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.

JPong wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
There is nothing wrong with wanting something to be the best it can be- the issue with this argument is GW does not design the game to fit your specific idea or concept of what that is, nor should they. It's stubbornness, pure and simple. I am not excusing GW for their business practices or forgiving them for any transgressions they have caused- I just don't care. I enjoy the game for what it is, and find ways to increase my enjoyment. If I didn't find any enjoyment in the game or was so bothered by a companies direction for a product, I would leave and find an alternative- hell, you can use your GW minis to play other tabletop games.

My issue is with the people that literally do nothing positive for this hobby. They don't comment on anything that is innately productive, and repeat themselves given any opportunity- and it's always the same people too, like clockwork.

Regarding the PC game example, a lot of people follow similar trends- they just spew anonymous negativity into forums to show their distaste in a game/company, but continue to play the game regardless.

It just doesn't make sense to me. Common sense suggests that things we don't enjoy we stay away from/find alternatives.

Perhaps I am in the minority.

So if these mythical people you are accusing of doing "nothing positive for this hobby", cause you to not get enjoyment out of the forums, take your own advice and leave.

You are accusing some of the most active, helpful and friendly people on this forum of not contributing anything to the hobby. You are using the same argument as the "entitled gamer" argument which is BS through and through. Gamers, and consumers in general, can and should be asking, no demanding, the best product they can get. That's how capitalism works.

You see negativity, I see criticism. And no one is above criticism.

Ah, the classic 'If you don't like it you can leave' retort.

You are correct- it is in fact criticism. To me it sounds as if you don't like criticism of some of these 'friendly and helpful' posters.

I am not pointing fingers or calling individual people out- I am generalizing based on overall observations from this (and other) forums. I am only criticizing the logic/mindset and overall toxicity that inevitably seeps from every pore of what should be a forum to discuss a game that we all love/enjoy. On the contrary, this (and other forums) often devolve into outlets to assert perceived game authority on how things 'should be' instead of concentrating on how to make things better how they are. It's not just this forum, or this game- I am aware most forums are like this. And that's why they are generally useless.

People are far too negative, and defending their outlook only encourages them to continue doing it.

It's pretty telling to me that when someone voices their opinion that is actually positive/not overly negative, or calls people out for being arguably useless to fostering a positive outlook on a fractured community, things are really in dire straights (or you are a GW apoligist). Or, to put it another way- people don't like to be called out for what they are- wet blankets.

Also, you are failing to grasp another key aspect of Capitalism. Competition and the ability to make educated decisions as a consumer. Vote with your dollar, not by complaining on a forum.

You are not forced to support a company you dislike. There are alternatives (that remedy many of the issues most people complain about). These people just want 40k to meet every expectation they have, and quite honestly this is not realistic (especially for some people). Trust me when I say I wish 40k met every expectation I had for a game, but it does not.

 pretre wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Mate, this isnt new.

the exact same threads about "broken things ruining the game" were written fifteen years ago when 40k third edition was a thing. you talk about the helldrake? meet the eldar starcannon of third edition. meet the alaitoc disruption table. meet crystal targetting matrices. meet ulthwe seer councils. meet third ed blood angels.

And it continues.

How about fourth edition? ever here of the abomination that was the Siren Prince, or else Iron Warriors?

Fifth edition - blood angels, space wolves and grey knights.

Sixth edition. tau and eldar.

Not being cheeky, but things that broke the game have always been there. you have not stumbled onto some hitherto unknown conspiracy, or failure that somehow slipped by the vigilance of the 40k community this is simply how GW writes games.

And there are solutions.

(1) treat all the new stuff as "options". GW give you the tools. You, the gamer have the choice to use them or not. play with a friend, and chat and decide what you want. Dont look to what GW does as a "how to" guide - dont look to GW to tell you how to play. - look at it as great models that you can do with as you wish. how about you take control? how about you decide? the best way to enjoy 40k is via a casual, co-operative and gentlemanly manner.
(2) play other games.
(3) grow older and bitter, consumed by hatred and rage,like many other 40k vets

/slowclap

I came here to say this and found myself pleasantly surprised.

Hello Kettle I'm Pot... Utterly agreed on both counts. No one forces you to play. Ever. If you don't like what the other guy brings to the table, politely decline, shake his hand, because you are a gentleman, and move on.

XenosTerminus wrote:

JPong wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
So everyone still enjoying 40k is a masochist lying to themselves about it's redeeming qualities which according to you it doesn't have?

No, the masochists are the people who act like 40k is a great game because it has horrible balance and broken rules. You know, people like you, who talk about how "casual" the game is and how competitive players are playing the wrong game. Someone who enjoys the fluff/models and has fun despite the awful rules is just an average player.

I think the real masochists in this hobby are the jaded and bitter 'veterans' that jump on every opportunity to repeat their tired opinion on why they hate this game so much, yet stick around like stubborn mules and refuse to move on.

IF GW is causing you so much grief and you cannot accept what it is/what it has become, or where it is headed yet sit around continuing to complain about it- you are truly a masochist. Why continue to involve yourself in something that is seemingly joyless and no longer rewarding for you?

