tjnorwoo wrote:
I dislike the 40k community because very few people in it seem to be concerned with having fun as a group.

 tjnorwoo wrote:
I dislike the 40k community because very few people in it seem to be concerned with having fun as a group. It seems to me that most 40k players are in it purely to live out a fatasy of being a ruthless general, no matter how many friends they lose in real life. I do not entirely blame the gamer, rather, most of the blame is on GW for continuing to ignore the pleas and concerns of their costumers in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

I have only ever had fun competing with other 40k gamers at a team tournament because people were encouraged to take fun lists. However, tournaments seem to be the biggest creator of soulless, cheesy, rulenaxis.

I still love fantasy. The random silliness appeals greatly to me, but allas I have no one who plays anymore.

 Gorbad wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Mitranekh the Omniscient wrote:

-Can we give GW a break?? I know they've made some stuff-ups, and possibly broken 6th and maybe the whole game. But they're trying. Without them there's no FW, no BL, no 40k.

Untrue. 40k would live on without GW, no problem. Actually, it would probably prosper even more without GW's "We are just in for the money!" policy.

And it would become a better game I guess. I am actually was playing 40k/WHF for nearly 20years but the new GW way drove me off. Get yourself into the company and learn that the hobbyists/customers are treated like idiots. Lie to them, milk them and try to blow sugar in their ass to sell the gak. Don´t push veteran gaming, try to keep the tables clean of "non profit games" and don´t make veterans feel like they are really valuable since they won´t buy as much stuff as someone who joins new to the hobby. What the management up there is on is something I don´t know but it´s some strong stuff that blows away reality. In this case I "hate" the player/company not the game. But since it became so fricking expensive I don´t buy the stuff anymore and play with houserules and in a friendly environment. Starting nowadays with the hobby means you have to spend a ton of money and a ton of time except you don´t like to play with painted miniatures.

 azreal13 wrote:

 tjnorwoo wrote:
I dislike the 40k community because very few people in it seem to be concerned with having fun as a group. It seems to me that most 40k players are in it purely to live out a fatasy of being a ruthless general, no matter how many friends they lose in real life. I do not entirely blame the gamer, rather, most of the blame is on GW for continuing to ignore the pleas and concerns of their costumers in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

I have only ever had fun competing with other 40k gamers at a team tournament because people were encouraged to take fun lists. However, tournaments seem to be the biggest creator of soulless, cheesy, rulenaxis.

I still love fantasy. The random silliness appeals greatly to me, but allas I have no one who plays anymore.

Lolwhut?

Way to make broad sweeping, and I'd hazard, grossly inaccurate, generalisations! With a generous side order of hyperbole too!

I'd cordially suggest you need to broaden your gaming horizons if your experiences with 40K players is really as you suggest.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tournaments will always be about playing the simplest and easiest list with the smallest number of variables that you have to account for to increase your chances of winning. Nothing will change that unless 40k gets so upended that the variables are somehow eliminated, which means basically getting rid of the dice, which means you're basically playing with little green Army Men at that point.

There are different levels of seriousness in tabletop tournaments. You can have a little local tournament with a dozen people in it, and people will just turn up with whatever as long as the balance of the game is good enough. People won't just turn up with the strongest possible thing, because that's really boring and people want to have fun and to be creative with their lists. When you have a good tournament culture and plenty of tournaments, people won't just bring whatever they think the strongest list is, because people just aren't that fixated on winning. Besides, with good balance you get into an area where not running the "strongest" list can be an advantage, because everyone in the universe has seen and played against that list, so a different list that's nearly as strong but not as familiar can be even more powerful.

Netlisting will always be a thing to some extent just because it's easier to copy a netlist than to come up with your own thing, but most people won't just run a netlist for long unless they feel like they have no other choice to have a chance.

Yes there are differences in different levels, but you get people who treat every game like it's the finals in Nova too at every level so I don't want to say all competetive players are boring, they're just forced to be boring to keep up.

The thing is, if the game is balanced well enough then that isn't really a problem. Some people will run the "in" netlist, but most people will just run what they want, and because the balance is good enough it will all shake out in the end - any factor of "this list is a teensy bit better" gets lost due to people having more experience fighting that list. And IME many of the best players will be running weird lists too.

People will still search for killer combos, and other people will copy those combos even if they aren't overwhelmingly powerful, but if the balance is good then there will still be a vibrant set of other lists in play. They are only forced to be boring to keep up if the game balance is poor.

 Blacksails wrote:

 tjnorwoo wrote:
I dislike the 40k community because very few people in it seem to be concerned with having fun as a group.

Where are you getting this from?

People wouldn't be playing this game if it wasn't for some sort of enjoyment, or put another way, fun.

