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.
You know, most people here put effort into things. Things like building, painting armies, etc. And many develop affection for their armies, gaming system etc.
Telling people "you should play [game] instead, its a real game" is the worst attempt at advertising what you play and/or that game's fandom possible. I can't fathom how anyone's first impression of a game being "its played by obnoxious people" could make anyone consider playing it.
2:
It's brilliant that you prefer 2nd edition to any other edition. But really, the frequent chronologically backwards lists of how every edition had flaws that often end with third, and creative license with history* is just ridiculous. Comming off as someone who whined for fifteen years while following a gaming system you didn't like doesn't exactly help your credibility either. And ignoring anything wrong with second edition doesn't change that many things were.
* - For example, the designers' vision of 40K involved that Terminators would not be diving for cover as often as Guardsmen; therefore, cover shouldn't be as beneficial to Terminators so players wouldn't play that way. The second edition shooting rules weren't adequete for that purpose. But, despite legimate reasons, many second ed fanatics would rather pretend GW thinks the players are dumb and incapable of maths despite the Fanatsy Battle shooting rules being similar to second ed 40K.
3:
The people who blame GW for everything.
If you have five 40K armies despite that meaning you only use each 1/5th as often as if you only had a single arm - and, technically, spending hundreds of dollars to reduce what you're getting from what you've already got -, you probably shouldn't be complaining about GW prices. They didn;t make you purchase an extra four armies. Probably shouldn't be suggesting any greed is solely GW either.
This seems to be an attitude thats growing and I like it. Finally people are stopping to think about things rather than madly scream at GW all the time. Its a small group right now but I like that its growing. I too think players need to stop blaming GW, get over it and move on to try fix the game.
So much better than whining about everything as you buy the latest models, or complain despite not playing the game anymore and so forth.
I kinda agree. although it could have been said nicelyerish
For those who want better 40k games I advise reading this
I have been using it and its been great fun. Others have started using it and they have had fun. Obviously everyone wants something different but might be worth a try.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/06 20:13:18
Nothing wrong with trying to steer people towards a game that has balanced rules, and IMO says more about the people who dismiss it rather than care to check it out as an alternative.
If you have five 40K armies despite that meaning you only use each 1/5th as often as if you only had a single arm - and, technically, spending hundreds of dollars to reduce what you're getting from what you've already got -, you probably shouldn't be complaining about GW prices. They didn;t make you purchase an extra four armies. Probably shouldn't be suggesting any greed is solely GW either.
A lot of the folks that complain about prices and have five armies are likely complaining because they used to be able to afford five armies - and now a single Land Raider costs more than a starting army used to cost.
I still have five armies - and like playing Dwarfs when I feel like playing Dwarfs, Empire when I feel like playing Empire, or an allied Dwarf - Empire force when I feel like playing with a bit of each. When I feel like playing Vampire Counts, Tomb Kings, or Orcs... I have enough to field - or to loan to somebody else so that I have an opponent to play against. *EDIT* Strange as it may sound, I play both the Vampire Counts and the Tomb Kings as good guys - pulling them out to play against evil armies, not heroic ones. The leader of my undead cavalry bears a strong resemblance to the general of my Empire force, being a swap of a laurel crowned skull for a laurel crowned head to the plastic Empire general.
I have had the bulk of those armies since the nineties - and had added no new armies since the oughts.
Fewer and fewer of the models are by GW - there are a lot of good miniatures out there for a better price than GW.
Now Mantic (Yay! Mantic!) has a new army coming out for Kings of War - at a price that seems reasonable, and with no rule about using 'official' miniatures only.
So, after twenty years I am adding a new army.
It is likely that when Mantic has a Kickstarter for their Abyssal army then I will add another new army (so the Elohim have somebody to fight.)
So the people that own five armies and are complaining about the prices?
They have a reason for doing so.
The Auld Grump
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/06 20:38:35
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
I can't imagine seeing obnoxiousness as a sensible method of giving suggestions.