We get it. A lot of people are overly vocal about their distaste with GW's direction with the game. And quite honestly most of the time we agree with you. Here is the kicker though- it's just a game. You either find ways to enjoy it, or you move on.

When you purchase a PC game, for example, and discover the developer patches the game and modifies the core to the point you dislike it/future patches continue to do this, do you still play the game? Why are so many people that have played this game so long completely delusional? GW has always been this way. The game has always been broken, and jumping into General Discussion forum posts to constantly repeat yourself about 'why this game sucks' whenever any discussion hints on anything related to GW rules is accomplishing nothing for you or anyone else.

Find a new hobby- seriously.

It's more that these people like/love the game, but want it to be the best it can be so more people can enjoy the game. These are people who want the game to spread, not be marginalized into an ever smaller niche.

People give their opinions on patches to computer games that fundamentally change them, for better or worse. Just look at the WoW forums for example. So I don't really see how that supports your argument.

There is nothing wrong with wanting something to be the best it can be- the issue with this argument is GW does not design the game to fit your specific idea or concept of what that is, nor should they. It's stubbornness, pure and simple. I am not excusing GW for their business practices or forgiving them for any transgressions they have caused- I just don't care. I enjoy the game for what it is, and find ways to increase my enjoyment. If I didn't find any enjoyment in the game or was so bothered by a companies direction for a product, I would leave and find an alternative- hell, you can use your GW minis to play other tabletop games.

My issue is with the people that literally do nothing positive for this hobby. They don't comment on anything that is innately productive, and repeat themselves given any opportunity- and it's always the same people too, like clockwork.

Regarding the PC game example, a lot of people follow similar trends- they just spew anonymous negativity into forums to show their distaste in a game/company, but continue to play the game regardless.

It just doesn't make sense to me. Common sense suggests that things we don't enjoy we stay away from/find alternatives.

Perhaps I am in the minority.

What you say is perfectly true, however the PC analogy falls over when you consider the money side, you can spend money on a game moan about it if is naff and call it quits. With GW its not so easy, in my case i'm ok to put effort into warmahordes as there are quite a few players at my club, but i'll keep my 40k stuff as back up, i've stabilised at 4/5 40k armies and to be honest they are still the best model wise.

Its also the community you are used to as well, i could go to my local GW and have a few laughs there (I really ought to i think) without bothering about the rules etc. It rears its head at my regular club as all of the members have done GW over the years, many still have the stuff but can't be bothered to play it. And i'm beginning to see why...

What makes some of us 'fustrated' in a sense is GWs abject faliure to recognise the competition, as someone said 'if they sorted their act out the money is waiting right here...'

Just my humble opinion

Out of curiosity, for those that play a lot of 500 points, do you still use 6'x4'?

 Eggs wrote:
Out of curiosity, for those that play a lot of 500 points, do you still use 6'x4'?

From my experience 1k or less tends to be more balanced with a smaller board (a larger board can be unbalanced for units that lack mobility, and contradicts the concept of smirmish.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Ah, the classic 'If you don't like it you can leave' retort.

You are correct- it is in fact criticism. To me it sounds as if you don't like criticism of some of these 'friendly and helpful' posters.

I am not pointing fingers or calling individual people out- I am generalizing based on overall observations from this (and other) forums. I am only criticizing the logic/mindset and overall toxicity that inevitably seeps from every pore of what should be a forum to discuss a game that we all love/enjoy. On the contrary, this (and other forums) often devolve into outlets to assert perceived game authority on how things 'should be' instead of concentrating on how to make things better how they are. It's not just this forum, or this game- I am aware most forums are like this. And that's why they are generally useless.

People are far too negative, and defending their outlook only encourages them to continue doing it.

It's pretty telling to me that when someone voices their opinion that is actually positive/not overly negative, or calls people out for being arguably useless to fostering a positive outlook on a fractured community, things are really in dire straights (or you are a GW apoligist). Or, to put it another way- people don't like to be called out for what they are- wet blankets.

Also, you are failing to grasp another key aspect of Capitalism. Competition and the ability to make educated decisions as a consumer. Vote with your dollar, not by complaining on a forum.

You are not forced to support a company you dislike. There are alternatives (that remedy many of the issues most people complain about). These people just want 40k to meet every expectation they have, and quite honestly this is not realistic (especially for some people). Trust me when I say I wish 40k met every expectation I had for a game, but it does not.

Given your arguments are "If you don't like it leave" you shouldn't really mind others pointing that out it is hypocritical of you to tell others that.

And there is a difference between consumers criticizing a company, and consumers criticizing consumers. Every consumer is "right" in that it is their opinion. There is no wrong opinion. It's also hard to take you seriously when you are talking about people who HAVE helped more people on this forum and others than you probably ever will. These are the same people that made the forum what it is with thousands of posts. Some helping to better understand rules. Some helping people to pick an army. Some forming tournaments and event FAQs that were about as close the defacto tourney FAQ for an entire edition or longer.

The reason people call out those being "positive" is because their argument boils down to "I like it and so should you." There's nothing to argue there, no points being made, nothing adding to the discussion.

