaining. It's an incredibly low stance to take to simply say "everyone that doesn't agree with me are babies."

So I'm not allowed to call someone out when they are acting like a child whose parents don't do exactly what they want? Besides didn't you just complain about me complaining? So doesn't that make you guilty of the same "low stance" you said I was taking? Also I didn't way "everyone that doesn't agree with me are babies" I said that complaining that the company isn't acting like your personal slave, reminds me of a 5 year old.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Complaining about complainers =/= pointing out that people are overly negative about this hobby and need to reevaluate why they are in it in the first place.

You're trying for some vague distinction between the two here. Let me tell you, you are complaining about complainers. Don't try to dress it up in a toga and call it Caesar.

 Purifier wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Complaining about complainers =/= pointing out that people are overly negative about this hobby and need to reevaluate why they are in it in the first place.

You're trying for some vague distinction between the two here. Let me tell you, you are complaining about complainers. Don't try to dress it up in a toga and call it Caesar.

To me using the 'well you are just complaining that I am complaining' statement is just a scapegoat to ignore or excuse the fact you are being negative. Or, to put it another way, getting butt-hurt when someone calls you out.

Fine. I am complaining about complainers. At the very least I am not complaining about the game, just really negative people. I think that is justified.

 Polonius wrote:
Also, D&D groups (and RPG groups in general) play the system the DM prefers. 40k requires finding an opponent, and using the standard, but lousy, rules is often easier then finding players willing to use other rules.

You know what you do in D&D if you don't want to play by the edition that the DM chooses, you don't play with them. You tell them that if they want you to play the two of you are going to have to sit down and have an adult conversion and agree on an edition that you both can enjoy. I'm failing to understand why that is so much more difficult to do in 40k. If you don't like the rule edition that the other person wants to use, be an adult and talk to them.

40IsTerrible wrote:
If you hate the game why do you play it then, just because you spent some money doesn't mean you have to ability to tell the company how it should run its business model. Remember just because you buy a product does not make that company your bitch. They do what they need to do to make money, and if you love this company so much wouldn't you want it to continue to make profits so it can continue to exist?

The point you don't seem to understand is that many of our concerns are about GW's ability to continue making profits. GW is making bad business decisions and sacrificing long-term growth and stability in a desperate attempt to cover up their declining sales volume and make the next financial report look acceptable. And I'd say losing 25% of their value in one day is a pretty clear sign that the market is not impressed with their business model.

just agree to play by the previous rule set.

I don't think you understand how pickup games work. Interest in previous versions of 40k is pretty much nonexistent, and if you show up at your local store on 40k night and expect to play an older edition you're going to have a pretty lonely evening.

When I see people like you complain that this company, which owes them nothing, changed things without asking for the permission of each and every person who spent any amount of money on the game, all I see is a 5 year old who is throwing a tantrum.

The problem isn't that GW made changes that some people don't like, it's that GW continues to make incredibly stupid decisions that pretty much anyone who isn't a rabid GW fanboy disagrees with. You're doing the equivalent of white knighting for the restaurant that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it, and whining about how everyone is being so unfair and just "throwing a tantrum" because the chef didn't ask for their permission before putting shards of glass in the food.

40IsTerrible wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Also, D&D groups (and RPG groups in general) play the system the DM prefers. 40k requires finding an opponent, and using the standard, but lousy, rules is often easier then finding players willing to use other rules.

You know what you do in D&D if you don't want to play by the edition that the DM chooses, you don't play with them. You tell them that if they want you to play the two of you are going to have to sit down and have an adult conversion and agree on an edition that you both can enjoy. I'm failing to understand why that is so much more difficult to do in 40k. If you don't like the rule edition that the other person wants to use, be an adult and talk to them.

This is what broke up my group. We had most of us who wanted to pl;ay 4th and some who loathed it. I have not seen some of them in over a year.

The new group is a lot better though. We take two hours to start though, not form setting up, but sitting around and chatting and soscialising.
The 40k group is the same way, I have had to make our start time 12:00, just so we can start by 2:00 and it usaly takes us only 20min to set up.

40IsTerrible wrote:
It is actually quote a spot on comparison in my opinion, if you've ever looked at the price of D&D books you would know that people spend large amounts of money on each edition to make sure they have everything they need to play. Also, there are plenty of one session adventures that are made to be "pick-up games." So maybe the "army" you are building is an army of books, if someone whom you want to play D&D with has an "army" of books from a different edition does that mean WoTC is ruining it's product because there two people have to act like actual adults and sit down and talk about how they want to proceed if they actually want to play a game together? How dare a company force people who spend money on their product actually have to come to some sort of agreement with another person before playing their game. Why would that do that to their customers, don't they know that they must continue to cater to each and every person who spent $5 on one of their products, instead of doing things that could make them the money they need to continue to function as a company?

Except it's the DM that makes that investment and everyone else just plays the game he provides. It's not 5 people sat down with each his own 1000 dollars worth of equipment. Your point is baffling in its inaccuracy.

40IsTerrible wrote:

In Warhammer all you have to do is sit down and decide which edition you want to play with. Seems exactly the same to me.