I don't miss 2nd ed now, actually I lost all resentment at the 2nd ed rules being ditched pretty much immediately after starting playing 3rd. I won't miss 2nd ed at any point in the future either.
(I don't even miss playing 3rd ed, which is where my nostalgic memories of any note come from)
I certainly shouldn't have developed any hatred for GW, because I am quite pacifistic and ideally "in a few years time", wouldn't stopped carrying around hatred in general.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/06 22:08:52
WayneTheGame wrote: Nothing wrong with trying to steer people towards a game that has balanced rules, and IMO says more about the people who dismiss it rather than care to check it out as an alternative.
It's not the suggestion to try a new game which is being condemned it is the nature and delivery of the suggestion.
Telling people "you should play [game] instead, its a real game"
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Actually do. It's probably the best written rulesets I've ever played, and it's bags of fun.
If someone is complaining about balance in 40k they need their head looking at. 40k has never been balanced and was never really intended to be balanced - there is a reason the GW tourneys in rogue trader days were space marine on space marine.
I can't imagine seeing obnoxiousness as a sensible method of giving suggestions.
I don't miss 2nd ed now, actually I lost all resentment at the 2nd ed rules being ditched pretty much immediately after starting playing 3rd. I won't miss 2nd ed at any point in the future either.
(I don't even miss playing 3rd ed, which is where my nostalgic memories of any note come from)
I certainly shouldn't have developed any hatred for GW, because I am quite pacifistic and ideally "in a few years time", wouldn't stopped carrying around hatred in general.
Sorry, completely got you wrong - assumed that you had recently come into wargaming, come to this site and were dismayed by some of the negativity expressed by the more veteran members when you yourself were pleased with everything (as newcomers tend to be).
If that's not the case, then good for you (and I mean that genuinely). However, it's probably best not to cast aspersions on other people's grievances as just 'hate', even if you don't see things subjectively in the same way.
You know, most people here put effort into things. Things like building, painting armies, etc. And many develop affection for their armies, gaming system etc.
Telling people "you should play [game] instead, its a real game" is the worst attempt at advertising what you play and/or that game's fandom possible. I can't fathom how anyone's first impression of a game being "its played by obnoxious people" could make anyone consider playing it.
Who are you talking to? Did someone tell you to quit 40k and start warmachine? Perhaps they are enthused about that game? Perhaps you should either say 'perhaps I will try that game as well' or 'no thanks, I'm quite happy with 40k at this time, but I admire your enthusiasm'.
It's brilliant that you prefer 2nd edition to any other edition. But really, the frequent chronologically backwards lists of how every edition had flaws that often end with third, and creative license with history* is just ridiculous. Comming off as someone who whined for fifteen years while following a gaming system you didn't like doesn't exactly help your credibility either. And ignoring anything wrong with second edition doesn't change that many things were.
* - For example, the designers' vision of 40K involved that Terminators would not be diving for cover as often as Guardsmen; therefore, cover shouldn't be as beneficial to Terminators so players wouldn't play that way. The second edition shooting rules weren't adequete for that purpose. But, despite legimate reasons, many second ed fanatics would rather pretend GW thinks the players are dumb and incapable of maths despite the Fanatsy Battle shooting rules being similar to second ed 40K.
What you're written here is hyperbolic and frankly a bit gak. People don't do what you're accusing them off, many do grumble when we shift editions, change often does that. This edition certainly has seen some grumbling, it's extremely different from the last one. I really liked the last edition as we had been moving on a marked progression towards a more streamlined game that encouraged tourney play (individual codices notwithstanding) and this last edition with all it's vast swathe of add-ons and digital bells and whistles has proven to be a far slower game with far more blurred lines. 2nd ed was a messy game, very slow and wide open to all manner of abuses, we moved strongly away from that in 3rd and 4th and 5th were refining of that edition, with 6th we've seen a power shift right back towards the big and messy game that 2nd was. Many of us are not entirely happy at that and really quite concerned over the arms race that seems to have sprung up over giant models, D weapons and entire armies of knights. Worrying about the future of the game and the direction of it is quite appropriate for people who hold the game dear, not necessarily 'haters'.