GW has been flailing lately as well. Their stock is down. Not to mention you have people in this very thread calling others out for not buying stuff. The whole argument of "You can't complain if you purchase it, and you can't complain if you don't" is nonsense. People can criticize GW for any reason, whether they actively play or not. Capitalism is a lot more than "Just don't buy stuff". Part of it is telling the company what you will accept. And GW does read the forums. They have taken direct copy and paste questions and answers from the forum for their own FAQs.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I love profanity in the title of a thread. It really supports the OP's argument in a careful, erudite manner, and in no way makes me think they are whiners unfit to play with toy soldiers.

I would not call "god damn" profanity. This isn't the 1800s.

Then you're ignorant. Say it to a cop or your grandmother.

The issue with this whole arguement, is that different gamers have different ideas as to what makes the product better. Mutually exclusive ideas. It's not as GW can please everybody. One of the reasons I love 40K so much is that, if I want a casual game, I can have a casual game. If I want a competitive game, then with a few tournament house-rules in play, I can have that too.

Basically, there are three camps here (I'm really oversimplifying things I know, but bear with me):

1: People who enjoy casual games, don't care about game balance, and just want to have a good time playing a game they enjoy with people they like. These gamers don't care whether they "win" the game or not. Their objective is for both players to have an enjoyable social experience. A player only "loses" if the game wasn't enjoyable for at least one player. In other words: both players have fun = win. Any other result is a loss for both players.

2: People who enjoy competitive/balanced play and are unhappy with the casual nature of the game and it's loosely structured rules. These gamers want a game where one player is a clear winner and the other a clear loser, and a system where skill, not luck, is the factor that determines who wins. Both players enjoying the game is still goal, to some extent, but winning the game is the major objective.

3: Folk who may despise the company, hate the current edition of the game, but love the setting and/or the hobby aspect and are either unable or unwilling to move on or who are content to paint and model. Some members of this group get their kicks by stomping on GW every chance they get, not because they are bad people, but because they have been embittered by the direction "their" game has taken. Others are happy to take what enjoyment they can out of the non-gaming aspects of the hobby.

GW's target audience is clearly players from group number one. BUT it's still possible for the second group of player to enjoy playing the game IF they are willing to take the time to set out the house rules they want to play by. GW doesn't actively support tournament play, but that doesn't mean they are actively trying to undermine it either.

The third group can either continue to enjoy the hobby in other ways (by continuing to play the edition they most enjoy with like-minded people) or by focusing on the painting/modelling side of things.

At the end of the day, Dakka has room for all three groups of gamers, and I think our community is all the richer for embracing all three conflicting viewpoints.

The issue is that GW are pleasing fewer of the people they used to please.

GW may be pleasing some new people, but that's irrelevant and useless to someone who has 10 years, $1,000 and a load of time and love invested in the game as it existed before the recent changes.

It's the same as the arguments about GW needing to pay dividends to their shareholders and so on. I don't care about that. I care about my own game experience. If my game experience is getting worse, I'm going to complain.

 LeadLegion wrote:
The issue with this whole arguement, is that different gamers have different ideas as to what makes the product better. Mutually exclusive ideas. It's not as GW can please everybody. One of the reasons I love 40K so much is that, if I want a casual game, I can have a casual game. If I want a competitive game, then with a few tournament house-rules in play, I can have that too.

Sure, but they're not mutually exclusive. Improving the game via clarifications, better wording, bloat removal, and a better layout benefit everyone equally. Improving the game via balance makes more lists viable at all levels of play, encourage themes over combos and randomness, and help remove the artificial barrier between 'fluffy' and 'non-fluffy' players.

1: People who enjoy casual games, don't care about game balance, and just want to have a good time playing a game they enjoy with people they like. These gamers don't care whether they "win" the game or not. Their objective is for both players to have an enjoyable social experience.A player only "loses" if the game wasn't enjoyable. In other words: both players have fun = win. Any other result is a loss for both players.

I would disagree that casual gamers don't care about balance. I'm sure many care quite a bit if they played a casual game against a list way out of their league, like say a themed Eldar Serpent list. Then again, even the more competitive players still care for a social experience, and curb stomping of a win isn't any more enjoyable than a hard loss. Granted, I think there's too much black and white being painted, and I generally assume most people here fall somewhere in the myriad of grey shades in between.

2: People who enjoy competitive/balanced play and are unhappy with the casual nature of the game and it's loosely structured rules. These gamers want a game where one player is a clear winner and the other a clear user, and a system where skill, not luck, is the factor that determines who is a loser and who is a winner. Both players enjoying the game is still goal, to one degree or another, but winning the game is the major objective.

As an illustrative example, I'll buy it. But even players that fall more into this camp are still looking for a fun, sociable experience with nicely painted armies on a good looking table. I'd also wager that many enjoy fluffy, themed list, and would love more balance so that they all become valid instead of a small subset.

3: Folk who despise the company, hate the current edition of the game, but love the setting and/or the hobby aspect and are either unable or unwilling to move on. Some members of this group get their kicks by stomping on GW every chance they get, not because they are bad people, but because they have been embittered by the direction "their" game has taken.

Eh, you're not wrong about the GW stomping bit, but I think many on this forum are a little quick to paint any dissenting opinion as 'hating'. There's also the problem that some people might be stuck in a game group that only plays GW games, and the social company pushing models around is still superior to not doing it, despite the flaws of the game.