Yeah, except of course for the DM having a judge's high seat to lay down the law, while in 40k it's 2-4 people that all have to agree on things while having the same "worth" if you will. So nothing at all alike, actually.

40IsTerrible wrote:

So I'm not allowed to call someone out when they are acting like a child whose parents don't do exactly what they want? Besides didn't you just complain about me complaining? So doesn't that make you guilty of the same "low stance" you said I was taking?

I did, and I did it hoping that you would remark on it, as that means you understood it and then realised what you were doing. Treating you like you are treating others, that's my device.

40IsTerrible wrote:
Also I didn't way "everyone that doesn't agree with me are babies" I said that complaining that the company isn't acting like your personal slave, reminds me of a 5 year old.

You implied it incredibly strongly. Don't start denying it, I'm not a blind idiot, so don't start treating me like one. And since you're nitpicking on what words were used to say it you didn't say what you claimed, you said:

When I see people like you complain that this company, which owes them nothing, changed things without asking for the permission of each and every person who spent any amount of money on the game, all I see is a 5 year old who is throwing a tantrum.

"When I see people like you ... I see a 5 year old throwing a tantrum"
Oh of course that's not implying that the people that think differently than you are babies. Sure. Ok.
People had a problem with a game that has nothing to do with you personally and you stood up and said when I see people like you people, I see babies throwing tantrums!
And you still seem to think that's a perfectly legitimate and not condescending way to talk to anyone.

I do want to congratulate those brave posters that heroically fight to oppose reckless bashing of GW's rules. So now, instead of discussing the ruleset, or god forbid the actual topic, we get to talk about why your complaining is good and other complaining is bad.

Kudos!

XenosTerminus wrote:
What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

I don't understand this mindset. At all.

What you're saying is that people cannot buy a product (repeatedly) and say things like "It's good, but...".
And if they don't buy the product because of the "but..." then they should have no voice either.

So you only want to be surrounded by people who laud something that's demonstrably flawed?

edit: If you bought it, don't complain. If you didn't buy it, why are you complaining.
That just doesn't make sense to me.

 Peregrine wrote:
The point you don't seem to understand is that many of our concerns are about GW's ability to continue making profits. GW is making bad business decisions and sacrificing long-term growth and stability in a desperate attempt to cover up their declining sales volume and make the next financial report look acceptable. And I'd say losing 25% of their value in one day is a pretty clear sign that the market is not impressed with their business model.

I actually understand that many of your concerns, while you claim to care about their long term stability, is simply your way of covering up the fact that you don;it like some rule changes. GW's stock in 2008 was at 123.00, even with their recent drop they are at 527.50. I would say that any company whose stock goes up over 400% in 5 years is doing a little something right in their business decisions. So that leads me to believe that you are using that as a cover so you can complain that they are changing rules in ways you don't like. Since they didn't design the game around your sole solitary expectations, there is a chance that you might not like their changes.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think you understand how pickup games work. Interest in previous versions of 40k is pretty much nonexistent, and if you show up at your local store on 40k night and expect to play an older edition you're going to have a pretty lonely evening.

Then maybe if you want to play 40k by the rules that you enjoy you should go a little bit out of your way to find someone who likes that rule set. When I want to play a version of D&D I actually go out and find people who will agree to play by those rules also.

 Peregrine wrote:
Since they didn't design the game around your sole solitary expectations, there is a chance that you might not like their changeSince they didn't design the game around your sole solitary expectations, there is a chance that you might not like their changes.]Since they didn't design the game around your sole solitary expectations, there is a chance that you might not like their changes.The problem isn't that GW made changes that some people don't like, it's that GW continues to make incredibly stupid decisions that pretty much anyone who isn't a rabid GW fanboy disagrees with. You're doing the equivalent of white knighting for the restaurant that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it, and whining about how everyone is being so unfair and just "throwing a tantrum" because the chef didn't ask for their permission before putting shards of glass in the food.

This is probably the thing about your reply that makes the least amount of sense. A better analogy would be that a thia restaurant you like slowly, but surely, makes changes to their menu and becoming a greek restaurant. You, however, don't like these changes so even though the restaurant is growing larger and making more money, so you go back to your place and complain that they aren't making the food you like anymore and how dare they not ask you exactly how you would like them to run their business.

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

I don't understand this mindset. At all.

What you're saying is that people cannot buy a product (repeatedly) and say things like "It's good, but...".
And if they don't buy the product because of the "but..." then they should have no voice either.

So you only want to be surrounded by people who laud something that's demonstrably flawed?

edit: If you bought it, don't complain. If you didn't buy it, why are you complaining.
That just doesn't make sense to me.

Let's take GW out of the equation here.

Would you continue to purchase products from a company if you:

A) Found their products to be flawed or inferior in any way, or they did not meet your standards

B) You disprove of the company and it's policies

C) There are alternatives available that do not have problems A and B?

Let's say you buy a car and it has issues/the company does not seem to care about it's customers. Would you buy a car from them the following year? The year after?

No, you wouldn't. Despite this, many of the naysayers continue to support the very thing they hate.