If you have five 40K armies despite that meaning you only use each 1/5th as often as if you only had a single arm - and, technically, spending hundreds of dollars to reduce what you're getting from what you've already got -, you probably shouldn't be complaining about GW prices. They didn;t make you purchase an extra four armies. Probably shouldn't be suggesting any greed is solely GW either.
What you've basically said here is 'it's more expensive now, so you should content yourself with less' and not taken into account that this assumes people have gotten poorer? People used to have 5 armies because collecting 5 armies was a realistic goal for someone 'very keen' on 40k, that same person you cite has, presumably continued to receive a wage increase proportionate to inflation, or been promoted or whatever, yet cannot, according to your example, now afford 5 armies and should content himself to just one... and that doesn't tell you anything?
GW are not to blame for everything, or even most things, certain of their body are to blame for nothing any of us are annoyed or concerned about, but certain of GW are to blame for some things.
Corporate relationship with it's customers/fanbase.
Pricing concerns.
Game development/balancing issues.
Long term company health.
To name a few.
You have a point that hyperbole and rants against GW aren't terribly productive, but you then totally bury your own points in a fairly adolescent sounding hyperbole of your own, crowding everyone's concerns or criticisms in as 'blame for everything' or 'whining'.
You'd sound far less like a tool if you refrained from indulging in such obvious flamebait in your address to the plebs...
I can't imagine seeing obnoxiousness as a sensible method of giving suggestions.
I don't miss 2nd ed now, actually I lost all resentment at the 2nd ed rules being ditched pretty much immediately after starting playing 3rd. I won't miss 2nd ed at any point in the future either.
(I don't even miss playing 3rd ed, which is where my nostalgic memories of any note come from)
I certainly shouldn't have developed any hatred for GW, because I am quite pacifistic and ideally "in a few years time", wouldn't stopped carrying around hatred in general.
Congratulations - you have already bridged that gap.
Right now you are telling people that they are wrong, that you are right, and that nothing will change that. That, at its core, is where what you call 'obnoxiousness' begins.
To be honest, the term 'obnoxious' was the very description that I would apply to your first post in this thread - when you decided that folks that owned multiple armies had no reason to complain about runaway price increases.
'Everything is fine for me, so you shouldn't complain' is not a good starting point for a discussion.
If people complaining bothers you - then stay out of those discussions - because the folks complaining do have reasons to complain, at least from their point of view.
You are doing that self same thing - complaining about the complaints of others.
Now me - I will admit to a certain level of obnoxiousness. I am stubborn, sometimes single minded, acerbic, and opinionated. And I really do not appreciate some young whippersnapper saying that I have no reason to complain.
The Auld Grump, so get offa my lawn, ya meddling kid!
(This last is intended as humor....)
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Tyranno wrote: 3: The people who blame GW for everything.
Well GW were mostly responsible for the Berlin Wall, so it's natural for some people to harbour resentment towards them.
No, sorry - that was me.
I needed a place to store my Legos.
The Auld Grump... I kinda wish that I had that many Legos....
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Tyranno wrote: I certainly shouldn't have developed any hatred for GW, because I am quite pacifistic and ideally "in a few years time", wouldn't stopped carrying around hatred in general.
But not pacifist enough not to play a game glorifying the depiction of genocidal, inhuman war?
To be honest, the term 'obnoxious' was the very description that I would apply to your first post in this thread - when you decided that folks that owned multiple armies had no reason to complain about runaway price increases.
So if you already have a GW army, you have no right to complain, because they already have your money, but if you don't have any GW armies, you still have no right to complain because you're not a paying customer?
Makes perfect sense.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Right now you are telling people that they are wrong, that you are right, and that nothing will change that. That, at its core, is where what you call 'obnoxiousness' begins.
To be honest, the term 'obnoxious' was the very description that I would apply to your first post in this thread - when you decided that folks that owned multiple armies had no reason to complain about runaway price increases.