At the end of the day, Dakka has room for all three groups of gamers, and I think our community is all the richer for embracing all three conflicting viewpoints.

This I can agree with.

I just don't buy any argument that claims a tighter, more balanced rule set (and codices) would hurt casual players. Its a straight win-win scenario for both the most casual and most serious players, and everyone in between.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The issue is that GW are pleasing fewer of the people they used to please.

GW may be pleasing some new people, but that's irrelevant and useless to someone who has 10 years, $1,000 and a load of time and love invested in the game as it existed before the recent changes.

It's the same as the arguments about GW needing to pay dividends to their shareholders and so on. I don't care about that. I care about my own game experience. If my game experience is getting worse, I'm going to complain.

Perhaps.

But my, and other peoples, gaming experience with 40K is getting better, not to mention that it is far superiour (by a growing margin) to the game experience offered by other games like Warmachine, Infinity etc..

If people continue lobbying to make 40K more like the inferiour past editions, or the vastly inferior games like Warmachine, I have as much right to complain.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The issue is that GW are pleasing fewer of the people they used to please.

GW may be pleasing some new people, but that's irrelevant and useless to someone who has 10 years, $1,000 and a load of time and love invested in the game as it existed before the recent changes.

It's the same as the arguments about GW needing to pay dividends to their shareholders and so on. I don't care about that. I care about my own game experience. If my game experience is getting worse, I'm going to complain.

I am not a new Player, and I enjoy 40k in its current iteration. It's flawed, but largely enjoyable for me and countless others.

The issue is that a lot of the vocal veteran players are self-entitled, and feel that GW needs to cater their game to them. You have to understand that no company, let alone GW, can ever please everyone.

You need to break free from the shackles of adhering to the mindset of everything as printed is sacrosanct and embrace the hobby. No, this is not an excuse for sloppy rules or bad writing- it's legitimate advice for ANY hobby that will allow you to enjoy it more. Instead of waiting around and expecting GW to fix their product (an opinion- to GW and many others their product is not broken)- put forth some effort to find ways to rekindle the hobby you used to enjoy (despite the fact it has always been riddled with issues).

Can't/are not willing to do this? Refuse to adjust your perspective and be open-minded/embrace change? This isn't the hobby for you, and GW is not pandering to that.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW may be pleasing some new people, but that's irrelevant and useless to someone who has 10 years, $1,000 and a load of time and love invested in the game as it existed before the recent changes.

What you're saying, though, is that what caused some people to get into (and stay with) 40k was a well-balanced rules set. The idea that they've made the rules bad when they were once good is silly, because the rules have never been cogent or balanced.

The only other case would be that the game was just well-written enough to get into it and has recently become just-too-poorly-written to be worth playing now. This also seems strange - if you're really so into the game, then you'll roll with the proverbial punches of changes to the game. If the rules changing for the worse have made the game so bad that it makes you regret playing the game, that really brings up questions of how much you actually like the game, or why you actually got into it in the first place.

And furthermore, it's hard to see why things as they are are specifically pandering to new players. Price hikes don't seem new-player friendly. Finally adding in new unit types that people have been begging and whining for for years sounds like pandering to old players, not new ones. So does re-releasing old models in convertible resin and breaking their metal habit, as does updating old kits into new plastics.

What's going on here is the "golden age" problem all over again. Once there was this magical time when the game was perfect and I loved it, and then the great lord of darkness came in and changed perfection to garbage, and I can feel self-righteous about hating what is now an abomination, and have no choice but to heroically lead the crusade to return things to their former glory.

Lots of people take this kind of attitude about a lot of stuff, not just 40k. A lot of the patterns are the same (devolving into conspiracy theories, looking for scapegoats, decrying counterrevolutionaries who are happy with the new changes, etc.), but it isn't any more flattering in 40k than it is in the real world.

I'm not entirely sure I want to see the barrier between "fluffy" players and "competitive" players come down. There's no such barrier in Warmachine - and it actively encourages players to be competitive (even in a casual setting) and discourages "casual" play with non-optimised lists.

I really don't want to see 40K go that way.

Edit - deleted my post, as I saw who I was responding to, and can't be bothered getting into a semantic argument!

 Blacksails wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


I wouldn't say a lot are having fun playing it.... The huge vast majority are having fun playing.

What people like pregeriinn need to realize is that nobody cares what they want because they are a tiny minority. Almost all GW players like the game and buy all the latest products and so on even if they arent 100% happy with the product, (which is impossible, there is always something to improve).

You have no more basis in saying this than myself claiming that everyone hates the game and plays it only because its the most readily available game.

Don't confuse your anecdotal evidence and personal views with facts. You don't know if its a tiny minority who want a better game. You don't know its a huge vast majority who are having fun. You haven't even taken into consideration the people who may have left the game or have also started other games.

Considering GW sells models by the bucket loads, they keep bring new releases that people are excited about, the fact that the other game systems arent as popular, the fact GW can charge 60 dollars for 5 models and still sell them, to me shows the game is fun.