Many of you call people that try to stymie complaining 'GW apologists'. I am not excusing GW for anything. I personally don't find many of the complaints to be an issue FOR ME, but I don't find it necessary or productive to hop into discussions and needlessly complain about things.

 Purifier wrote:
Except it's the DM that makes that investment and everyone else just plays the game he provides. It's not 5 people sat down with each his own 1000 dollars worth of equipment. Your point is baffling in its inaccuracy.

This quote baffles me to the point of wondering if you've ever played D&D. If you had you would know that the vast majority of the time everyone that comes to the table has a pile of books. The DM has all of his DM Guides, plus all the monster manuals, plus any books relating to the setting he is playing. The players also come with a stack of books, all the players manuals, the player guides for the settings they are playing, and any extra books that they might feel would help them. So each player would be bringing a decent amount of money to the table, Your point is baffling in its complete ignorance.

 Purifier wrote:
Yeah, except of course for the DM having a judge's high seat to lay down the law, while in 40k it's 2-4 people that all have to agree on things while having the same "worth" if you will. So nothing at all alike, actually.

It is quite alike, actually, while the DM might have the judge's high seat to lay down the law on things that go on once the campaign is started he's just a member of the group prior to that. So you know what you do if you don't like the edition the DM wants to use, you put on your big boy pants and tell them that you do not want to play that edition. Sounds like something you could do with 40k also, just saying.

 Purifier wrote:
I did, and I did it hoping that you would remark on it, as that means you understood it and then realised what you were doing. Treating you like you are treating others, that's my device.

So your device, this thing you rely on, is to be a hypocrite and try to make it seem that it means you are taking the high road?

 Purifier wrote:
You implied it incredibly strongly. Don't start denying it, I'm not a blind idiot, so don't start treating me like one.
Oh of course that's not implying that the people that think differently than you are babies. Sure. Ok.
People had a problem with a game that has nothing to do with you personally and you stood up and said when I see people like you people, I see babies throwing tantrums!
And you still seem to think that's a perfectly legitimate and not condescending way to talk to anyone.

First, I never said I wasn't being condescending, if someone is acting like a spoiled child who didn't get their way I have no qualms about letting them know how they are acting. What I didn't do is say that anyone who disagrees with me is acting like a child, those were your words. It has nothing to do with either agreeing or disagreeing with me, if you are acting like a child you are acting like a child... simple as that.

XenosTerminus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
What I tire of in every thread that appears with this topic are the poisonous people that show up and bombast the ruleset, yet continue to support the very thing they belittle.

And if they don't support it? Evidently they must enjoy complaining to other hobbyists who often want nothing more than to find the positives/make the experience positive. I really don't know anymore.

I don't understand this mindset. At all.

What you're saying is that people cannot buy a product (repeatedly) and say things like "It's good, but...".
And if they don't buy the product because of the "but..." then they should have no voice either.

So you only want to be surrounded by people who laud something that's demonstrably flawed?

edit: If you bought it, don't complain. If you didn't buy it, why are you complaining.
That just doesn't make sense to me.

Let's take GW out of the equation here.

Would you continue to purchase products from a company if you:

A) Found their products to be flawed or inferior in any way, or they did not meet your standards

B) You disprove of the company and it's policies

C) There are alternatives available that do not have problems A and B?

Let's say you buy a car and it has issues/the company does not seem to care about it's customers. Would you buy a car from them the following year? The year after?

No, you wouldn't. Despite this, many of the naysayers continue to support the very thing they hate.

Many of you call people that try to stymie complaining 'GW apologists'. I am not excusing GW for anything. I personally don't find many of the complaints to be an issue FOR ME, but I don't find it necessary or productive to hop into discussions and needlessly complain about things.

A) Yes, if they were good products with some flaws.

B) Yes, I don't take much stock in company policies but rather judge them on their products.

C) Yeah, if the product is inferior or if my experience with the product is inferior. In this case, 40k is the only game I am gonna find anyone to play against me with, so any other product fails that test.

No, you wouldn't.

I just told you I would, don't put words in my mouth.

clively wrote:
GW states that 40k is meant to be a "beer and pretzels" game. I believe they are off their rocker.

So, what does "beer and pretzels" mean to you? Is there an amount of time such a game should take? Is there a community aspect, meaning something played by more than two people at a time? Should it be something you could teach in 2 minutes or less and for that player to have a reasonable chance of success?

To me games like poker or even Yahtzee qualify. But what is a good definition we could use? And, does 40k qualify?

It means something casual you can put together quick.. end quick and randomly use to show your buddies how much smarter/better you are than them in that 30 second window. ( IE winning a hand of poker and screaming I am the greatest player ever)

40k is not beer and pretzel by any means. I have two sets of friends, my gaming buddies and my beer and pretzel buddies. I have many times tried to bring the two together and the second you even hold up the BRB my beer buddies laugh and tell me to eff off and return to ping pong, or cards or rockband. Any game you that requires you to read multiple books and contains strategy, list building and playing, is far from being casual beer drinking level of games. To me anyway.