Lets analyse that - being utterly adamant about things might seem obnoxious, yes, however, my points were that verbal assault ("verbal assault" probably being hyperbolic, but a better term escapes me right now) of something people have affection for isn't the best method of winning them over, that nostalgia of something doesn't make that thing super special and flawless, and that people who choose not to reduce what they're spending by 20-80% shouldn't be complaining about what they're spending or "greed".
I suspect its understandable to think logic and common sense are supporting these points.
Perhaps the third point might not be taking into account people who already had many armies when prices were cheaper, but consider this
Your own comments imply you might buy more armies if the prices were cheaper. Which would suggest five armies might not be enough. Which would suggest, you know, greed.
Agamemnon2 wrote: But not pacifist enough not to play a game glorifying the depiction of genocidal, inhuman war?
Not extremist enough to boycott media depicting fictional violence.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/07 11:50:23
Your own comments imply you might buy more armies if the prices were cheaper. Which would suggest five armies might not be enough. Which would suggest, you know, greed.
It's 'greedy' to own more than 5 armies?
It's 'sensible' to reduce to just 1 army because that's all you can realistically afford now?
You seem to have set some rules that noone else is aware of and people are failing your rules, I'd like you to consider something.
I'd like you to take a good look at the notion of 'perceived worth of product'. I want you to compare GW's mini prices vs 5 other mini companies, like for like, so multi-part plastics, individual resin and metal etc. Then rationale why people, sensible people, not trolls or mother's basement types, are taking a long look and saying 'gosh, this stuff is now too expensive, not for me to afford, but to justify buying to myself'.
I find it silly/senseless when people get really angry at GW.
I find it silly/senseless when people get angry at people getting really angry at GW.
People like to get angry/annoyed, and they always will. I ventured once onto a WOT forum, and the people ranting there actually made dakka look like the epitome of restraint.
Your own comments imply you might buy more armies if the prices were cheaper. Which would suggest five armies might not be enough. Which would suggest, you know, greed.
It's 'greedy' to own more than 5 armies?
It's 'sensible' to reduce to just 1 army because that's all you can realistically afford now?
You seem to have set some rules that noone else is aware of and people are failing your rules, I'd like you to consider something.
I'd like you to take a good look at the notion of 'perceived worth of product'. I want you to compare GW's mini prices vs 5 other mini companies, like for like, so multi-part plastics, individual resin and metal etc. Then rationale why people, sensible people, not trolls or mother's basement types, are taking a long look and saying 'gosh, this stuff is now too expensive, not for me to afford, but to justify buying to myself'.
Dunno about you, MGS, but I'm getting a real sense of 'under-the-bridge' talk from this guy. Hate on GW? Obnoxious. Own more than one army? Greedy. Looks like he's just trying to make waves. And with a post count still in the teens, I'd be a paypal dollar I'm right.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
Hmm, a fresh face new user whose 10th post is to tell GW critics what's wrong with their attitudes. Kind of hard to even summon up the energy to write a retort, suffice to say that if you don't like hearing from people who...
-Don't like the current game as much as you
-Like other versions better
-think there are better games
-think that GW has made some major missteps
-Are annoyed with GW pricing
...then steer clear of Dakka.
Also, you might want to steer clear of the internet as a whole.
One of the best things about Dakka, IMHO, is that while still being largely made up of GW fans and players, it's also grown to encompass other games and GW critics as well.
That said, welcome to delightfully controlled (perhaps "corralled" is a better term) world that is Dakka, and I hope you stick around.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/07 15:36:03
Who are you talking to? Did someone tell you to quit 40k and start warmachine? Perhaps they are enthused about that game? Perhaps you should either say 'perhaps I will try that game as well' or 'no thanks, I'm quite happy with 40k at this time, but I admire your enthusiasm'.
I think PP fanboys have grown up enough not to poke into 40k topics and drop condescending remarks anymore in the last few years. Infinity players have taken up that particular torch.