I love the game (hate the models mostly). Its players who have a problem with how they use the rules. Play the game as it was designed for and you wont have problems. whoich is what most players clearly do otherwise GW would be out of buisness. Simple.

 Swastakowey wrote:


Considering GW sells models by the bucket loads, they keep bring new releases that people are excited about, the fact that the other game systems arent as popular, the fact GW can charge 60 dollars for 5 models and still sell them, to me shows the game is fun.

I love the game (hate the models mostly). Its players who have a problem with how they use the rules. Play the game as it was designed for and you wont have problems. whoich is what most players clearly do otherwise GW would be out of buisness. Simple.

But none of that proves that there's only a tiny minority wanting improvements, nor a huge majority perfectly happy and content.

If anything, their sales have stagnated and declined, so while the volume is still there, there's a trend indicating that its not all sunshine and roses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LeadLegion wrote:
I'm not entirely sure I want to see the barrier between "fluffy" players and "competitive" players come down. There's no such barrier in Warmachine - and it actively encourages players to be competitive (even in a casual setting) and discourages "casual" play with non-optimised lists.

I really don't want to see 40K go that way.

Which is a single game with a page in their rulebook discussing how they intended the game to be played. Most other games I've seen don't have such a statement, and yet don't have a barrier between the competitive lists and non-competitive lists.

Hardly a compelling a reason to not advocate greater balance and better written rules.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Considering GW sells models by the bucket loads, they keep bring new releases that people are excited about, the fact that the other game systems arent as popular, the fact GW can charge 60 dollars for 5 models and still sell them, to me shows the game is fun.

I love the game (hate the models mostly). Its players who have a problem with how they use the rules. Play the game as it was designed for and you wont have problems. whoich is what most players clearly do otherwise GW would be out of buisness. Simple.

But none of that proves that there's only a tiny minority wanting improvements, nor a huge majority perfectly happy and content.

If anything, their sales have stagnated and declined, so while the volume is still there, there's a trend indicating that its not all sunshine and roses.

.

Well, our boat sales are down here, and nobody hates boats. People love boats and all want some. But simply put times are hard money wise for people, especially for luxuries. SO to me a decline in slaes means nothing as it will probably rise again as it always does. people like you have always said "sales are dropping" "times are rough for GW" 'The end is near!" and so forth. Well it hasnt happened yet. Just like all luxuries, sales fluxuate, I know because I sell huge luxery items, we get people who come in to just look at what we sell whos yearly wages wouldnt be enough to buy a boat after 10 years of saving every penny. Its a luxery item. I cant stress that point. It would be out of buisness if the vast majority where unhappy with the product. Nobody forces themselves to buy their product unless they are a bit off, they buy luxeries because they want it and enjoy it.

That argument would hold better if it weren't for a significant increase in the miniature market on the whole, while GW is the only one I know of posting losses.

The sale of other luxury items is not a great comparison here when the miniature luxury market is doing quite well.

Games tend to sell more during economic downturns since theyare relatively cheap hobbies that can soak up a lot of time for the dollar and provide escapism.

Plus, other better written, games are growing.

Dunklezahn wrote:
I like 40k's rules, now this isn't to say there aren't a few I dislike or in the case of the missions have tweaked (or let others tweak in the case of the great BAO missions) but I like the way the game plays.

Hmm, I'll have to disagree with your assessment here. I actively dislike the rules. Maybe it's as a result of playing a whole bunch of other games,or maybe it's from my interest in game theory. But I cannot call 40k a 'good' game, mechanically speaking. And that will drive me away as much as anything else. In evolutionary terms, it's a fossil. It's a port of a napoleonic war game, in space, with serious clutter, counter intuitive rules, bloat, and excess in too many areas, compounded by poor, vague, loosely worded rules with too many grey areas. I liken it to joe Louis the boxer, after ww2. Still technically the world champ, but old, fat, slow, unfit out of shape, going bald and in no way capable of going toe to toe with the young punks that are starting to make names for themselves, and are lean, mean and eager.

Dunklezahn wrote:
Playing with the right people is important, as with any game but the game still takes centre stage, pitting your wits against your opponent, setting up your contingencies for when lady luck shines or kicks you in the nuts. I like the armies and how they interact, they feel nicely themed to me each sitting in their own niche. I really like where 6th edition has gone.
.

Agreed. The community can kill the game. Kinda part of what happened to me. It's what you get when you mix a competitive bunch of gamers, and Pete Haines monstrosity of a chaos codex (specifically iron warriors). That said, I also think the 40k playing community is rather toxic a lot of the time (ever gear the joke of a bunch if 40k players being called a 'whine' of players?) I know it's not popular to say, or feel these things about my peers, but I got sick of the negativity, and toxic atmosphere many vent a long time ago, to the extent that I sometimes feel the direst thing about 40k is 40k players themselves. Sometimes, you just don't want to be a part of the community! Yeah, that won't get me many likes for saying that!

Ironically, what you say you get from your game, I get from different games - warmachine and infinity specifically. Each to their own, I suppose.