The issues against 40k are concerns about trying to have fun as a group. Casual or competitive, there are issues that divide the player base, no matter how trivial or perceived they may be.

 tjnorwoo wrote:


To be fair there is a very small gaming community that I have access to at the moment so my views are entirely biased. conventions are typically a good outlet to cultivate new gamers, and a new gamer in my expirience is greatly influenced by their mentors. Its just been my expirience that many 40k gamers will prefer to crush the newby over and over again until he has lost heart or assimilates to like mindset. Again, this is my biased perspective.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Not to argue with you Blacksails, but I've seen the "crush the new to teach him" thing a lot too.

And sometimes it's even with 40k!

Seriously that's an attitude that some people have. I assume at this point that they have it because it's the only thing they have in their life they can "dominate" in.

 Blacksails wrote:
But people suck.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
But people suck.

And that is the universal constant.

 Blacksails wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
But people suck.

And that is the universal constant.

That we can agree on anyways.

I mean, I don't suck.

I'm amazing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Either take up painting and collecting, get a job with the Black Library and/or run campaigns.

 tjnorwoo wrote:


What is your advise for gamers that have no interest in competitive play but love warhammer?

 Blacksails wrote:

 tjnorwoo wrote:


What is your advise for gamers that have no interest in competitive play but love warhammer?

Be the change you want to be in your group.

Warhammer is a flawed game in many ways, but it is still a wargame with models and fluff people love. Its still a great excuse to get together with friends to play games that are either scenario based, campaigns, or just a random pick up. Leagues can be great fun too, but admittedly it does require everyone to be on the same page list wise, unfortunately.

If you haven't already picked up some other games too, I'd recommend trying them out.

 tjnorwoo wrote:
My bad for using a blanket statement about the 40k community. I am just very jaded with expiriences of snarky ultra competitive legalist gamers.

I wish there were more gamers around where I live that were interested in creating interesting campaigns. When I was younger GW catered to those interests by hosting worldwide campaigns and allowing players to contribute to how those stories played out, but alas they are a miniatures company first and formost.

What is your advise for gamers that have no interest in competitive play but love warhammer?

 -Loki- wrote:

 tjnorwoo wrote:
My bad for using a blanket statement about the 40k community. I am just very jaded with expiriences of snarky ultra competitive legalist gamers.

I wish there were more gamers around where I live that were interested in creating interesting campaigns. When I was younger GW catered to those interests by hosting worldwide campaigns and allowing players to contribute to how those stories played out, but alas they are a miniatures company first and formost.

What is your advise for gamers that have no interest in competitive play but love warhammer?

There's no reason you and your friends can't get together and run a campaign.

That's the point of any game setting - it's a setting, not a story. Just because your campaigns won't be written into the official books doesn't mean you and your friends shouldn't try running your own campaign. Come up with a series of linking games, even come up with your own objectives. If you want to go this far, come up with back stories for forces and characters. Play the campaign out. Make a new one - and if you want, carry over characters. Come up with your own wargear to give recurring characters or alterations to recurring forces. If you and your friends decide to run a campaign with your own non book scenarios, and gradually give your own bits of wargear made just for this campaign, the tournament players from the local store aren't going to come to your gaming venue and point and laugh at you.

40k as a strict game system is there to provide a structure. What you do with the structure is entirely up to you.

That's the point of any game setting - it's a setting, not a story. Just because your campaigns won't be written into the official books doesn't mean you and your friends shouldn't try running your own campaign. Come up with a series of linking games, even come up with your own objectives. If you want to go this far, come up with back stories for forces and characters. Play the campaign out. Make a new one - and if you want, carry over characters. Come up with your own wargear to give recurring characters or alterations to recurring forces. If you and your friends decide to run a campaign with your own non book scenarios, and gradually give your own bits of wargear made just for this campaign, the tournament players from the local store aren't going to come to your gaming venue and point and laugh at you.

Makumba wrote:

That's the point of any game setting - it's a setting, not a story. Just because your campaigns won't be written into the official books doesn't mean you and your friends shouldn't try running your own campaign. Come up with a series of linking games, even come up with your own objectives. If you want to go this far, come up with back stories for forces and characters. Play the campaign out. Make a new one - and if you want, carry over characters. Come up with your own wargear to give recurring characters or alterations to recurring forces. If you and your friends decide to run a campaign with your own non book scenarios, and gradually give your own bits of wargear made just for this campaign, the tournament players from the local store aren't going to come to your gaming venue and point and laugh at you.

How do you make someone let you play with any option that maybe good , which is not legal in a codex or core rules book?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Campaigns can be competitive, if you want them to be. It helps to have an umpire if you do a competitive campaign with a map.

Because you sit down as a group and hash it out.

I'm not saying one person comes in and says 'hey, because I won last game, my Warlord has a sword that gives him Sx2, AP1, strikes at initiative and causes instant death! Suck it!'

You sit down as mature gamers, figure out your scenarios and the path the campaign will take through them, and any rewards you, as a group, feel should be awarded at certain points. You collaboratively figure this stuff out.

Gamers have been doing this for a long time. Why people think suddenly these days this kinds of collaborative gaming is heresy is beyond me. Not everything needs to be gamebreakingly good, and not every game you play is tournament prep.