Posters on ignore list: 36
40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.
Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here.
You know, most people here put effort into things. Things like building, painting armies, etc. And many develop affection for their armies, gaming system etc.
Telling people "you should play [game] instead, its a real game" is the worst attempt at advertising what you play and/or that game's fandom possible. I can't fathom how anyone's first impression of a game being "its played by obnoxious people" could make anyone consider playing it.
2:
It's brilliant that you prefer 2nd edition to any other edition. But really, the frequent chronologically backwards lists of how every edition had flaws that often end with third, and creative license with history* is just ridiculous. Comming off as someone who whined for fifteen years while following a gaming system you didn't like doesn't exactly help your credibility either. And ignoring anything wrong with second edition doesn't change that many things were.
* - For example, the designers' vision of 40K involved that Terminators would not be diving for cover as often as Guardsmen; therefore, cover shouldn't be as beneficial to Terminators so players wouldn't play that way. The second edition shooting rules weren't adequete for that purpose. But, despite legimate reasons, many second ed fanatics would rather pretend GW thinks the players are dumb and incapable of maths despite the Fanatsy Battle shooting rules being similar to second ed 40K.
3:
The people who blame GW for everything.
If you have five 40K armies despite that meaning you only use each 1/5th as often as if you only had a single arm - and, technically, spending hundreds of dollars to reduce what you're getting from what you've already got -, you probably shouldn't be complaining about GW prices. They didn;t make you purchase an extra four armies. Probably shouldn't be suggesting any greed is solely GW either.
I embrace my hate, it makes me warm like a kitten skin smoking jacket. Combined with my pipe, made of a dried hollowed heart - its the best thing on a cold winter day.
I think your a little over the top on your ancedotes, and not really seeing the reasons that GW is not all peaches and cream, anymore. 2d edition was one of the best games GW came out with. At the time, it was pretty much a step up from having to buy the 30 man box sets... ( yes, 30 man.) and had some pretty good additions to the old RT era book art in figure form.
How much was that ten man boxed set again, today? How much?
GW killed the golden goose, and stole my bike.
At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money.
It's 'sensible' to reduce to just 1 army because that's all you can realistically afford now?
Whats sensible, unles you're in it for painting/conversion purposes, with each additional army, you're spending high amounts of money to reduce what you're getting out of each army.
If I bought an Empire army, the number of games I'm playing wouldn't suddenly double. I'd be betting half the "value" I'm getting from the High Elf army I already have, which itself would be providing me one half what I had been getting out of it before. Whether it costs infinity million dollars or one cent, the purchase would be impractical. And aside from those really enjoy painting, so would the hours spent painting it.
I'm sorry, but if you have several perfectly usable armies and you're complaining you can't have another and another and another and another, yeah, I believe that constitutes greed, with the exception, I suppose, of those armies (Dwarfs, Lizardmen etc) lacking in options for playstyles that sticking to the army might get dull.
Dunno about you, MGS, but I'm getting a real sense of 'under-the-bridge' talk from this guy. Hate on GW? Obnoxious. Own more than one army? Greedy.
Was it actually hating GW I called obnoxious? No. That was poor promotion of other games.
Additionally, calling people out on "blaming GW for everything" isn't calling them out on "blaming GW for anything". The point was people complaining are partially responsible.
Eilif wrote: Hmm, a fresh face new user whose 10th post is to tell GW critics what's wrong with their attitudes.
One of the best things about Dakka, IMHO, is that while still being largely made up of GW fans and players, it's also grown to encompass other games and GW critics as well.
You have a somewhat creative concept of "criticism". Theres at least some who come across as thinking that everything Games Workshop does (alternatively, doesn't do) is bad, no matter what. They present themselves as people dead set in it I wouldn't be surprising if their "opinions" on the newest release were formed without any knowledge beyond the product names.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/07 19:44:30
The leader of my undead cavalry bears a strong resemblance to the general of my Empire force, being a swap of a laurel crowned skull for a laurel crowned head to the plastic Empire general.