Dunklezahn wrote:
I don't want to quote the next para as it's pretty big but I agree with almost everything you say in it, one thing I will say is that what you call the "New place" I don't think it's new. I think this has always been 40k's model. They dipped their toes into the competitive water previously but I don't think they liked it. Increasingly today we see things that were previously the domain of fun having people trying to push them to a competitive place, I'm just glad GW isn't doing the same, I don't want their focus to be on tourney play because that's not how I want to play my games..

Hmm, I apologise, I should clarify. We are in agreement - the 'new place' isn't new. But while gw always wanted the game to be like this, everyone else used to be welcome too. I always felt that it was a big enough sandbox that gw felt all gamer types could come to 40k, and find what they wanted. Now? That 'idea' of what they want the game to be is being pushed, and pushed hard. They're trying to 'force' the game to be where they want it to be, and so what if they gave to drag the playing community (and all the subsets of gamer types)there kicking and screaming all the way. And knowing the 40k playing community, they'll do exactly that! I see it literally as being the case of gw saying to themselves 'we can never please the community. Whatever we do, they give out. What's the point in appeasing them? Let's push the game to where we want it to be. They'll do what they always do...'

Dunklezahn wrote:
Also thank you Dead, that was a really nice, thought provoking post.

Appreciated, and thank you.

XenosTerminus wrote:
I think the real masochists in this hobby are the jaded and bitter 'veterans' that jump on every opportunity to repeat their tired opinion on why they hate this game so much, yet stick around like stubborn mules and refuse to move on.

IF GW is causing you so much grief and you cannot accept what it is/what it has become, or where it is headed yet sit around continuing to complain about it- you are truly a masochist. Why continue to involve yourself in something that is seemingly joyless and no longer rewarding for you?

We get it. A lot of people are overly vocal about their distaste with GW's direction with the game. And quite honestly most of the time we agree with you. Here is the kicker though- it's just a game. You either find ways to enjoy it, or you move on.
.

Yup, pretty much this.a lot of 40k players seem to be self entitled and extremely bitter that the game doesn't revolve around them. But they still stay playing. And yet none are pro active about doing something about it (toxic venting on the interwebs doesnt count if you ask me),Yeah...

Fair enough, I made my choice and voted with my wallet. I'll buy the occasional pretty model, but these days, my time is spent between warmachine, infinity, fow and sine historicals. No regrets.

JPong wrote:
]It's more that these people like/love the game, but want it to be the best it can be so more people can enjoy the game. These are people who want the game to spread, not be marginalized into an ever smaller niche.

But they're pushing their energies in completely the wrong direction. It's like I said - they like the 'idea' of 40k, and believe fanatically in that 'promised land' of a 'perfect balanced 40k'. And just like Moses, they'll never see it! They put so much though into 'what could be' that they fail to realise 'what is'. And he you ask me, there are only a few rational answers.

(1) accept it for what it is, and enjoy it.
(2)get involved in another game if option one won't work.plenty other rules sets out there.
(3) empower themselves to turn 40k into what they, and their group of friends want it to be. Which won't happen, as too many people want to be told how to play the game, instead if being assertive enough to say 'let's make it ours'. Don't feel it has to be done according to 'the rules'. Gw won't send inquisitors after you if you use different unit chaos, other resolution methods, or port over mechanics from other games. That said, And let's be honest. How often does that happen? How often does some bright spark come along, talking about a community project to do something, fix the game, make something better/different, and then it goes nowhere? Cynical? Yup.

These are the answers. Far more positive, and enlightening in my mind, than the toxic miasma that continually infests 40k community boards. Then again, I believe in being assertive, practical, and proactive. If I'm running a half marathon, or a full one, I don't balk. Or whine.I just get down to the business of getting it sorted. No one can do it for me, other than myself. I see wargaming in the same light.

But which is the one we'll see happen? People taking the game into their one hands, it whining about it? I know where my money is on...

True, point taken.

In my opinion (which I also think is blatantly obvious to see) is most GW customers are happy and fine to keep buying and playing without any care of issues with the game. Because most of the players dont exploit it, whihc really brings out the problems. Also most players dont own 6 wave serpents and so forth. The game is only broken when the player chooses to break it.

As usual it also depends on where you live and who you play with. Although the other games are growing I find the people that like them are usually really into animae and what not so I think people that play them generally are there because its more to their taste theme wise over "because they hate GW".

Because we dont even know how many gamers there are we will never know for sure, but in my opinion its more likely that the majority of GW players are fine and happy with the game.

 Frazzled wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I love profanity in the title of a thread. It really supports the OP's argument in a careful, erudite manner, and in no way makes me think they are whiners unfit to play with toy soldiers.

I would not call "god damn" profanity. This isn't the 1800s.

Then you're ignorant. Say it to a cop or your grandmother.

You're overreacting; it's a quote from a song that is a very apt description of 40k. This is not going to change as it is how you get more model sales

Deadnight wrote:


But they're pushing their energies in completely the wrong direction. It's like I said - they like the 'idea' of 40k, and believe fanatically in that 'promised land' of a 'perfect balanced 40k'. And just like Moses, they'll never see it! They put so much though into 'what could be' that they fail to realise 'what is'. And he you ask me, there are only a few rational answers.

(1) get involved in another game.plenty other rules sets out there.
(2) empower themselves to turn 40k into what they, and their group of friends want it to be. Which won't happen, as too many people want to be told how to play the game, instead if being assertive enough to say 'let's make it ours'. And let's be honest. How often does that happen? How often does some bright spark come along, talking about a community project to do something, fix the game, make something better/different, and then it goes nowhere? Cynical? Yup.

These are the answers. Far more positive, and enlightening in my mind, than the toxic miasma that continually infests 40k community boards. But which is the one we'll see happen? I know where my money is on...

Wanting a better game, making a better game, playing other games, and discussing the nature of the game are not all mutually exclusive.

I think you'll find some of the biggest detractors have put in quite a bit of effort to help 40k, have moved/or play other games, while also discussing here the nature of 40k and how they think it could be improved.

I'd also hardly call it a toxic miasma, but if you want to think in black and white or an us vs. them mentality, then sure.

I know for myself I've spent over 600 posts helping other people balance their ideas in the proposed rules section. I'll likely work on a patched Guard codex when the new one drops. None of that stops me form wanting a better game from GW.

My initial response to the Knight was: "Oh, so every race gets a mech now?"

I'm sure it has other fancy bits, but a battle cannon and a Strength D melee weapon aren't an immediate cause for concern.

The model looks kinda neat. I need to see its stats and see it perform before calling it cheesy.

If impending releases like this make you too anxious, maybe this hobby isn't for you; this isn't anything new.

On the point of upping and leaving. Just on a basic level quitting 40k is a massive waste so it's less of an option. We have what's called a 'vested interest' because usually we are heavily involved by purchasing models etc.
In the game analogy mentioned earlier it's much the same (MMORPG wise) with people being 'involved' and no-one wants to see all their hard work mean nothing.

For me the game fails a bit because it's hard to play. The rules are slightly tetchy in places but more than that, the game is too big for the rules. Playing with loads of terrain to level the game out makes moving units troublesome (especially bigger models) but having enough terrain is necessary to balance the fact that the game wants you to assault.

I also feel that it's hard to enjoy a game when 50% of an army gets wiped out a turn. This seems to be on the increase because obscene weapons are being thrown about a lot more commonly. This is in turn caused by larger numbers of models because of cheaper costs etc. the spiral continues.

Now if they could be some more significant change to how the game played on some level this could be better. My theory on this is increase the points costs of units to reduce the number and make individual models more durable and more independent (to an extent).
Example space marines.
Tactical marine with 3 wounds and independent at 50 points. War gear options available. This make the marine player have 10 marines at 500 points but they can only lose one at a time.
You would then balance say an Ork by making the team 5 for 5 points but they have to stick together.
Then look at the bolter being say assault 3.

Stuff like that.
Obviously it would be more thought out.
But I think less models allows the game more freedom. It would change 40k but scaling it up would be maybe more interesting. It would also allow for games to be played differently possibly using more tactics.

Like I said I've not thought the entire rules out so it would need to be tested etc.

Would help prevent the disheartening feeling of taking a squad off at a time (in some cases).

 Swastakowey wrote:
True, point taken.

In my opinion (which I also think is blatantly obvious to see) is most GW customers are happy and fine to keep buying and playing without any care of issues with the game. Because most of the players dont exploit it, whihc really brings out the problems. Also most players dont own 6 wave serpents and so forth. The game is only broken when the player chooses to break it.

As usual it also depends on where you live and who you play with. Although the other games are growing I find the people that like them are usually really into animae and what not so I think people that play them generally are there because its more to their taste theme wise over "because they hate GW".

Because we dont even know how many gamers there are we will never know for sure, but in my opinion its more likely that the majority of GW players are fine and happy with the game.

I get that, and it fine to have your opinion, but presenting as a fact to prove something doesn't help in a proper discussion. I don't have all the numbers, and the trends are still a little new to predict where things will go, so I'm holding my full judgement for the next few reports from GW.

Either way, I enjoy the models of the 40k universe, but I also enjoy other ones, like the Firestorm universe. I also dislike Warmahordes for the aesthetics, but watching a few games left me divided if I could tolerate the models for the rules. Ultimately I haven't started, so I guess the answer is no. Some people jump ship for the rules, some for the models, some out of spite, some for any combination, some because that's all they've ever known. There's too many factors to determine why anyone plays any particular game, but the factors of why people stop is a little simpler.

Except your "solutions" are flawed.

1) If you don't like it, leave, is not an argument. We have already established that these people like 40k, they just want what is best for the game.
2) If they make their own rules, all of a sudden they aren't playing 40k. They are playing their own game. This leaves them with their small group of friends that is extremely exclusionary, and as such will slowly dwindle down in numbers. People want to play 40k with strangers and friends.

And again, it's constructive criticism. People aren't saying the rules are gak. They are saying the rules are gak, and these are the issues that need addressed. Of course, it's not GW's job to tell us consumers what we want, it's up to us to tell them what we want.

The entitled gamer argument you put forth is bunk.

 Blacksails wrote:


I think you'll find some of the biggest detractors have put in quite a bit of effort to help 40k, have moved/or play other games, while also discussing here the nature of 40k and how they think it could be improved.
.

Absolutely. But talking about stuff and doing it are too separate things. If they did, fair play, and best of luck to them. If they didn't? Yeah, I was part of a project on another forum for a 'new' tau codex in 4th/5th. The ratio of 'talking' to 'results' was pretty ridiculous!

 Blacksails wrote:


I'd also hardly call it a toxic miasma, but if you want to think in black and white or an us vs. them mentality, then sure.
.

Maybe it's just my experience on 40k boards then blacksails. For what it's worth, I have huge respect for a lot of your posts by the way. I don't see it as an 'us or them' issue, but I do see 40k gamers, as a whole, being far more negative about things. I don't see anywhere near the sane level of vitriol amongst warmachine, or infinity players (there is some). And I dislike that mentality, as in my mind, from personal experience, being In that state of mind (and it's constant, IMO, on 40k boards) is extremely unhealthy. It saps your mental energy and it doesn't do you any good. I'd rather be positive and do something about it.

 Blacksails wrote:
.
I know for myself I've spent over 600 posts helping other people balance their ideas in the proposed rules section. I'll likely work on a patched Guard codex when the new one drops. None of that stops me form wanting a better game from GW.

Which is my Point three.

Wanting a better game from gw is pointless. They have no interest In doing it. Fair play to you though for stepping up and patching things. If only more had the same attitude

JPong wrote:
Except your "solutions" are flawed.

1) If you don't like it, leave, is not an argument. We have already established that these people like 40k, they just want what is best for the game.
2) If they make their own rules, all of a sudden they aren't playing 40k. They are playing their own game. This leaves them with their small group of friends that is extremely exclusionary, and as such will slowly dwindle down in numbers. People want to play 40k with strangers and friends.

And again, it's constructive criticism. People aren't saying the rules are gak. They are saying the rules are gak, and these are the issues that need addressed. Of course, it's not GW's job to tell us consumers what we want, it's up to us to tell them what we want.

The entitled gamer argument you put forth is bunk.

(1) ie they like the idea of 40k more than the reality. If you don't like it, leave is an argument. I've got 2000pts of tau, and a whole bunch of mArines sitting in boxes. They've not gained in ages. Didn't stop me embracing warmachine, infinity, dystopian wars, drop zone commander, flanges of war etc. maybe it's just me, but I'm quite happy being a mercenary in terms of who/what I give my support to. Gw won't reward me for my loyalty.
(2) different rules don't make it 'not' 40k. There have been six incarnations of 40k, all being different. There are other rules sets (Andy chambers' starship troopers) that were 'almost' 40k. There are other media describing 40k in terms if rules, via computer games, books and RPGs. Saying 40k is only 40k because of a bunch of rules from gw is extremely short sighted. 40k is 40k because of space marines, orks, chainswords, bolter pornand so on. Rules are an abstract. Rules are a mechanism. Rules dont necessarily define ip's. You can inhabit the 40k verse in an infinite number of ways. Don't assume the rules from gw are the only proper way.
And here is the thing, most gAmes of 40k are played by small handfuls of friends, or clubs. Having their own rules is t necessarily exclusionary - 'we do the game a bit differently here mate. Have a look, and see what you think'.
In my own 'casual Friday' group, we normally do flames of war. But we don't use the 'proper' lists for armies - we put down what looks cool. We're also quite happy to add/remove things if we feel they'll add or subtract from the game. Fir example, rather than igoyougo, we've tried alternative activations, which was great, and have added bolt action's random unit activation to our games and it's immensely enjoyable. Sure, it's not 'proper' but who cares - we have fun. And that's the point.

I've heRd people saying the rules are crap for ten years now, they're still crap. Gw won't listen jpong. Go on, tell them exactly what you want, and they'll still go off and do their one thing. Constructive criticism using really constructive when nothing gets done by the company in question! They're 'model making company'. Get their stuff, but make the game your own if how they do it bothers you.

Part of the reason GW discussions appear more negative might have something to do with the company's policies that feel like they're pushing the gamer away. Whether or not that's their intent, it certainly shows in these discussions because the goodwill for them is non-existent between cutting fan favourite games, services, white dwarf shenanigans, and price rises.

Other companies, like Spartan (sorry, I like spaceships and their community is really good), are engaged with their customers, through forum posts, feedback, and play testing/beta teams. That alone generates a significant amount of goodwill that reflects back to them as reasonable feedback, both negative and positive but without the vitriol. Now, different companies and sizes and all that, but that's the gist of why GW discussions feel so negative.

Just try and avoid blanket sweeping statements. They really don't serve much and may irritate people who are running counter to that assumption. Even some of the community's most vitriolic anti-GW voices are excellent hobbyists and provide much back to the community through those channels, which also can't be dismissed.

Thanks for the compliment though.

I just get tired of both sides trying to paint the other in a terrible light. I want GW to succeed. I also want it to improve. Having poor codex balance, or waiting a decade for an update is bad for everyone equally. I want to run an all Rough rider IG list and not force my opponent to bring something terrible that they may not like or have the models for. I also don't want 40k to become a clone of another game. I just want it to better in all the way it can without sacrificing too much of the feel of the game. Things like alternative activation, streamlined movement, streamlined USRs, and better codex balance. All simple solutions that benefit everyone equally at no cost to anyone.